Gynecologic oncology · 2022
Clinical implementation of routine diagnostic laparoscopy to guide initial treatment in patients with advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer in Dutch clinical practice: Evaluation of support and a budget impact analysis.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lof P, Retèl V P, Algera M D, van Gent M D J M, Gaarenstroom K N, van Driel W J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: In patients with advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), a diagnostic laparoscopy (DLS) to determine treatment regime prevents futile laparotomies and seems cost-neutral. The uptake of DLS in current practice is unknown. We evaluated the clinical application of routine DLS in treatment planning in patients with advanced-stage EOC in the Netherlands.
METHODS: The implementation was evaluated over the period 2017-2019, using a health technology assessment including clinical, organizational, and economic factors. Barriers for implementation were identified and DLS use was assessed using semi-structured surveys with healthcare professionals. Data from the Dutch Gynecological Oncology Audit were used to determine (un)successful CRS rates. To assess the economic impact, we performed a budget impact analysis (BIA) of the combined interventions of DLS and primary CRS.
RESULTS: The DLS use to guide treatment planning increased from 16% to 20%. The majority of the centers did not support routine DLS implementation, mainly because of logistic barriers and its invasive nature. The primary CRS rate of all CRS decreased from 44% to 36%, in favor of interval CRS. The unsuccessful primary CRS rate decreased from 15% to 9% resulting in fewer patients needed a second interval CRS. Consequently, total health care costs decreased from €4.457.496 to €4.274.751.
CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of routine DLS for guiding treatment planning in patients with advanced-stage EOC has limited support in the Netherlands. Over the years, total health care costs decreased. For current practice, it is advised that a DLS is useful in case it is uncertain whether a successful primary CRS is feasible based on conventional work-up.
METHODS: The implementation was evaluated over the period 2017-2019, using a health technology assessment including clinical, organizational, and economic factors. Barriers for implementation were identified and DLS use was assessed using semi-structured surveys with healthcare professionals. Data from the Dutch Gynecological Oncology Audit were used to determine (un)successful CRS rates. To assess the economic impact, we performed a budget impact analysis (BIA) of the combined interventions of DLS and primary CRS.
RESULTS: The DLS use to guide treatment planning increased from 16% to 20%. The majority of the centers did not support routine DLS implementation, mainly because of logistic barriers and its invasive nature. The primary CRS rate of all CRS decreased from 44% to 36%, in favor of interval CRS. The unsuccessful primary CRS rate decreased from 15% to 9% resulting in fewer patients needed a second interval CRS. Consequently, total health care costs decreased from €4.457.496 to €4.274.751.
CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of routine DLS for guiding treatment planning in patients with advanced-stage EOC has limited support in the Netherlands. Over the years, total health care costs decreased. For current practice, it is advised that a DLS is useful in case it is uncertain whether a successful primary CRS is feasible based on conventional work-up.