Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 3, 2025
Robot-assisted Total Mesorectal Excision and Lateral Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection for Locally Advanced Middle-low Rectal Cancer
Published on: February 12, 2022
Watch-and-Wait policy versus robotic surgery for locally advanced rectal cancer: A cost-effectiveness study
Jesus Rodriguez-Pascual1, Javier Nuñez-Alfonsel2, Benedetto Ielpo3
1Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Vithas Madrid La Milagrosa. Grupo Vithas, Modesto Lafuente 14, 28010, Madrid, Spain; Medical Oncology Department, Centro Integral Oncológico Clara Campal (HM-CIOCC). Grupo HM Hospitales, Oña 10, 28050, Madrid, Spain.
Introduction:
Complete surgical resection for locally advanced rectal cancer is the standard treatment after a clinical complete response following chemoradiotherapy. However, some novel clinical approaches could achieve better functional results, such as Robotic Resection, or avoiding surgical procedure and incrementing surveillance intensity, called Watch-and-Wait policy. We use computational techniques to compare these clinical approaches using quality adjusted life years (QALYs).
Methods:
A Markov decision analytic model was used in order to perform a cost-utility analysis, comparing standard resection (SR), Robotic Rectal Resection (RRR) and Watch-and-Wait (WW) strategies, estimating the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per QALY to be gained from patients reaching a clinical complete response to chemoradiotherapy. Model parameter estimates were informed by previously published studies comparing WW to SR and from our database of RRR versus SR. Lifetime incremental cost-utility ratio was calculated among approaches, and a sensitivity analysis were performed in order to estimate the model uncertainty. A willingness-to-pay of per one additional QALY gained was measured to determine which strategies would be most cost-effective.
Results:
WW is a dominating option over SR ( -75,486. 75 € and +2.04 QALYs) and RRR ( -75,486. 75 € and +0.41 QALYs). The cost-effectiveness plane shows that WW does not always dominate over RRR or SR. WW saves costs in 99.98% of the simulations when compared with either SR or RRR but only 86.9% and 55.38% (respectively) of these fall within the SR quadrant. WW is only more effective than SR 55% of the time which implies a significant uncertainty due to the high utility value assigned to cCR after chemoradiotherapy in the RRR alternative.
Conclusion:
This study provides data of cost-effectiveness differences among Standard Surgery, Watch-and-Wait and Robotic Resection approaches in clinical complete response in locally advanced rectal cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, showing a benefit for Watch-and-Wait policy.
