Minimally invasive surgery for suspected early-stage ovarian cancer; a cost-effectiveness study.

OBJECTIVE While there are a number of benefits to minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for women with ovarian cysts, there is an increased risk of ovarian capsule rupture during the procedure, which could potentially seed the abdominal cavity with malignant cells. We developed a decision model to compare the risks, benefits, effectiveness and cost of MIS versus laparotomy in women with ovarian masses. DESIGN Cost-effectiveness study POPULATION: Hypothetical cohort of 10 000 women with ovarian masses who were undergoing surgical management. METHODS The initial decision point in the model was performance of surgery via laparotomy or a MIS approach. Model probabilities, costs and utility values were derived from published literature and administrative data sources. Extensive sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the findings. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was the cost-effectiveness of MIS versus laparotomy for women with a pelvic mass measured by incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS MIS was the least costly strategy at $7,732 per women on average, compared with $17,899 for laparotomy. In our hypothetical cohort of 10 000 women, there were 64 cases of ovarian rupture in the MIS group and 53 in the laparotomy group, while there were 26 cancer-related deaths in the MIS group and 25 in the laparotomy group. MIS was more effective than laparotomy (188 462 QALYs for MIS versus 187 631 quality adjusted life years [QALYs] for laparotomy). Thus, MIS was a dominant strategy, being both less costly and more effective than laparotomy. These results were robust in a variety of sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION MIS constitutes a cost-effective management strategy for women with suspicious ovarian masses. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT MIS is a cost-effective management strategy for women with suspicious ovarian masses.