Clinical effectiveness and costs of the Sugarbaker procedure for the treatment of pseudomyxoma peritonei.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review examines the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the Sugarbaker procedure for treating pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP) and the costs of the procedure in the UK. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases, bibliographies of related papers and experts in the field were used as sources for English language studies available up to September 2002. REVIEW METHODS: Evidence of the clinical effectiveness of the Sugarbaker procedure for PMP was synthesised through a narrative review with full tabulation of results of all included studies. The economic modelling used a Monte-Carlo simulation model populated with UK price data to estimate likely UK costs. RESULTS: Five retrospective case-series reports assessing the Sugarbaker procedure met the inclusion criteria for the review, although they were found to be of poor quality when judged against standard criteria for assessing methodological standard. There appears to be some benefit for people with PMP who undergo treatment with the Sugarbaker procedure. Commonly reported complications of the Sugarbaker procedure were anastomotic leaks, fistula formation, wound infection, small bowel perforations/obstructions and pancreatitis. One costing study of poor methodological quality and set in the USA was found. This study, together with UK unit price data and expert advice, was used to populate a Monte-Carlo simulation model to estimate the marginal cost of operating a service to provide treatment for PMP using the Sugarbaker technique rather than standard treatment. The results of the Monte-Carlo simulation model showed that the cost for one patient over a maximum of 5 years would be about 9700 British pounds, with a standard deviation of about 1300 British pounds (although costs incurred in setting up the specific service or training the staff were not included). The US study showed a ten-fold higher cost. The Monte-Carlo analysis showed that the variation around the mean was not very high. The most likely factor influencing the variation of the costs was the length of procedure. No sensitivity analysis could be done of the alternative treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The economic results should be seen as merely an example of the likely marginal costs of the Sugarbaker procedure, as more information about the current alternative is required. Trained and experienced staff are required to implement the procedure and inevitably time and cost will be involved in developing the appropriate teams. Although the procedure requires some specialist equipment and maintenance, such as smoke evacuators, these should have limited effect on setting up the service. PMP is a relatively rare condition with approximately 50 new cases per year in the UK and the impact of an increase in the demand for services should be limited. Evidence is needed for the effectiveness of maximal cytoreductive surgery compared with surgical debulking, using different intraoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy strategies, and for the effectiveness of treatments in patients who have residual disease following maximal efforts at cytoreduction. Further research involving high-quality prospective cohort studies with economic evaluations would be valuable.