Abstract
Background
The prevalence of incidental gallbladder cancer is low when performing cholecystectomy for benign disease. The performance of routine or selective histological examination of the gallbladder is still a subject for discussion. The aim of this study was to assess the cost‐effectiveness of these different approaches.
Methods
Four management strategies were evaluated using decision‐analytical modelling: no histology, current selective histology as practised in Sweden, macroscopic selective histology, and routine histology. Healthcare costs and life‐years were estimated for a lifetime perspective and combined into incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios (ICERs) to assess the additional cost of achieving an additional life‐year for each management strategy.
Results
In the analysis of the four strategies, current selective histology was ruled out due to a higher ICER compared with macroscopic selective histology, which showed better health outcomes (extended dominance). Comparison of routine histology with macroscopic selective histology resulted in a gain of 12 life‐years and an incremental healthcare cost of approximately €1 000 000 in a cohort of 10 000 patients, yielding an estimated ICER of €76 508. When comparing a macroscopic selective strategy with nohistological assessment, 50 life‐years would be saved andthe ICER was estimated to be €20 708 in a cohort of 10 000patients undergoing cholecystectomy.
Conclusion
A macroscopic selective strategy appears to be the most cost‐effective approach.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
; Henriksson, M 2
; Andersson, B 3
; Sandström, P 1
1 Department of Surgery, County Council of Östergötland, Linköping, Sweden; Department of Biomedicine and Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, Linköping, Sweden
2 Centre for Medical Technology Assessment, Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
3 Department of Surgery, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden; Department of Clinical Sciences, Surgery, Lund University, Lund, Sweden





