Robotic-Assisted Hysterectomy for Endometrial Cancer in People With Obesity: A Health Technology Assessment.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Robotic-assisted surgery has been used in Ontario hospitals for over a decade, but there is no public funding for the robotic systems or the disposables required to perform robotic-assisted surgeries ("robotics disposables"). We conducted a health technology assessment of robotic-assisted hysterectomy (RH) for the treatment of endometrial cancer in people with obesity. Our assessment included an evaluation of the effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of RH, as well as the 5-year budget impact for the Ontario Ministry of Health of publicly funding RH. It also looked at the experiences, preferences, and values of people with endometrial cancer and obesity, as well as those of health care professionals who provide surgical treatment for endometrial cancer. Methods: We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence to identify systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials relevant to our research question. We reported the risk of bias from the included systematic review. We assessed the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We performed a systematic economic literature search. We also analyzed the 5-year budget impact of publicly funding RH (including total, partial, and radical procedures) for people with endometrial cancer and obesity in Ontario. To contextualize the potential value of RH for people with endometrial cancer and obesity, we spoke with people with lived experience of endometrial cancer and obesity who had undergone minimally invasive surgery (either laparoscopic hysterectomy [LH] or RH), and we spoke with gynecological cancer surgeons who perform hysterectomy. Results: showed that a higher proportion of patients who underwent LH required conversion to OH compared with patients who underwent RH (7.0% vs. 3.8%, respectively) (GRADE: Very low). Rates of perioperative complications were similarly low for both LH and RH (≤ 3.5%) (GRADE: Very low). We identified two studies that met the inclusion criteria of our economic literature review. The included economic studies found RH to be more costly than OH or LH for endometrial cancer; however, because these studies were conducted in other countries, the results were not applicable to the Ontario context. Assuming a moderate increase in the volume of robotic-assisted surgeries, our reference case analysis showed that the 5-year budget impact of publicly funding RH for people with endometrial cancer and obesity would be $1.14 million. The budget impact analysis results were sensitive to surgical volume and the cost of robotics disposables. The people we spoke with who had lived experience of endometrial cancer and obesity, as well as gynecological cancer surgeons, spoke favourably of RH and its perceived benefits over OH and LH for people with endometrial cancer and obesity. Conclusions: ). Rates of perioperative complications were similarly low for both LH and RH. The cost-effectiveness of RH for people with endometrial cancer and obesity is unknown. We estimate that the 5-year budget impact of publicly funding RH for people with endometrial cancer and obesity would be $1.14 million. People we spoke with who had lived experience of endometrial cancer and obesity reported favourably on their experiences with minimally invasive hysterectomy (either LH or RH) and emphasized the importance of the availability of safe surgical options for people with obesity. Gynecological surgeons perceived RH as a superior alternative to OH and LH for people with endometrial cancer and obesity.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,042 | 0,137 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,009 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,016 | 0,017 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».