Simultaneous versus staged resection for synchronous colorectal liver metastases: A population-based cost analysis in Ontario, Canada - Health economic evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Simultaneous compared to staged resection of synchronous colorectal cancer liver metastases is considered safe. We aimed to determine their cost implications. STUDY DESIGN: Population-based cohort was generated by linking administrative healthcare datasets in Ontario, Canada (2006-2014). Resection of colorectal cancer and liver metastases within six months was considered synchronous. Cost analysis was performed from the perspective of a third-party payer. Median costs with range were estimated using the log-normal distribution of cost using t-test with a one-year time horizon. RESULTS: Among patients undergoing staged resection (n = 678), the estimated median cost was $54,321 CAD (IQR 45,472 to 68,475) and $41,286 CAD (IQR 31,633 to 58,958) for those undergoing simultaneous resection (n = 390), median difference: $13,035 CAD (p < 0.001). Primary cost driver were all costs related to hospitalization for liver and colon resection, which was higher for the staged approach, median difference: $16,346 CAD (p < 0.001). This was mainly due to a longer median length of hospital stay in the staged vs. simultaneous group (11 vs. 8 days, p < 0.001 respectively), which was not attributable to differences in major postoperative complication rates (23% vs. 28%, p = 0.067 respectively). Other costs, including cost of chemotherapy within six months of surgery ($11,681 CAD vs. $8644 CAD, p = 0.074 respectively) and 90-day re-hospitalization cost ($2155 CAD vs. $2931 CAD, p = 0.454 respectively) were similar between groups. CONCLUSION: Cost of staged resection of synchronous colorectal cancer liver metastases is significantly higher compared to the simultaneous approach, mostly driven by a longer length of hospital stay despite similar postoperative complication rates.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".