Hysterectomy with a general gynecologist vs gynecologic-oncologist in the setting of endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Background: Standard treatment for patients with endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN) is a hysterectomy, which has a 43% risk of concomitant endometrial cancer on final pathology. General gynecologists and gynecologic-oncologists perform hysterectomies; however, patients who have a hysterectomy for EIN with a general gynecologist and are found to have cancer may require a second surgery by a gynecologic-oncologist to complete staging. There is ongoing discussion regarding whether patients with EIN should be provided the option to receive the initial hysterectomy with a gynecologic-oncologist.

Objective: This study aimed to better understand if patients with EIN should be initially referred to a gynecologic-oncologist for treatment. We examined the cost-effectiveness of hysterectomy by general gynecologists vs gynecologic-oncologists for patients with EIN.

Study Design: We created a decision-analytical model using TreeAge Pro software to compare outcomes between hysterectomies by general gynecologists and those by gynecologic-oncologists in patients with EIN. Our theoretical cohort contained 200,000 patients, an estimate of the number of individuals diagnosed with EIN each year in the United States. Outcomes included costs, quality-adjusted life years, primary lymph node dissection, secondary lymph node dissection, surgical site infection, and perioperative mortality. We assumed that surgical morbidity and mortality were the same under generalist and specialist care and applied costs of travel and lost work for those seeing a gynecologic-oncologist. We performed univariable sensitivity analyses and multivariable probabilistic sensitivity analysis to assess the model's robustness given the uncertainty of model inputs.

Results: In our theoretical cohort of 200,000 patients with EIN, hysterectomy with a gynecologic-oncologist was associated with a decrease of 10,811 second surgeries for lymph node dissection, 87 surgical site infections, and 9 perioperative mortalities. When hysterectomy was performed by a general gynecologist, 9 fewer patients had a lymph node dissection because of perioperative mortalities that occurred before lymph node dissection with a gynecologic-oncologist. Hysterectomy with a gynecologic-oncologist was the dominant, cost-effective strategy because it saved $116 million and increased quality-adjusted life years by 180. In our univariable analyses, hysterectomy with a gynecologic-oncologist was cost-saving and increased quality-adjusted life years over a wide range of probabilities and costs for lymph node dissection, surgical site infection, and perioperative mortality. However, hysterectomy with a gynecologic-oncologist was only a cost-effective and cost-saving strategy in just over 50% of multivariable simulations, demonstrating that there is significant uncertainty in the model's cost-effectiveness.

Conclusion: In our model, hysterectomy with a gynecologic-oncologist for patients with EIN was associated with cost savings and increased quality-adjusted life years. Our study supports that patients undergoing hysterectomy for EIN at institutions using Mayo criteria to determine need for lymphadenectomy may benefit from surgery with a gynecologic-oncologist rather than a general gynecologist to reduce costs and adverse events associated with a second surgery.