Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost of percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (PRFA) and surgical resection (SRS) for the management of early stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Methods: A systematic literature search of articles in English, French, and Chinese was performed using online databases. Only articles with patients classified as Child-Pugh Class A or B, with tumor size <5 cm were included. A meta-analysis was carried out to estimate the survival rate and disease-free survival rate following PRFA or SRS treatments. The cost of each treatment was estimated from the third party perspective. Univariate sensitivity analyses were used to study the relative importance of each component cost.

Results: We identified six studies (one randomized controlled trial (RCT) and five comparative cohort studies) meeting our inclusion criteria. There is good evidence that among Child-Pugh A patients for whom both SRS and PRFA are available options, survival rates following either procedure are comparable, while complications are more frequent and hospitalization longer following SRS. The evidence concerning recurrence rates and disease-free survival is less clear. Whereas the RCT indicates comparable outcomes with either procedure up to 3 years, the results of five cohort studies (with possible selection bias), particularly those with a mix of Child-Pugh A and B patients, favor the surgical option. SRS, costs approximately Canadian $8,275 more per case than PRFA.

Conclusions: Continuing doubts on this issue can only be resolved by a substantial RCT. Meanwhile, for early stage HCC patients classified as Child-Pugh A, who despite a possibly higher recurrence rate, prefer the less invasive PRFA to open surgery with its attendant risks, there is sufficient evidence to justify such a choice. For those classified as Child-Pugh (B) it is possible that overall survival is equally good with PRFA, but the evidence is less certain.

Objectives: A mechanism to increase the influence of Health Technology Assessments (HTAs) on hospital policy decisions was developed.

Methods: We describe the process and results of an experiment in which a local in-hospital HTA unit was created to provide sound evidence on technology acquisition issues, and to formulate locally appropriate policy recommendations. The Unit consists of a small technical staff that accesses and synthesizes the evidence incorporating local health and economic data, and a Policy Committee that develops policy recommendations based on this evidence. It represents administration, health-care professionals, patients, and representatives of the clinical disciplines affected by each issue. The level of success of the Unit was independently evaluated.

Results: To date, 16 reports have been completed, each within 2–4 months. Five recommended unrestricted use, seven recommended rejection, and four recommended very limited use of the technology in question. All have been incorporated into hospital policy. Budget impact is estimated at approximately $3 million of savings per year.

Conclusions: This local in-house HTA agency has had a major impact on the adoption of new technology. Probable reasons for success are (i) relevance (selection of topics by administration with on-site production of HTAs allowing them to incorporate local data and reflect local needs), (ii) timeliness, and (iii) formulation of policy reflecting community values by a local representative committee. Because over one third of all health-care costs are incurred in the hospital, diffusion of this model could have a significant effect on the quantity and quality of health-care spending.

Methodology for evaluation of impact of health technology assessments (HTAs) is outlined and its use illustrated by applying it to 21 HTAs produced by CETS. Impact on policies and technology diffusion was identified in documents, through interviews, questionnaires, and use of data banks. There was evidence that all but three reports influenced policy and that cost-minimization studies caused savings of between $16 million and $27 million annually. Precise estimates of impact will seldom be possible, but systematic documentation of effects is feasible.