Oncological outcomes and hospitalization cost of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) open and closed abdomen techniques: Results from two French expert centers.

BACKGROUND: Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) associated with CC0 excision is performed using either an open (OPEN_HIPEC) or closed abdominal technique (CLOSED_HIPEC). However, little data is available on the costs of this treatment, as there is no code for HIPEC in the French Classification of Medical Acts. Oncological outcomes and the mean cost of hospitalization were compared. METHODS: Between 2017 and 2021, 144 patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis (all etiologies) were included (OPEN_HIPEC, n = 70; CLOSED_HIPEC, n = 74) in this retrospective two-center study. Morbi-mortality, overall survival (OS), recurrence-free-survival (RFS) and mean cost of hospitalization were compared. RESULTS: The median OS and RFS were 71.3 months [63-71.5] and 26.8 months [20-35.3] respectively, and were similar for both techniques; and after stratification by histology. Multivariate analysis adjusted on PCI score of OS identified mitomycin as a protective factor (HR = 0.31 [0.10-0.90], p = 0.032) and ASA score>2 (HR = 2.32 [1.32- 4.06], p = 0.003) and number of resection (HR = 1.21 [1.06-1.39], p = 0.006) as a risk factors of RFS. Complication rates at day 30 were similar between OPEN and CLOSED_HIPEC, 31 (44.3 %) vs 42 (56.8 %); p = 0.135. OPEN_HIPEC had more severe complications (11 (35.5 %) vs 6 (14.3 %); p = 0.034). The mean cost of hospitalization was estimated as €15,627 for OPEN_HIPEC and €14,211 for CLOSED_HIPEC for a mean length-of-stay of 12.7 and 16.7 days respectively. The mean amount received by the hospital per hospitalization was estimated at €16,399 and €15,536 respectively. CONCLUSIONS: OS and RFS were similar for open and closed HIPEC. Severe complications at day 30 were more frequent in OPEN_HIPEC group. The amount received by hospital for both HIPEC techniques is sufficient.

Reasons for stopping Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC): A retrospective study to improve future patient selection.

To improve the prognosis and maintain quality of life in patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM), a novel treatment has been introduced-pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). The majority of teams propose at least 3 PIPAC procedures. However, for many patients PIPAC is stopped after only one or two procedures. The aim of this study was to identify the reasons for stopping PIPAC after only one or two procedures and to establish a profile of poor candidates. This retrospective, multicenter cohort study included all patients who underwent PIPAC in three French expert centers between 2015 and 2021. A total of 268 PIPAC procedures were performed in 89 patients. Of them, 48.3% of patients underwent fewer than three procedures: 28.1% had one, 20.2% two and 51.7% three or more PIPAC procedures. The main reason for stopping PIPAC, regardless of the number of procedures, was disease progression, in 55.8% of cases. Other reasons for stopping PIPAC were non-access to the abdominal cavity (7.9%), conversion to cytoreductive surgery (13.5%), post-PIPAC adverse events (7.9%), patients' wishes (10.1%) and death (2.2%). In univariate analysis, patients who received fewer than three PIPACs less frequently had chemotherapy beforehand (91% vs 100%, p = 0.05), less frequently had bimodal treatment (70% vs 87%, p = 0.04), had more ascites (median 80 ml vs 50 ml, p = 0.05) and more frequently had carcinomatosic ascites (48.8% vs 23.9%, p < 0.01). Performing PIPAC alone in chemotherapy-naïve patients with ascites should be avoided.

Hospitalization cost of Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC).

INTRODUCTION: Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a new surgical technique for the treatment of unresectable peritoneal carcinomatosis. Very little data is available on the costs of this treatment in France as there is currently no code for PIPAC in the French Common Classification of Medical Acts (CCAM). Our objective was to estimate the mean cost of hospitalization for PIPAC in two French public teaching hospitals. METHODS: The mean cost of hospitalization was estimated from the mean fixed-rate remuneration paid to the hospital and the mean additional costs of treatment paid by the hospital. At discharge a patient's hospitalization is classified into a diagnosis related group, which determines the fixed-rate remuneration paid to the hospital (obtained from the national hospitals database - PMSI). Costs of medical devices and drug treatments specific to PIPAC, not covered by the fixed-rate remuneration, were obtained from the hospital pharmacies. RESULTS: Between July 2016 and November 2021, 205 PIPAC procedures were performed on 79 patients (mean procedures per patient = 2.6). Mean operating room occupancy was 165 min. The mean fixed-rate remuneration received by the hospitals per PIPAC hospitalization was €4031. The actual mean cost per hospitalization was €6562 for a mean length-of-stay of 3.3 days. Thus, each PIPAC hospitalization cost the hospital €2531 on average. CONCLUSION: The current reimbursement of PIPAC treatment by the national health system is insufficient and represents only 61% of the real cost. The creation of a new fixed-rate remuneration for PIPAC taking into account this cost differential is necessary.

Adrenalectomy for incidentaloma: lessons learned from a single-centre series of 274 patients.

BACKGROUND: Adrenal incidentalomas are increasingly diagnosed and include a wide spectrum of lesions from benign adenomas to secreting or malignant lesions. The aim of the present study is to report a large single-institution experience of patients undergoing surgery for adrenal incidentaloma with particular attention to their diagnosis and post-operative course and the evolution of surgical practice over time. METHODS: From 1993 to 2013, 274 patients underwent adrenalectomy for incidentaloma. All patients underwent standardized clinical, hormonal and imaging assessments. RESULTS: Patients were mainly female (63.1%; n = 173), and the median age of patients was 56.5 years. After a complete hormonal evaluation, 47.9% (n = 129) of incidentalomas were classified as secreting tumours, including 24.4% (n = 67) subclinical cortisol-secreting adenomas and 18.9% (n = 52) pheochromocytomas. Adrenocortical carcinomas represented 9.5% (n = 26) of incidentalomas, and the risk of malignancy was significantly correlated with tumour size. The conversion rate after laparoscopic adrenalectomy (90.9%; n = 249) was 3.2% (n = 8). The overall morbidity rate was 13.9%, which included a 4.4% rate of severe morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥3). From 2008 onwards, there was a significant decrease (P < 0.001) in the use of surgical approaches for non-secreting adenomas. CONCLUSION: After a complete work-up, half of the incidentalomas were classified as subclinical oversecreting adrenal lesions and 10% proved to be malignant adrenocortical carcinomas. The debatable use of surgical approaches for benign nonfunctioning adenomas significantly decreased over time.

Somatic c.34G>T KRAS mutation: a new prescreening test for MUTYH-associated polyposis?

We investigated the somatic c.34G>T KRAS transversion as a marker suggestive of MUTYH-associated polyposis (MAP). We compared 86 adenomas and 19 colorectal cancers (CRCs) of 30 MAP patients to 135 adenomas and five CRCs of 47 familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) patients. The c.34G>T mutation was investigated by DNA sequencing. Secondly, the germline MUTYH gene sequence was analyzed in patients carrying c.34G>T in CRCs diagnosed between 2008 and 2012. The c.34G>T was present in 39.7% of MAP adenomas versus 1.6% of FAP adenomas (P < 0.01). Sensitivity and specificity for detecting MAP were 39.7% and 98%, respectively. Sensitivity increased with the number of adenomas tested (P = 0.039). KRAS exon 2 analysis was performed on 2239 CRC and 2.2% harbored the c.34G>T transversion. Among 28 carriers of the c.34G>T mutation, biallelic MUTYH mutations were detected in seven patients (25%). One patient did not have any polyp or family history and did not fulfill criteria for MUTYH testing. With high specificity, the c.34G>T mutation seems to be a useful and promising test for MAP. For polyposis, it may guide genetic testing toward APC or MUTYH. If routinely performed in CRC patients, it could help to diagnose MUTYH-mutation carriers, even when they don't fulfill genetic testing criteria.