Nationwide cost-effectiveness and quality of life analysis of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy.

BACKGROUND: This study analyzed the Quality of Life (QoL) and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic (LDP) versus robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). METHODS: Consecutive patients submitted to LDP or RDP from 2010 to 2020 in four high-volume Italian centers were included, with a minimum of 12 months of postoperative follow-up were included. QoL was evaluated using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D questionnaires, self-reported by patients. After a propensity score matching, which included BMI, gender, operation time, multiorgan and vascular resections, splenic preservation, and pancreatic stump management, the mean differential cost and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALY) were calculated and plotted on a cost-utility plane. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 564 patients. Among these, 271 (49%) patients were submitted to LDP, while 293 (51%) patients to RDP. After propensity score matching, the study population was composed of 159 patients in each group, with a median follow-up of 59 months. As regards the QoL analysis, global health and emotional functioning domains showed better results in the RDP group (p = 0.037 and p = 0.026, respectively), whereas the other did not differ. As expected, the median crude costs analysis confirmed that RDP was more expensive than LDP (16,041 Euros vs. 10,335 Euros, p < 0.001). However, the robotic approach had a higher probability of being more cost-effective than the laparoscopic procedure when a willingness to pay more than 5697 Euros/QALY was accepted. CONCLUSION: RDP was associated with better QoL as explored by specific domains. Crude costs were higher for RDP, and the cost-effectiveness threshold was set at 5697 euros/QALY.

Cost-effectiveness of robotic vs laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. Results from the national prospective trial ROBOCOSTES.

INTRODUCTION: Although several studies report that the robotic approach is more costly than laparoscopy, the cost-effectiveness of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is still an issue. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of the RDP and LDP approaches across several Spanish centres. METHODS: This study is an observational, multicenter, national prospective study (ROBOCOSTES). For one year from 2022, all consecutive patients undergoing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy were included, and clinical, QALY, and cost data were prospectively collected. The primary aim was to analyze the cost-effectiveness between RDP and LDP. RESULTS: During the study period, 80 procedures from 14 Spanish centres were analyzed. LDP had a shorter operative time than the RDP approach (192.2 min vs 241.3 min, p = 0.004). RDP showed a lower conversion rate (19.5% vs 2.5%, p = 0.006) and a lower splenectomy rate (60% vs 26.5%, p = 0.004). A statistically significant difference was reported for the Comprehensive Complication Index between the two study groups, favouring the robotic approach (12.7 vs 6.1, p = 0.022). RDP was associated with increased operative costs of 1600 euros (p < 0.031), while overall cost expenses resulted in being 1070.92 Euros higher than the LDP but without a statistically significant difference (p = 0.064). The mean QALYs at 90 days after surgery for RDP (0.9534) were higher than those of LDP (0.8882) (p = 0.030). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 20,000 and 30,000 euros, there was a 62.64% and 71.30% probability that RDP was more cost-effective than LDP, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The RDP procedure in the Spanish healthcare system appears more cost-effective than the LDP.

Economic evaluations of pancreatic cancer screening: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The early detection of pancreatic cancer is an important step in reducing mortality by offering patients curative treatment. Screening strategies in risk populations and by means of different detection methods have been economically evaluated. However, a synthesis of screening studies to inform resource allocation towards early detection within the disease area has not been done. Therefore, studies evaluating the cost-effectiveness and costs of screening for pancreatic cancer should be systematically reviewed. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review of economic evaluations reporting the cost-effectiveness or costs of pancreatic cancer screening will be conducted. The electronic databases Medline, Web of Science and EconLit will be searched without geographical or time restrictions. Two independent reviewers will select eligible studies based on predefined criteria. The study quality will be assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement and the Bias in Economic Evaluation checklist. One reviewer will extract relevant data and a second reviewer will cross-check compliance with the extraction sheet. Key items will include characteristics of screened individuals, the screening strategies used, and costs, health effects and cost-effectiveness as study outputs. Differences of opinion between the reviewers will be solved by consulting a third reviewer. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for this study since no original data will be collected. The results will be disseminated through presentations at conferences and publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The results of the systematic review will inform future economic evaluations of pancreatic screening, which provide guidance for decision-making in healthcare resource prioritisation. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023475348.

Center-level variation in hospitalization costs of pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pancreaticoduodenectomy is a highly morbid operation with significant resource utilization. Using a national cohort, we examined the interhospital variation in pancreaticoduodenectomy hospitalization cost in the United States. METHODS: Adults undergoing elective pancreaticoduodenectomy in the setting of pancreatic cancer were tabulated from the 2016-2020 Nationwide Readmissions Database. A 2-level mixed-effects model was developed to evaluate the interhospital variation in pancreaticoduodenectomy hospitalization costs. Institutions within the top decile of risk-adjusted expenditures were defined as high-cost hospitals. Multivariable regression models were fitted to examine the association between high-cost hospital status and outcomes of interest. To account for the effects of complications on expenditures, a subgroup analysis comprising of patients with no adverse events was conducted. RESULTS: The study included an estimated 24,779 patients with a median hospitalization cost of $38,800. After mixed-effects modeling, 40.9% of the cost variation was attributable to hospital, rather than patient, factors. Multivariable regression models revealed an association between high-cost hospital status and greater odds of complications and longer length of stay. Among patients without an adverse event, interhospital cost variation remained significant at 61.0%, and treatment at high-cost hospitals was similarly linked to longer length of stay. CONCLUSION: Our study identified significant interhospital variation in pancreaticoduodenectomy hospitalization costs in the United States. Although high-cost hospital status was associated with increased odds of complications, variation remained significant even among patients without an adverse event. These results suggest the important role of hospital practices as contributors to expenditures. Further efforts to identify drivers of costs and standardize pancreatic surgical care are warranted.

Review of the cost-effectiveness of surveillance for hereditary pancreatic cancer.

Individuals with hereditary pancreatic cancer risk include high risk individuals (HRIs) with germline genetic susceptibility to pancreatic cancer (PC) and/or a strong family history of PC. Previously, studies have shown that PC surveillance in HRIs can downstage PC diagnosis and extend survival leading to pancreatic surveillance being recommended for certain HRIs. However, the optimal surveillance strategy remains uncertain, including which modalities should be used for surveillance, how frequently should surveillance be performed, and which sub-groups of HRIs should undergo surveillance. Additionally, in the ideal world PC surveillance should also be cost-effective. Cost-effectiveness analysis is a valuable tool that can consider the costs, potential health benefits, and risks among various PC surveillance strategies. In this review, we summarize the cost-effectiveness of various PC surveillance strategies for HRIs for hereditary pancreatic cancer and provide potential avenues for future work in this field. Additionally, we include cost-effectiveness studies among individuals with new-onset diabetes (NoD), a high-risk group for sporadic PC, as a comparison.

Cost-effectiveness of open versus laparoscopic pancreatectomy: A nationwide, population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic pancreatic resection is comparable to open pancreatic resection; however, cost-effectiveness analyses of laparoscopic pancreatic resection are scarce. The authors performed a population-based study investigating the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic pancreatic resection versus open pancreatic resection. METHODS: Data from 9,256 patients who received pancreaticoduodenectomy (66.8%) and distal pancreatectomy (33.2%) from 2016 to 2018 were retrieved from the Korean National Health Insurance Service. Events after pancreatectomy were categorized as no complication, complication, and death. Probabilities of each event and average cost during index admission and 1 year were utilized to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, the cost difference between two interventions divided by quality-adjusted life year. Quality-adjusted life year, a function of length and quality of life, was measured with utility values determined by researching literature. RESULTS: Laparoscopic pancreatic resection was performed in 12.4% of pancreaticoduodenectomies and 53.4% of distal pancreatectomies. For pancreaticoduodenectomy, laparoscopic pancreatic resection was associated with an increase of 0.0022 quality-adjusted life years for index admission and 0.0023 quality-adjusted life years for 1 year compared with open pancreatic resection. The incremental cost was $321 for index admission and -$1,414 for 1 year, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $147,429 per quality-adjusted life year gained for index admission and -$614,965 per quality-adjusted life year gained for 1 year. For distal pancreatectomy, laparoscopic pancreatic resection improved 0.0131 quality-adjusted life years for index admission and 0.0285 quality-adjusted life years for index admission. The incremental cost was -$1,240 for index admission and -$5,875 for 1 year, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of -$94,519 per quality-adjusted life year gained for index admission and -$206,351 for 1 year. CONCLUSION: laparoscopic pancreatic resection was a cost-effective alternative to open pancreatic resection for pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy, except for the higher cost of index admission for pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Payer-Negotiated Price Variation and Relationship to Surgical Outcomes for the Most Common Cancers at NCI-Designated Cancer Centers.

BACKGROUND: Federal rules mandate that hospitals publish payer-specific negotiated prices for all services. Little is known about variation in payer-negotiated prices for surgical oncology services or their relationship to clinical outcomes. We assessed variation in payer-negotiated prices associated with surgical care for common cancers at National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers and determined the effect of increasing payer-negotiated prices on the odds of morbidity and mortality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of 63 NCI-designated cancer center websites was employed to assess variation in payer-negotiated prices. A retrospective cohort study of 15,013 Medicare beneficiaries undergoing surgery for colon, pancreas, or lung cancers at an NCI-designated cancer center between 2014 and 2018 was conducted to determine the relationship between payer-negotiated prices and clinical outcomes. The primary outcome was the effect of median payer-negotiated price on odds of a composite outcome of 30 days mortality and serious postoperative complications for each cancer cohort. RESULTS: Within-center prices differed by up to 48.8-fold, and between-center prices differed by up to 675-fold after accounting for geographic variation in costs of providing care. Among the 15,013 patients discharged from 20 different NCI-designated cancer centers, the effect of normalized median payer-negotiated price on the composite outcome was clinically negligible, but statistically significantly positive for colon [aOR 1.0094 (95% CI 1.0051-1.0138)], lung [aOR 1.0145 (1.0083-1.0206)], and pancreas [aOR 1.0080 (1.0040-1.0120)] cancer cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Payer-negotiated prices are statistically significantly but not clinically meaningfully related to morbidity and mortality for the surgical treatment of common cancers. Higher payer-negotiated prices are likely due to factors other than clinical quality.

Optimal age to discontinue long-term surveillance of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms: comparative cost-effectiveness of surveillance by age.

OBJECTIVE: Current guidelines recommend long-term image-based surveillance for patients with low-risk intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs). This simulation study aimed to examine the comparative cost-effectiveness of continued versus discontinued surveillance at different ages and define the optimal age to stop surveillance. DESIGN: We constructed a Markov model with a lifetime horizon to simulate the clinical course of patients with IPMNs receiving imaging-based surveillance. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for continued versus discontinued surveillance at different ages to stop surveillance, stratified by sex and IPMN types (branch-duct vs mixed-type). We determined the optimal age to stop surveillance as the lowest age at which the ICER exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold of US$100 000 per quality-adjusted life year. To estimate model parameters, we used a clinical cohort of 3000 patients with IPMNs and a national database including 40 166 patients with pancreatic cancer receiving pancreatectomy as well as published data. RESULTS: In male patients, the optimal age to stop surveillance was 76-78 years irrespective of the IPMN types, compared with 70, 73, 81, and 84 years for female patients with branch-duct IPMNs <20 mm, =20-29 mm, ≥30 mm and mixed-type IPMNs, respectively. The suggested ages became younger according to an increasing level of comorbidities. In cases with high comorbidity burden, the ICERs were above the willingness-to-pay threshold irrespective of sex and the size of branch-duct IPMNs. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness of long-term IPMN surveillance depended on sex, IPMN types, and comorbidity levels, suggesting the potential to personalise patient management from the health economic perspective.

Cost-Effectiveness of Nab-Paclitaxel and Gemcitabine Versus Gemcitabine Monotherapy for Patients with Unresectable Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer in Japan.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine (GnP) compared with gemcitabine monotherapy (G) for patients with unresectable metastatic pancreatic cancer in Japan from the perspective of healthcare payer. METHODS: A partitioned survival analysis model was developed to predict costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for GnP and G. The time horizon of the model was set at 20 years. An annual discount rate of 2% for both costs and QALYs was applied. Data on overall survival and progression-free survival were derived from the Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Clinical Trial. Cost parameters were estimated from a Japanese medical claims database. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of GnP compared with G was estimated. One-way sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the uncertainty in the parameter settings. In addition, scenario and probability sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The incremental cost and QALY of GnP compared with G were US$25 089 and 0.13 QALY, respectively. The ICER of GnP was estimated to be US$192 992 per QALY gained. Although the ICER was influenced by utility parameters and the survival curves, the ICERs remained higher than the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of US$68 000 (JPY 7.5 million). The probability that GnP becomes cost-effective compared with G was estimated to be 29.2%. CONCLUSIONS: Applying the WTP threshold of US$68 000 per QALY, GnP was not cost-effective for patients with unresectable metastatic pancreatic cancer in Japan from the perspective of healthcare payer. Further research is needed to obtain utility data from Japanese patients with pancreatic cancer.

The Association of Drug-Funding Reimbursement With Survival Outcomes and Use of New Systemic Therapies Among Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer.

Importance: Gemcitabine-nab-paclitaxel (GEMNAB) and fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) both improve survival of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer when compared with single-agent gemcitabine in clinical trials. Objective: To describe changes in the survival of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer associated with sequential drug-funding approvals and to determine if there exist distinct patient populations for whom GEMNAB and FOLFIRINOX are associated with survival benefit. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based, retrospective cohort study examined all incident cases of advanced pancreatic cancer treated with first-line chemotherapy in Ontario, Canada (2008-2018) that were identified from the Cancer Care Ontario (Ontario Health) New Drug Funding Program database. Statistical analysis was performed from October 2020 to January 2021. Exposures: First-line chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were the proportion of patients treated with each chemotherapy regimen over time and overall survival for each regimen. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to compare overall survival between treatment regimens after adjustment for confounding variables, inverse probability of treatment weighting, and matching. Results: From 2008 to 2018, 5465 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer were treated with first-line chemotherapy in Ontario, Canada. The median (range) age of patients was 66.9 (27.8-93.4) years; 2447 (45%) were female; 878 (16%) had prior pancreatic resection, and 328 (6%) had prior adjuvant gemcitabine. During the time period when only gemcitabine and FOLFIRINOX were funded (2011-2015), 49% (929 of 1887) received FOLFIRINOX. When GEMNAB was subsequently funded (2015-2018), 9% (206 of 2347) received gemcitabine, 44% (1034 of 2347) received FOLFIRINOX, and 47% (1107 of 2347) received GEMNAB. The median overall survival increased from 5.6 months (95% CI, 5.1-6.0 months) in 2008 to 2011 to 6.9 months (95% CI, 6.5-7.4 months) in 2011 to 2015 to 7.6 months (95% CI, 7.1-8.0 months) in 2015 to 2018. Patients receiving FOLFIRINOX were younger and healthier than patients receiving GEMNAB. After adjustment and weighting, FOLFIRINOX was associated with better overall survival than GEMNAB (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75 [95% CI, 0.69-0.81]). In analyses comparing patients treated with GEMNAB and gemcitabine, GEMNAB was associated with better overall survival (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.78-0.94]). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving first-line palliative chemotherapy within a universal health care system found that drug funding decisions were associated with increased uptake of new treatment options over time and improved survival. Both FOLFIRINOX and GEMNAB were associated with survival benefits in distinct patient populations.

Conversion to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv enables budget-neutral access to FOLFIRINOX treatment for metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Aim: To estimate the cost-savings from conversion to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv that can be reallocated to provide budget-neutral expanded access to FOLFIRINOX in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. Methods: Simulation modeling in a panel of 2500 FOLFIRINOX-treated patients, using varying treatment duration (1-12 cycles) and conversion rates (10-100%), to estimate cost-savings and additional FOLFIRINOX treatment that could be budget neutral. Results: In a 2500-patient panel at 100% conversion, savings of US$6,907.41 per converted patient over 12 cycles of prophylaxis translate to US$17.3 million and could provide 72,273 additional FOLFIRINOX doses or 6023 full 6-month regimens. Conclusion: Conversion to biosimilar CIN/FN prophylaxis can generate significant cost-savings and provide budget-neutral expanded access to FOLFIRINOX treatment for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Lay abstract Pegfilgrastim is used to prevent low white blood cell count in patients receiving chemotherapy. Comparable to a generic version of a drug, a biosimilar is a follow-on version of a biologic treatment. The authors calculated the savings from using biosimilar pegfilgrastim in a hypothetical group of 2500 patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer and then computed the number of additional doses of FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy that could be purchased with those savings. Using biosimilar pegfilgrastim for 12 cycles could save US$6,907.41 per patient. If all 2500 patients were treated with biosimilar pegfilgrastim, US$17.3 million could be saved. This could provide 72,273 additional FOLFIRINOX doses. Biosimilar pegfilgrastim can generate significant savings to purchase chemotherapy for additional patients cost-free.

ACA Medicaid expansion reduced disparities in use of high-volume hospitals for pancreatic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Early evaluation of the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion demonstrated persistent disparities among Medicaid beneficiaries in use of high-volume hospitals for pancreatic surgery. Longer-term effects of expansion remain unknown. This study evaluated the impact of expansion on the use of high-volume hospitals for pancreatic surgery among Medicaid and uninsured patients. METHODS: State inpatient databases (2012-2017), the American Hospital Association Annual Survey Database, and the Area Resource File from the Health Resources and Services Administration, were used to examine 8,264 non-elderly adults who underwent pancreatic surgery in nine expansion and two non-expansion states. High-volume hospitals were defined as performing 20 or more resections/year. Linear probability triple differences models measured pre- and post-Affordable Care Act utilization rates of pancreatic surgery at high-volume hospitals among Medicaid and uninsured patients versus privately insured patients in expansion versus non-expansion states. RESULTS: The Affordable Care Act's expansion was associated with increased rates of utilization of high-volume hospitals for pancreatic surgery by Medicaid and uninsured patients (48% vs 55.4%, P = .047) relative to privately insured patients in expansion states (triple difference estimate +11.7%, P = .022). A pre-Affordable Care Act gap in use of high-volume hospitals among Medicaid and uninsured patients in expansion states versus non-expansion states (48% vs 77%, P < .0001) was reduced by 15.1% (P = .001) post Affordable Care Act. A pre Affordable Care Act gap between expansion versus non-expansion states was larger for Medicaid and uninsured patients relative to privately insured patients by 24.9% (P < .0001) and was reduced by 11.7% (P = .022) post Affordable Care Act. Rates among privately insured patients remained unchanged. CONCLUSION: Medicaid expansion was associated with greater utilization of high-volume hospitals for pancreatic surgery among Medicaid and uninsured patients. These findings are informative to non-expansion states considering expansion. Future studies should target understanding referral mechanism post-expansion.

Initiation of Somatostatin analogues for neuroendocrine tumor patients: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) are heterogeneous neoplasms. Although some have a relatively benign and indolent natural history, others can be aggressive and ultimately fatal. Somatostatin analogues (SSAs) improve both quality of life and survival for these patients once they develop metastatic disease. However, these drugs are costly and their cost-effectiveness is not known. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed and analyzed to compare two treatment strategies for patients with Stage IV GEP-NETs. The first strategy had all patients start SSA immediately while the second strategy waited, reserving SSA initiation until the patient showed signs of progression. Sensitivity analysis was performed to explore model parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: Our model of patients age 60 with metastatic GEP-NETs suggests empiric initiation of SSA led to an increase 0.62 unadjusted life-years and incremental increase in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.44. The incremental costs were $388,966 per QALY and not cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000. Death was attributed to GEP-NETs for 94.1% of patients in the SSA arm vs. 94.9% of patients in the DELAY SSA arm. Sensitivity analysis found that the model was most sensitive to costs of SSAs. Using probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the SSA strategy was only cost-effective 1.4% of the time at a WTP threshold of $100,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Our modeling study finds it is not cost-effective to initiate SSAs at time of presentation for patients with metastatic GEP-NETs. Further clinical studies are needed to identify the optimal timing to initiate these drugs.

Medicaid expansion and the management of pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act has improved access to screening and treatment for certain cancers. It is unclear how this policy has affected the diagnosis and management of pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Using a quasi-experimental difference-in-differences (DID) approach, we analyzed Medicaid and uninsured patients in the National Cancer Data Base during two time periods: pre-expansion (2011-2012) and postexpansion (2015-2016). We investigated changes in cancer staging, treatment decisions, and surgical outcomes. RESULTS: In this national cohort, pancreatic cancer patients in expansion states had increased Medicaid coverage relative to those in nonexpansion states (DID = 17.49, p < 0.01). Medicaid expansion also led to an increase in early-stage diagnoses (Stage I/II, DID = 4.71, p = 0.03), higher comorbidity scores among surgical patients (Charlson/Deyo score 0: DID = -13.69, p = 0.02), a trend toward more neoadjuvant radiation (DID = 6.15, p = 0.06), and more positive margins (DID = 11.69, p = 0.02). There were no differences in rates of surgery, postoperative outcomes, or overall survival. CONCLUSION: Medicaid expansion was associated with improved insurance coverage and earlier stage diagnoses for Medicaid and uninsured pancreatic cancer patients, but similar surgical outcomes and overall survival. These findings highlight both the benefits of Medicaid expansion and the potential limitations of policy change to improve outcomes for such an aggressive malignancy.

Is Improved Survival in Early-Stage Pancreatic Cancer Worth the Extra Cost at High-Volume Centers?

BACKGROUND: Volume of operative cases may be an important factor associated with improved survival for early-stage pancreatic cancer. Most high-volume pancreatic centers are also academic institutions, which have been associated with additional healthcare costs. We hypothesized that at high-volume centers, the value of the extra survival outweighs the extra cost. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective cohort study used data from the California Cancer Registry linked to the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development database from January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2012. Stage I-II pancreatic cancer patients who underwent resection were included. Multivariable analyses estimated overall survival and 30-day costs at low- vs high-volume pancreatic surgery centers. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental net benefit (INB) were estimated, and statistical uncertainty was characterized using net benefit regression. RESULTS: Of 2,786 patients, 46.5% were treated at high-volume centers and 53.5% at low-volume centers. There was a 0.45-year (5.4 months) survival benefit (95% CI 0.21-0.69) and a $7,884 extra cost associated with receiving surgery at high-volume centers (95% CI $4,074-$11,694). The ICER was $17,529 for an additional year of survival (95% CI $7,997-$40,616). For decision-makers willing to pay more than $20,000 for an additional year of life, high-volume centers appear cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Although healthcare costs were greater at high-volume centers, patients undergoing pancreatic surgery at high-volume centers experienced a survival benefit (5.4 months). The extra cost of $17,529 per additional year is quite modest for improved survival and is economically attractive by many oncology standards.

Cost Analysis of Pancreaticoduodenectomy at a High-Volume Robotic Hepatopancreaticobiliary Surgery Program.

BACKGROUND: The robotic approach to pancreaticoduodenectomy is thought by many to be associated with increased financial burden for hospitals. We undertook this study to analyze and compare the cost of "open" pancreaticoduodenectomy with that associated with the application of the robotic surgical system to pancreaticoduodenectomy in our hepatobiliary program. STUDY DESIGN: With IRB approval, all patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy at our institution, from August 2012 to November 2019, were prospectively followed. Cost, including total, variable, fixed-direct, fixed-indirect, and profitability for robotic and "open" pancreaticoduodenectomy were analyzed and compared. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). RESULTS: There were 386 patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy; 205 patients underwent robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and 181 underwent "open" pancreaticoduodenectomy. Costs are presented as mean ± SD. Overall, the cost of care for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy was $31,389 ($36,611 ± $20,545.40) vs $23,132 ($31,323 ± $28,885.50) for "open" pancreaticoduodenectomy (p = 0.04); total variable cost was $20,355 ($22,747 ± $11,127.60) vs $11,680 ($16,032 ± $14,817.20) (p = 0.01), total fixed direct cost was $1,999 ($2,330 ± $1,363.10) vs $2,073 ($2,983 ± $3,209.00) (p = 0.01), and total indirect cost was $7,217 ($9,354 ± $6,802.40) vs $6,802 ($9,505 ± $9,307.20) (p = 0.86), for robotic vs "open" pancreaticoduodenectomy, respectively. Since 2016, profitability was achieved in 29% of patients undergoing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy had lower estimated blood loss and shorter length of stay. Cost of care for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy was greater across all categories, except for total indirect cost, than "open" pancreaticoduodenectomy. For our institution, profitability was accomplished in less than one-third of patients undergoing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. The role of the robotic platform for pancreaticoduodenectomy needs to be discussed among all stakeholders.

Cost-effectiveness of rapid on-site evaluation of endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration in gastrointestinal lesions.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) can improve adequacy rates of fine needle aspiration (FNA) and thus save operational costs. Our aim was to assess the cost-efficacy of ROSE performed during endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-FNA of gastrointestinal lesions. METHOD: This was a retrospective cohort study of 156 patients who underwent EUS-FNA for pancreatic, submucosal upper gastrointestinal, and adjacent lesions at Galilee Medical Center between 2012 and 2017. The patient cohort was divided into group A (62 patients, 39.7%) who underwent EUS-FNA with ROSE, and group B (94 patients, 60.3%) without ROSE. Cost analysis was based on the additional expenditure of repeated EUS-FNA sessions needed to reach accurate and final diagnosis in the two groups. RESULTS: The overall cost was significantly higher in group B ($121 422) as compared to group A ($72 861), including the ROSE cost. Additional EUS-FNA sessions were needed in 11.3% and 23.4% in groups A and B, respectively. The additional cost to achieve final pathological diagnosis was $7203 and $24 696 in groups A and B, respectively (P = .02), yielding a savings of $252 per EUS-FNA case by adding ROSE. Notably, adding ROSE to the EUS-FNA exam for gastrointestinal non-pancreatic lesions resulted in even higher savings per case ($682.40). Moreover, adding ROSE improved specimen adequacy to achieve final pathological diagnosis (odds ratio = 7.13, P = .0005). CONCLUSIONS: EUS-FNA with ROSE was cost-effective. Incorporating ROSE into the clinical practice of EUS-FNA saves costs and improves specimen adequacy.

Lutetium oxodotreotide (177Lu-Dotatate) for the treatment of unresectable or metastatic progressive gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a cost-effectiveness analysis for Scotland.

BACKGROUND: Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) represent a heterogenous group of tumors. Findings from the phase III NETTER-1 trial showed that treatment of unresectable/metastatic progressive gastrointestinal (GI) NETs with 177Lu-Dotatate resulted in a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with best supportive care (BSC) with high dose octreotide long-acting repeatable (LAR) 60 mg. A health economic analysis was performed using input data from clinical studies and data derived from an indirect comparison to determine the cost-effectiveness of 177Lu-Dotatate in the treatment of GI-NETs and pancreatic NETs (P-NETs) in Scotland. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the payer perspective using a three-state partitioned survival model. In the base case 177Lu-Dotatate was compared with BSC in gastrointestinal (GI)-NETs using clinical data from the NETTER-1 trial. A secondary analysis comparing 177Lu-Dotatate with BSC, everolimus or sunitinib in patients with P-NETs was also performed using hazard ratios inferred from indirect comparisons. The base case analysis was performed over a 20-year time horizon with an annual discount rate of 3.5% for both costs and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: For unresectable/metastatic progressive GI-NETs treatment with 177Lu-Dotatate led to a gain in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 1.33 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with BSC due to extended PFS and OS. Mean total lifetime costs were GBP 35,701 higher with 177Lu-Dotatate, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of GBP 26,830 per QALY gained. In analyses in patients with P-NETs 177Lu-Dotatate was associated with ICERs below GBP 30,000 per QALY gained in comparisons with BSC, sunitinib and everolimus. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effectiveness analyses demonstrated that, in Scotland, from the payer perspective, 177Lu-Dotatate at the set acquisition cost is a cost-effective treatment option for patients with unresectable or metastatic progressive GI-NETs or P-NETs.

Cost-effectiveness and quality of life analysis of laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy: a propensity score-matched study.

BACKGROUND: This study analyzed the Quality of Life (QoL) and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic (LDP) versus robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). METHOD: All patients who underwent LDP or RDP from 2011 to 2017 and with a minimum postoperative follow-up of 12 months were included in the study. To minimize bias, a propensity score-matched analysis (1:2) was performed. Two different questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D) were completed by the patients. The mean differential cost and mean differential Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) were calculated and plotted on a cost-utility plane. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 152 patients. After having applied the propensity score matching, the final population included 103 patients divided into RDP group (n = 37, 36%) and LDP (n = 66, 64%). No differences were found between groups regarding the baseline, intraoperative, postoperative, and pathological variables (p > 0.05). The QoL analysis showed a significant improvement in the RDP group on the postoperative social function, nausea, vomiting, and financial status (p = 0.010, p = 0.050, and p = 0.030, respectively). As expected, the crude costs analysis confirmed that RDP was more expensive than LDP (12,053 Euros vs. 5519 Euros, p < 0.001). However, the robotic approach had a higher probability of being more cost-effective than the laparoscopic procedure when a willingness to pay of more than 4800 Euros/QALY was accepted. CONCLUSION: RDP was associated with QoL improvement in specific domains. Crude costs were higher relative to LDP. Cost-effectiveness threshold resulted to be 4800 euros/QALY. The increasing worldwide diffusion of the robotic technology, with easier access and possible cost reduction, could increase the sustainability of this procedure.