Cost-effectiveness analysis of different treatment modalities in BCG-unresponsive NMIBC.

OBJECTIVE: Radical cystectomy (RC) is the standard of care (SOC) in BCG-unresponsive NMIBC and is associated with a significant health-related quality-of-life burden. Recently, promising results have been published on Gemcitabine/Docetaxel, Pembrolizumab, and Hyperthermic Intravesical Chemotherapy (HIVEC) as salvage therapy options trying to increase the rate of bladder preservation. Here, we performed a Cost-Effectiveness-Analysis of those treatment modalities. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We developed a Markov model from a payer's perspective drawing on clinical data of single-arm trials testing intravesical gemcitabine/docetaxel and pembrolizumab in BCG-unresponsive NMIBC, as well as clinical data from patients receiving hyperthermic intravesical chemotherapy HIVEC (n = 29) as intravesical salvage chemotherapy at our uro-oncological centre in Cologne. Costs were simulated utilising a non-commercial diagnosis-related groups grouper, utilities were derived from comparable cost-effectiveness studies. We used a Monte Carlo simulation to identify the optimal treatment, comparing the incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €50 000 (euro)/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). RESULTS: Over a horizon of 10 years, gemcitabine/docetaxel, HIVEC, and pembrolizumab were associated with costs of €48 353, €64 438, and €204 580, as well as a gain of QALYs of 6.16, 6.48, and 6.00, resulting in an ICER of €26 482, €42 567, and €184 533 respectively, in comparison to RC with total costs of €21 871 and a gain of QALYs of 5.01. Monte Carlo simulation identified HIVEC as the treatment of choice under assumption of a WTP of <€50 000. CONCLUSION: Considering a WTP of <€50 000/QALY, gemcitabine/docetaxel and HIVEC are highly cost-effective therapeutic options in BCG-refractory NMIBC, while RC remains the cheapest option. At its current price, pembrolizumab would only be cost-effective assuming a price reduction of at least 70%.

What Is New with Rezum Water Vapor Thermal Therapy for LUTS/BPH?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Rezum® is a novel convection-based thermal therapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) induced lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). This review provides an overview of its safety, efficacy, cost, and potential role in the paradigm of BPH/LUTS therapies. RECENT FINDINGS: Data regarding Rezum® stems primarily from one large randomized controlled trial of 197 patients with 4 years of follow-up. The efficacy and safety of Rezum® is further supported by 4 additional studies including 1 prospective pilot study, 1 crossover study, and 2 retrospective studies. Durable improvements in IPSS (47-60%), QoL (38-52%), Qmax (45-72%), and PVR (11-38%) were seen without causing deterioration of sexual function. Rezum® offers a cost-effective and safe approach to treating BPH/LUTS and should be considered as a possible first-line therapy for patients with moderate to severe symptoms.

An Initial Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Magnetic Resonance-Guided Laser Interstitial Thermal Therapy in Pediatric Epilepsy Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Magnetic resonance-guided laser interstitial thermal therapy (MRgLITT) is a new technology that provides a clinically efficacious and minimally invasive alternative to conventional microsurgical resection. However, little data exist on how costs compare to traditional open surgery. The goal of this paper is to investigate the cost-effectiveness of MRgLITT in the treatment of pediatric epilepsy. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of pediatric patients who underwent MRgLITT via the Visualase® thermal therapy system (Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) between December 2013 and September 2017. Direct costs associated with preoperative, operative, and follow-up care were extracted. Benefit was calculated in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the cost-effectiveness was derived from the discounted total direct costs over QALY. Sensitivity analysis on 4 variables was utilized to assess the validity of our results. RESULTS: Twelve consecutive pediatric patients with medically refractory epilepsy underwent MRgLITT procedures. At the last postoperative follow-up, 8 patients were seizure free (Engel I, 66.7%), 2 demonstrated significant improvement (Engel II, 16.7%), and 2 patients showed worthwhile improvement (Engel III, 16.7%). The average cumulative discounted QALY was 2.11 over the lifetime of a patient. Adjusting for inflation, MRgLITT procedures had a cost-effectiveness of USD 22,211 per QALY. Our sensitivity analysis of cost variables is robust and supports the procedure to be cost--effective. CONCLUSION: Our data suggests that MRgLITT may be a cost-effective alternative to traditional surgical resection in pediatric epilepsy surgery.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Cytoreductive Surgery and HIPEC Compared With Systemic Chemotherapy in Isolated Peritoneal Carcinomatosis From Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cost-effectiveness evaluations of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for the treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) from metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in the United States are lacking. METHODS: The authors developed a Markov model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of CRS/HIPEC compared with systemic chemotherapy for isolated PC from mCRC from a societal perspective in the United States. The systemic treatment regimens consisted of FOLFOX, FOLFIRI, bevacizumab, cetuximab, and pantitumumab. The model inputs including costs, probabilities, survival, progression, and utilities were taken from the literature. The cycle length for the model was 2 weeks, and the time horizon was 7 years. A discount rate of 3% was applied. The model was tested for internal and external validation, and robustness was established with univariate sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA). The primary outcomes were total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years (LYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). A willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 per QALY was assumed. RESULTS: The ICER for treatment with CRS/HIPEC compared with systemic chemotherapy was $91,034 per QALY gained ($74,098 per LY gained). The univariate sensitivity analysis showed that the total costs for treatment with CRS/HIPEC had the largest effect on the calculated ICER. The CRS/HIPEC treatment was a cost-effective strategy during the majority of simulations in the PSA. The average ICER for 100,000 simulations in the PSA was $70,807 per QALY gained. The likelihood of CRS/HIPEC being a cost-effective strategy at the WTP threshold was 87%. CONCLUSIONS: The CRS/HIPEC procedure is a cost-effective treatment for isolated PC from mCRC in the United States.

Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy versus palliative systemic chemotherapy in stomach cancer patients with peritoneal dissemination, the study protocol of a multicentre randomised controlled trial (PERISCOPE II).

BACKGROUND: At present, palliative systemic chemotherapy is the standard treatment in the Netherlands for gastric cancer patients with peritoneal dissemination. In contrast to lymphatic and haematogenous dissemination, peritoneal dissemination may be regarded as locoregional spread of disease. Administering cytotoxic drugs directly into the peritoneal cavity has an advantage over systemic chemotherapy since high concentrations can be delivered directly into the peritoneal cavity with limited systemic toxicity. The combination of a radical gastrectomy with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has shown promising results in patients with gastric cancer in Asia. However, the results obtained in Asian patients cannot be extrapolated to Western patients. The aim of this study is to compare the overall survival between patients with gastric cancer with limited peritoneal dissemination and/or tumour positive peritoneal cytology treated with palliative systemic chemotherapy, and those treated with gastrectomy, CRS and HIPEC after neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy. METHODS: In this multicentre randomised controlled two-armed phase III trial, 106 patients will be randomised (1:1) between palliative systemic chemotherapy only (standard treatment) and gastrectomy, CRS and HIPEC (experimental treatment) after 3-4 cycles of systemic chemotherapy.Patients with gastric cancer are eligible for inclusion if (1) the primary cT3-cT4 gastric tumour including regional lymph nodes is considered to be resectable, (2) limited peritoneal dissemination (Peritoneal Cancer Index < 7) and/or tumour positive peritoneal cytology are confirmed by laparoscopy or laparotomy, and (3) systemic chemotherapy was given (prior to inclusion) without disease progression. DISCUSSION: The PERISCOPE II study will determine whether gastric cancer patients with limited peritoneal dissemination and/or tumour positive peritoneal cytology treated with systemic chemotherapy, gastrectomy, CRS and HIPEC have a survival benefit over patients treated with palliative systemic chemotherapy only. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT03348150 ; registration date November 2017; first enrolment November 2017; expected end date December 2022; trial status: Ongoing.

Cost-effectiveness of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) at interval debulking of epithelial ovarian cancer following neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVES: A recent randomized controlled trial demonstrated an overall survival benefit to the addition of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) for stage III epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). The objective of the current study was to quantify the cost-effectiveness of HIPEC in this setting. METHODS: A decision analytic cost-effectiveness model was designed from a payer perspective to compare 2 surgical management strategies for EOC: (1) interval cytoreductive surgery (ICS); (2) ICS + HIPEC. Overall survival and ostomy rates with HIPEC were modeled from published studies. We assumed that 25% of each arm would later undergo secondary cytoreductive surgery, with the ICS arm eligible for HIPEC at that time. Costs were obtained from Medicare data, published studies, and the financial department of an academic hospital. Quality of life was not different between the arms; we assigned utilities based on a prior time-trade off study of ovarian cancer treatment. A Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed in the base case; primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed in 2017 US Dollars/quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: ICS was the least costly strategy at $78,849, compared to ICS + HIPEC at $79,954. ICS + HIPEC was more effective than ICS (2.9 QALYs versus 2.45 QALYs for ICS). ICS + HIPEC was highly cost-effective, with an ICER of $2436/QALY compared to ICS. In one-way sensitivity analyses, probability of ostomy reversal and use of HIPEC at secondary cytoreduction did not substantially impact the cost-effectiveness of ICS + HIPEC. CONCLUSION: ICS + HIPEC constitutes cost-effective management of stage III EOC when NACT is performed.

Cost Effectiveness of Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Management of Colorectal Peritoneal Carcinomatosis.

BACKGROUND: Peritoneal carcinomatosis from colorectal cancer is a stage 4 disease for which palliative chemotherapy has traditionally been considered the mainstay of treatment. Since the development of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) by Sugarbaker, this combined method treatment has resulted in improved survival outcomes with acceptable morbidity for selected patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis. This study examined the cost effectiveness of CRS and HIPEC compared with palliative chemotherapy for patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis from colorectal cancer within the context of the Singaporean health care system. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis from histologically proven colorectal cancer treated at the National Cancer Centre Singapore (NCCS) was conducted. RESULTS: The average cost of CRS and HIPEC per patient was S$83,680.26, and the median overall survival period was 47 months. The calculated cost per life year attained for a patient who underwent CRS and HIPEC was S$21,365.19 per life year. In comparison, the average cost of palliative chemotherapy was S$44,478.87, with a median overall survival of 9 months, and the calculated cost per life year attained for a patient in this treatment group was S$59,305.16 per life year. CONCLUSION: The findings show that CRS and HIPEC results in prolonged survival for selected patients with colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis and a lower cost per life year attained than for the traditionally used palliative chemotherapy. It should logically be the preferred treatment of choice for selected patients with colorectal peritoneal metastasis.

Comprehensive economic evaluation of thermotherapy for the treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis in Colombia.

BACKGROUND: Cutaneous leishmaniasis causes a high disease burden in Colombia, and available treatments present systemic toxicity, low patient compliance, contraindications, and high costs. The purpose of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of thermotherapy versus Glucantime in patients with cutaneous leishmaniasis in Colombia. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness study from an institutional perspective in 8133 incident cases. Data on therapeutic efficacy and safety were included, calculating standard costs; the outcomes were disability adjusted life years (DALYs) and the number of patients cured. The information sources were the Colombian Public Health Surveillance System, disease burden studies, and one meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials. Incremental cost-effectiveness was determined, and uncertainty was evaluated with tornado diagrams and Monte Carlo simulations. RESULTS: Thermotherapy would generate costs of US$ 501,621; the handling of adverse effects, US$ 29,224; and therapeutic failures, US$ 300,053. For Glucantime, these costs would be US$ 2,731,276, US$ 58,254, and US$ 406,298, respectively. With thermotherapy, the cost would be US$ 2062 per DALY averted and US$ 69 per patient cured; with Glucantime, the cost would be US$ 4241 per DALY averted and US$ 85 per patient cured. In Monte Carlo simulations, thermotherapy was the dominant strategy for DALYs averted in 67.9% of cases and highly cost-effective for patients cured in 72%. CONCLUSION: In Colombia, thermotherapy can be included as a cost-effective strategy for the management of cutaneous leishmaniasis. Its incorporation into clinical practice guidelines could represent savings of approximately US$ 10,488 per DALY averted and costs of US$ 116 per additional patient cured, compared to the use of Glucantime. These findings show the relevance of the incorporation of this treatment in our country and others with similar parasitological, clinical, and epidemiological patterns.

Evaluation of cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in a community setting: A cost-utility analysis of a hospital's initial experience and reflections on the health care system.

BACKGROUND: The combination of Cytoreductive Surgery (CRS) plus Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) has been gaining a considerable interest by surgeons throughout the United States due to the significant survival improvement it provides for peritoneal surface malignancies and the ability to reproduce comparable clinical results in numerous health care centers. However, CRS plus HIPEC has not been sufficiently investigated from the economic standpoint in the United States where a wide variety of health care insurers exists. This study was conducted to analyze hospital/surgeon cost and reimbursement data at a community hospital offering a new peritoneal surface malignancy program, and expand the discussion to analyze future healthcare implementation on this procedure in the United States. METHODS: This is a retrospective economic analysis of an initial CRS plus HIPEC experience at a community non-teaching medical center. This study was conducted using hospital/surgeon cost and reimbursement based on the Office of Finance data at Edward Hospital Cancer Center (Naperville, IL). All patients who underwent CRS and HIPEC between June 2013 and August 2014 were included in this analysis. We aimed to assess CRS plus HIPEC purely from the financial perspective on the initial admission regardless of the patients' advancement of the disease or postoperative adverse events. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients underwent 26 CRS plus HIPEC procedures. Twelve patients had private insurance plans (PRV) whereas 13 were covered by public insurers (PUB). Median overall length of stay (LOS) was 10 days (PRV 10 days vs. PUB 11 days; P = 0.76.) Average hospital cost was $38,369 (PRV $37,093 vs. PUB $39,463; P = 0.67), and average reimbursement for our patient population was $45,243 (PRV $48,954 vs. PUB $42,062; P = 0.53). It was noted that CRS plus HIPEC generated more net profit in patients with private insurance than in those with public plans, however, not statistically significant ($11,861 vs. $2,599 per patient, respectively; P = 0.38). Evaluating surgeon's data, average surgeon's charge was $29,139 (PRV $28,440 vs. PUB $29,737; P = 0.80), and average patients' payment was $8,126 (PRV 9,234 vs. PUB 7,176; P = 0.47). CONCLUSION: CRS plus HIPEC is profitable in the community setting for both the hospital and surgeon. Both private and public insurers reimbursed profitably, though with a greater profit margin from private insurers. As CRS plus HIPEC is becoming more widely recognized as a standard of care for patients with peritoneal surface malignancy, it is increasingly important to understand and report its associated costs and variability in insurance coverage, especially in light of the current healthcare structure changes in the United States. It is strongly encouraged to report and present a wider scope of CRS plus HIPEC economic experiences in a variety of hospital settings to provide further evidence for future healthcare implementations in the United States. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;113:544-547. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Association between hospital finances, payer mix, and complications after hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: deficiencies in the current healthcare reimbursement system and future implications.

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing implementation of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), there are little data on its financial implications. We analyzed hospital cost and reimbursement data within the context of insurance provider type and postoperative complications. METHODS: Clinicopathologic variables, hospital costs, and reimbursement for all patients undergoing CRS/HIPEC at a single institution from 2009 to 2013 were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 64 patients underwent CRS/HIPEC. Median PCI score was 19, and average operative time was 550 min. Tumor histology included appendiceal (n = 40; 62 %), colorectal (n = 16; 25 %), goblet cell (n = 5; 8 %), and mesothelioma (n = 3; 5 %). Median length-of-stay was 13 days. Complications occurred in 42 patients (66 %), including 13 (20 %) with major (Clavien grade III-IV) complications. Payer mix included 42 private insurance and 22 Medicare/Medicaid. Financial data was available for 56 patients: average total hospital cost was $49,248 and reimbursement was $63,771, for a hospital profit of $14,523/patient. Despite similar costs between Medicare/Medicaid and private-insurance patients, Medicare/Medicaid reimbursed much less ($30,713 vs $80,747; p < 0.001), resulting in a net loss of $17,342 per patient. For private-insured patients, major complications were associated with increased cost and increased reimbursement, resulting in a net profit of $36,285, compared with a net loss of $54,274 in Medicare/Medicaid patients. CONCLUSIONS: CRS/HIPEC is profitable in privately insured patients, even for those with major complications, but loses money in patients with Medicare/Medicaid. Under a future bundled-reimbursement system, complications will be negatively associated with profit. With these impending changes, hospitals must place emphasis on value, recalculate the reimbursement necessary for financial viability, and focus on decreasing costs and minimizing complications.

Escalation of socioeconomic disparities among patients with colorectal cancer receiving advanced surgical treatment.

BACKGROUND: As tumor burden increases in colorectal cancer, treatment complexity progresses from colectomy to hepatectomy and lastly to cytoreductive surgery with heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC). The aim of this study was to evaluate whether disparities exist in the access to progressively more complex surgical treatment options. METHODS: Patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer were grouped by treatment type: group 1 (n = 224) underwent colectomy for nonmetastatic disease, group 2 (n = 112) underwent hepatectomy for liver metastasis, and group 3 (n = 112) underwent CRS-HIPEC for carcinomatosis. RESULTS: Whites were predominant in the HIPEC group (71.4 %) compared to the hepatectomy (67.9 %) and colectomy (57.6 %) groups (p = 0.025). The majority of the privately insured patients were in the HIPEC group (70.5 %) compared to the hepatectomy (56.2 %) and colectomy (30.4 %) groups (p < 0.0001). Distance traveled to the hospital was farthest on average in the HIPEC group (104.6 ± 258.3 km) compared to the hepatectomy (29.0 ± 28.0 km) or colectomy (26.4  ± 66.2 km) group (p < 0.0001). Mean household income also varied between the three groups, with HIPEC patients earning $56,957 (±24,124), hepatectomy patients earning $56,999 (±28,588), and colectomy patients earning ($51,518 ± 24,201) (p = 0.0503) on average per year. The HIPEC cohort contained a higher proportion of English speakers (90.2 %) than the other groups (hepatectomy 87.9 %, colectomy 85.3 %); however, this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.43). CONCLUSIONS: CRS-HIPEC is not accessed equally across all socioeconomic groups. Patients undergoing HIPEC were most often white, English speaking, and privately insured; had a higher mean income; and had traveled the greatest distances on average to access surgical care.

The cost associated with interstitial thermotherapy for tonsil reduction vs. standard tonsillectomy.

Given the high demand for tonsillectomies in children, the variety of techniques available, and the increasing need to control expenditures, it is important to analyse the costs associated with surgical procedures. The aim in the present study was to compare the cost of interstitial thermotherapy for tonsil volume reduction with conventional tonsillectomy. This was a nonrandomized, retrospective analysis at a public practice regional hospital between 2010 and 2012. Paediatric patients that underwent molecular resonance (MR)-induced tonsil thermal ablation (day case admission) were matched, according to age and concurrent surgery, to patients that underwent tonsillectomy by standard bipolar dissection (ordinary admission) during the same study period. Both groups were compared in economic terms based on operating room (OR) times, salaries, materials and hospitalization cost. Sixty-two patients were included (31 in each group). The mean ages of patients in the MR and tonsillectomy groups were 5.6 (2.7 SD) and 5.1 years (2.0 SD), respectively. A significantly lower mean surgery time (28.25 vs. 36.95 min), anaesthesia time (48.79 vs. 61.73 min), OR time (64.18 vs. 76.16 min), and OR cost (€166.60 vs. €199.58) were found in the MR group (P < 0.05). The mean cost-per-patient was significantly higher in the MR technique when the expenses of the single-use probe and the overnight stay were, respectively, added (€408.60 vs. €374.58, P = 0.007). The present study confirmed increased costs for interstitial thermotherapy for tonsil reduction compared to conventional tonsillectomy. Operation time and early discharge savings were eclipsed by the cost of the disposable probes.

Low-cost thermotherapy for cutaneous leishmaniasis in Sindh, Pakistan.

OBJECTIVE: To study the efficacy of a low-cost heating pack device used for thermotherapy in the treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis. METHODS: The study was conducted at the Department of Dermatology, Civil Hospital Sukkur, Pakistan, from April 20, 2012, to January 3, 2013. Thermotherapy with Hand-Held Exothermic Crystallisation Therapy for cutaneous leishmaniasis was performed on each lesion of the participating subjects at an average initial temperature of 51.6°C for 3 minutes daily for 7 days. Patients were followed regularly for 6 months after the therapy. SPSS 20 was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Even though all 27 patients completed 1 week of thermotherapy, only 23(85.2%) patients could be evaluated for full treatment response since 4(14.8%) were lost to complete follow-up. By the final 180-day evaluation, 19 (83%) patients had been cured. Applications were well tolerated with no side effects. CONCLUSION: The devise was a convenient, safe, non-toxic and effective treatment for cutaneous leishmaniasis at a fraction of the cost of standard antimonial treatment. Further studies are needed to certify its safety and efficacy as monotherapy for the condition.

Hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy and cytoreductive surgery for people with peritoneal metastases: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Background: We compared the relative benefits, harms and cost-effectiveness of hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery ± systemic chemotherapy versus cytoreductive surgery ± systemic chemotherapy or systemic chemotherapy alone in people with peritoneal metastases from colorectal, gastric or ovarian cancers by a systematic review, meta-analysis and model-based cost-utility analysis. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and the Science Citation Index, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP trial registers until 14 April 2022. We included only randomised controlled trials addressing the research objectives. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool version 2 to assess the risk of bias in randomised controlled trials. We used the random-effects model for data synthesis when applicable. For the cost-effectiveness analysis, we performed a model-based cost-utility analysis using methods recommended by The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Results: The systematic review included a total of eight randomised controlled trials (seven randomised controlled trials, 955 participants included in the quantitative analysis). All comparisons other than those for stage III or greater epithelial ovarian cancer contained only one trial, indicating the paucity of randomised controlled trials that provided data. For colorectal cancer, hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy probably results in little to no difference in all-cause mortality (60.6% vs. 60.6%; hazard ratio 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 1.58) and may increase the serious adverse event proportions compared to cytoreductive surgery ± systemic chemotherapy (25.6% vs. 15.2%; risk ratio 1.69, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 2.77). Hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy probably decreases all-cause mortality compared to fluorouracil-based systemic chemotherapy alone (40.8% vs. 60.8%; hazard ratio 0.55, 95% confidence interval 0.32 to 0.95). For gastric cancer, there is high uncertainty about the effects of hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy versus cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy or systemic chemotherapy alone on all-cause mortality. For stage III or greater epithelial ovarian cancer undergoing interval cytoreductive surgery, hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy probably decreases all-cause mortality compared to cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy (46.3% vs. 57.4%; hazard ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.93). Hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy may not be cost-effective versus cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy for colorectal cancer but may be cost-effective for the remaining comparisons. Limitations: We were unable to obtain individual participant data as planned. The limited number of randomised controlled trials for each comparison and the paucity of data on health-related quality of life mean that the recommendations may change as new evidence (from trials with a low risk of bias) emerges. Conclusions: In people with peritoneal metastases from colorectal cancer with limited peritoneal metastases and who are likely to withstand major surgery, hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy should not be used in routine clinical practice (strong recommendation). There is considerable uncertainty as to whether hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy or cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy should be offered to patients with gastric cancer and peritoneal metastases (no recommendation). Hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy should be offered routinely to women with stage III or greater epithelial ovarian cancer and metastases confined to the abdomen requiring and likely to withstand interval cytoreductive surgery after chemotherapy (strong recommendation). Future work: More randomised controlled trials are necessary. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019130504. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/135/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 51. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Cancers of the bowel, ovary or stomach can spread to the lining of the abdomen ('peritoneal metastases'). Chemotherapy (the use of drugs that aim to kill cancer cells) given by injection or tablets ('systemic chemotherapy') is one of the main treatment options. There is uncertainty about whether adding cytoreductive surgery (cytoreductive surgery; an operation to remove the cancer) and 'hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy' (warm chemotherapy delivered into the lining of the abdomen during cytoreductive surgery) are beneficial. We reviewed all the information from medical literature published until 14 April 2022, to answer the above uncertainty. We found the following from eight trials, including about 1000 participants. In people with peritoneal metastases from bowel cancer, hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy probably does not provide any benefits and increases harm compared to cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy, while cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy appears to increase survival compared to systemic chemotherapy alone. There is uncertainty about the best treatment for people with peritoneal metastases from stomach cancer. In women with peritoneal metastases from ovarian cancer who require systemic chemotherapy before cytoreductive surgery to shrink the cancer to allow surgery ('advanced ovarian cancer'), hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy probably increases survival compared to cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy. In people who can withstand a major operation and in whom cancer can be removed, cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy should be offered to people with peritoneal metastases from bowel cancer, while hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy should be offered to women with peritoneal metastases from 'advanced ovarian cancer'. Uncertainty in treatment continues for gastric cancer. This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/135/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 51. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Costs and clinical outcome of neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy followed by cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in peritoneal carcinomatosis from gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: The costs for loco-regional treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis from gastric cancer are not well investigated. The aims of this study were to evaluate the costs and clinical outcome of systemic chemotherapy followed by cytoreductive surgery and intraperitoneal chemotherapy compared to systemic chemotherapy only in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis from gastric cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ten patients were scheduled for systemic chemotherapy followed by loco-regional treatment. A reference group of 10 matched control patients treated with systemic chemotherapy only were used and both groups were evaluated with respect to clinical outcome and cost. RESULTS: The mean overall cost in the loco-regional group was $145,700 (range $49,900-$487,800) and $59,300 (range $23,000-$94,800) for the control group. The mean overall survival for the loco-regional group was 17.4 months (range 6.0-34.3), and 11.1 months (range 0.1-24.2) for the systemic chemotherapy only group. The gain in life-years was 0.52 and in quality-adjusted life-years 0.49, leading to incremental cost per life-year and quality-adjusted life-years gained of $166,716 and $175,164, for loco-regional group compared to systemic chemotherapy. DISCUSSION: Treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis from gastric cancer is costly irrespective of treatment modality. If the survival benefit from adding loco-regional treatment to systemic chemotherapy indicated from this comparison is true, the incremental cost is considered high.

[Regional electro-hyperthermia--technical principles, clinical results and health insurance aspects]. / Die regionale Elektrohyperthermie--technische Grundlagen, klinische Resultate und versicherungsmedizinische Aspekte.

The method of electro-hyperthermia is based on the production of alternating currents from capacitive coupled electrodes. Because of the associated heating of body tissues, the electro-hyperthermia is promoted as an alternative to the more sophisticated methods of scientific hyperthermia, which find use in oncologic diseases. The analysis of technical data, however, reveals that the electro-hyperthermia is not qualified for a focused, effective and therapeutically useful heating of circumscribed target areas. Data from clinical studies demonstrating efficacy for defined indications are not available. The application of electro-hyperthermia is excluded form the German system of public health insurance. As proof of medical necessity cannot be provided, there is also no claim for reimbursement from private health insurance. According to legal regulations in Germany, an invoice as hyperthermia treatment is usually not possible. Rather, an item from the electrotherapy section of the official provision of medical fees (GOA) has to be chosen.

Costs Associated with Laser Interstitial Thermal Therapy Are Lower Than Anterior Temporal Lobectomy for Treatment of Temporal Lobe Epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: Laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) is a minimally invasive alternative to anterior temporal lobectomy (ATL) for treatment of temporal lobe epilepsy. It has gained popularity as familiarity with technique increases and outcomes are better characterized. There has been no direct cost comparison between the 2 techniques in literature to date. The current study directly compares hospital costs associated with LITT with those of ATL patients and analyzes the factors potentially responsible for those costs. METHODS: Patients who underwent ATL (27) and LITT (15) were retrospectively reviewed for total hospital costs along with demographic, surgical, and postoperative factors potentially affecting cost. T-tests were used to compare costs and independent linear regressions, and hierarchical regressions were used to examine predictors of cost for each procedure. RESULTS: Mean hospital costs of admission for single-trajectory LITT ($104,929.88) were significantly less than for ATL ($134,980.04) (P = 0.001). In addition, length of stay, anesthesia costs, operative room costs, and postoperative hospitalization costs were all significantly lower in LITT. CONCLUSIONS: Given the minimally invasive nature of LITT, it is associated with shorter length of stay and lower hospital costs than ATL in the first head-to-head comparison of procedural costs in literature to date. Long-term efficacy as it relates to these costs associated with LITT and ATL should be further investigated to better characterize the utility of LITT in temporal lobe epilepsy patients.

Evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (peritonectomy) at the St George Hospital peritoneal surface malignancy program.

BACKGROUND: Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) are treatment approaches for peritoneal carcinomatosis that has demonstrated improved survival outcomes with acceptable complication rates. This report aims to measure and describe the survival outcomes and health care cost associated with CRS and HIPEC for peritoneal surface malignancies at a centralized tertiary institution in Australia. METHODS: The expenditure of treatment for 136 consecutive patients who underwent 159 CRS and HIPEC from June 2002 to June 2008 were obtained. Together with their survival outcomes from treatment, a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed. RESULTS: The average cost of CRS and HIPEC per patient and per life year for appendix cancer is AUD $88,423 (range, AUD $23,933-AUD $299,145) and AUD $37,737/LY; for colorectal cancer is AUD $66,148 (range, AUD $26,079-AUD $409,666) and AUD $29,757/LY; for pseudomyxoma peritonei is AUD $92,308 (range, AUD $11,562-AUD $501,144) and AUD $29,559/LY; for peritoneal mesothelioma is AUD $55,062 (range, AUD $23,261-AUD $94,104) and AUD $20,521/LY; and for other peritoneal surface malignancies is AUD $44,668 (range, AUD $31,592-AUD $70,026) and AUD $22,091/LY. CONCLUSIONS: This complex surgical treatment results in significant increases in medical costs with a parallel increase in survival for a disease that has been poorly treated, and hence may be considered as cost-effective given the observed life years gained.

Cost analysis of cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy and the risk factors for their increased cost in a public insurance health care system - Single centre study.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to evaluate the costs of CRS and HIPEC and treatment of the related postoperative complications in the public healthcare system. We also aimed to identify the risk factors that increase the cost of CRS and HIPEC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 80 patients who underwent CRS and HIPEC between February 2016 and November 2018 in the Department of Surgery, University Hospital of Olomouc, Czech Republic. Intraoperative factors and postoperative complications were assessed. The treatment cost included the surgery, hospital stay, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, pharmaceutical charges including medication, hospital supplies, pathology, imaging, and allied healthcare services. RESULTS: The postoperative morbidity rate was 50%, and the mortality rate was 2.5%. The mean length of hospitalisation and ICU admission was 15.44 ± 8.43 and 6.15 ± 4.12 for all 80 patients and 10.73 ± 2.93 and 3.73 ± 1.32, respectively, for 40 patients without complications, and 20.15 ± 13.93 and 8.58 ± 6.92, respectively, for 40 patients with complications. The total treatment cost reached €606,358, but the total reimbursement was €262,931; thus, the CRS and HIPEC profit margin was €-343,427. Multivariate analysis showed that blood loss ≥1.000 ml (p = 0.03) and grade I-V Clavien-Dindo complications (p < 0.001) were independently associated with increased costs. CONCLUSION: The Czech public health insurance system does not fully compensate for the costs of CRS and HIPEC. Hospital losses remain the main limiting factor for further improving these procedures. Furthermore, treatment costs increase with increasing severity of postoperative complications.