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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Forecasting surgical costs: Towards informed financial consent and financial risk reduction.

BACKGROUND: Health care expenditure is increasing around the world and surgery is a major cause of financial hardship to patients and their families. Using pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), one of the most complex, morbid and costly operation as an example, this study aimed to identify the cost drivers of surgery, estimate relative contribution of these drivers, and derive and validate a cohort-specific cost forecasting tool. METHODS: Data on the costs of 1406 patients undergoing PD in three tertiary hospitals in India, Italy and the United States were analysed. Cost drivers were identified and cost models developed using a 4-stage process. RESULTS: There was a significant difference in overall cost of PD between the 3 cohorts. The cost drivers common to the 3 cohorts included duration of hospital stay and the outcome of death (Clavien-Dindo 5). Significant cohort-specific cost drivers included co-morbidities, operating theatre utilisation times and operative blood loss, development of pancreatectomy-specific complications (POPF, DGE, PPH), and need for interventional radiology to manage complications. Based on this, a cost forecasting tool was developed. CONCLUSIONS: Drivers of costs for a surgical procedure (e.g. PD) are different between hospitals. Developing cost models/nomograms to predict the expected cost of surgery and perioperative care will not be applicable between hospitals. However, the approach could be used to develop context-specific data that will provide patients (at the time of the informed financial consent) and funding agencies with a more realistic cost estimate for a given operation. The developed cost forecasting tool warrants future validation.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Clinical and Economic Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Guideline-Directed Management of Pancreatic Cysts.

INTRODUCTION: Numerous guidelines exist for the management of pancreatic cysts. We sought to compare the guideline-directed management strategies for pancreatic cysts by comparing 2 approaches (2017 International Consensus Guidelines and 2015 American Gastroenterological Association Guidelines) that differ significantly in their thresholds for imaging, surveillance, and surgery. METHODS: We developed a Monte Carlo model to evaluate the outcomes for a cohort of 10,000 patients managed per each guideline. The primary outcome was mortality related to pancreatic cyst management. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, missed cancers, number of surgeries, number of imaging studies, cumulative cost, and quality-adjusted life years. RESULTS: Deaths because of pancreatic cyst management and quality-adjusted life years were similar in both guidelines at a significantly higher cost of $3.6 million per additional cancer detected in the Consensus Guidelines. Deaths from "unrelated" causes (1,422) vastly outnumbered deaths related to pancreatic cysts (125). Secondary outcomes included more missed cancers in the American Gastroenterological Association guideline (71 vs 49), more surgeries and imaging studies in the Consensus guideline (711 vs 163; 116,997 vs 68,912), and higher cost in the Consensus guideline ($168.3 million vs $89.4 million). As the rate of malignant transformation increases, a more-intensive guideline resulted in fewer deaths related to pancreatic cyst management. DISCUSSION: Our study demonstrates trade-offs between more- and less-intensive management strategies for pancreatic cysts. Although deaths related to pancreatic cyst management were similar in each strategy, fewer missed cancers in the more-intensive surveillance strategy is offset by a greater number of surgical deaths and higher cost. In conclusion, our study identifies that if the rate malignant transformation of pancreatic cysts is low (0.12% annually), a less-intensive guideline will result in similar deaths to a more-intensive guideline at a much lower cost.

Global, regional and national burden of pancreatic cancer, 1990 to 2017: Results from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017.

BACKGROUND: The global burden of pancreatic cancer (PCa) continues to grow. Detailed data on PCa epidemiology are essential for policy-making and appropriate healthcare resource allocation. METHODS: Estimates of incidence, death and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) of PCa from 1990 to 2017 were collected from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Decomposition analysis was conducted to detect the contributing factors related to PCa incidence variation. The estimated annual percentage change (EAPC) was calculated to quantify the PCa epidemiology trends over a specified interval. RESULTS: Globally, the incidence of PCa cases increased by 129.1% to 447 664 664 (95% uncertainty interval (UI) 438 597-456 295), death increased by 125.2% to 441 082 082 (95% UI 448 960-432 833), and DALYs increased by 107.3% to 9 080 004 (95% UI 8 894 128-9 256 346) between 1990 and 2017. Relatively higher sociodemographic index (SDI) regions were observed with greater incidences, more deaths and a greater number of DALYs of PCa, but relatively lower SDI regions experienced a sharply increasing trend in these measures. Decomposition analysis indicated that the global increase in PCa incidence was driven by the aging population from 2007 to 2017, especially in higher SDI regions. In addition, a significant negative correlation was found between EAPC and ASIR (in 1990) (r = -0.56, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: PCa remains a major public health burden globally. The unfavorable trend in PCa suggesting that further study for prevention should be conducted to forestall the increase in pancreatic cancer.

The economic burden of metastatic pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Objectives: Pancreatic cancer (PC) is a costly disease with a limited life-expectancy as it generally presents as an advanced, metastatic disease. Though current literature suggests cost varies by first line treatment, there is limited real-world knowledge about the economic burden of pancreatic cancer. This study describes the economic burden of pancreatic cancer patients overall and by observed first line treatments. METHODS: The IBM MarketScan databases were used to identify adult metastatic PC patients from January 1, 2010 through 3/31/2017. Those without other primary cancers, pregnancy, or prior PC treatment, and with 6 months of continuous enrollment prior to PC were included. Treatment patterns and healthcare utilization and expenditures were measured during the variable-length follow-up period. Continuous measures were presented as per patient per month (PPPM). RESULTS: A total of 6,360 patients met all inclusion criteria. Almost half (46.8%) of patients were untreated. Gemcitabine alone (15.6%) and FOLFIRINOX (11.4%) were the most commonly observed first line regimens. Treated patients incurred $17,513 PPPM (Gemcitabine alone) to $27,889 PPPM (FOLFIRINOX) during follow-up. Untreated patients incurred the highest unadjusted ($30,777 PPPM) and adjusted ($20,392 PPPM) cost. CONCLUSIONS: Metastatic PC patients incur a high economic burden driven by high utilization of healthcare resources, which varies by first line treatment. Also, the high proportion of untreated patients is alarming as these patients may be the most expensive of all patients. There is an unmet need in these patients for effective treatments that also reduce their economic burden.

Economic Analysis of Adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy Compared with Chemotherapy in Resected Pancreas Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Population-based survival and costs of pancreas adenocarcinoma patients receiving adjuvant chemoradiation and chemotherapy following pancreaticoduodenectomy are poorly understood. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used linked administrative and pathological datasets to identify all patients diagnosed with pancreas adenocarcinoma and undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy in Ontario between April 2004 and March 2014, who received postoperative chemoradiation or chemotherapy. Stage and margin status were defined by using pathology reports. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression survival analyses were used to determine associations between adjuvant treatment approach and survival, while stratifying by margin status. Median overall health system costs were calculated at 1 and 3 years for chemoradiation and chemotherapy, and differences were tested using the Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: Among 709 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreas cancer during the study period, the median survival was 21 months. Median survival was 19 months for chemoradiation and 22 months for chemotherapy. Patients receiving chemoradiation were more likely to have positive margins: 47.7% compared with 19.2% in chemotherapy. After stratifying by margin status and controlling for confounders, adjusted hazard ratio of death were not statistically different between chemotherapy and chemoradiation [margin positive, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.88-1.27; margin negative, HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91-1.18]. Overall 1-year health system costs were significantly higher for chemoradiation (USD $70,047) than chemotherapy (USD $54,005) (p ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Chemotherapy and chemoradiation yielded similar survival, but chemoradiation resulted in higher costs. To create more sustainable healthcare systems, both the efficacy and costs of therapies should be considered.

Cost-of-illness of metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours in Sweden-A population-based register-linkage study.

The objective was to estimate the cost-of-illness of grades 1 and 2 metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (GEP-NETs) in Sweden in 2013 in a population-based study including all patients diagnosed between 2005 and 2013. Data were obtained from national registers, and patients who utilised healthcare resources due to metastatic GEP-NETs in 2013 were included. The study included 478 patients (mean age 64 [SD=11] years, 51% men). The majority (80%) had small intestinal NET, 10% had pancreatic NET, and 41% had carcinoid syndrome. The total cost-of-illness was €12,189,000 in 2013, of which direct costs constituted 77% and costs from production loss constituted 22%. The largest contributor to the direct medical costs was prescription drugs (54%; primarily somatostatin analogues [91% of the total drug cost]). Production loss due to sickness absence constituted 52% of the total costs of production loss. The total annual cost per patient was €25,500. By patient group, the cost was €24,800 (95% CI €21,600-€28,100) for patients with small intestinal NET, €37,300 (95% CI €23,300-€51,300) for those with pancreatic NET and €18,600 (95% CI €12,600-€24,500) for patients with other GEP-NETs. To conclude, the total annual cost of grades 1 and 2 metastatic GEP-NETs in Sweden was €25,500 per patient and year.

[Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a retrospective single-center study].

Objective: To compare the short-term clinical outcomes and cost differences of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP). Methods: The retrospective descriptive study was adopted.The clinical data of 158 patients underwent minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy who were admitted to Fujian Medical University Union Hospital between January 2016 and July 2018 were collected.A 1∶1 matched propensity score (PSM) analysis was performed for the RDP group and the LDP group.Observed indexes included operative time, blood loss, spleen-preserving rate, postoperative hospital stay, morbidity, incidence of pancreatic fistula and hospital costs. T test or rank sum test was used to compare measurement data, χ(2) test or Fisher exact test was used to compare count data. Results: A well-balanced cohort of 41 patients was analyzed.There were 14 males and 27 females in the RDP group, aged (45.2±16.4)years. There were 15 males and 26 females in the LDP group, aged (47.4±14.9) years.The operation time was (209.7±52.9) minutes for the RDP group and (186.5±56.7) minutes for the LDP group (P=0.073). Median blood loss was less in RDP (50(15-175)ml) compared with LDP (100(50-350)ml) (Z=-2.689, P=0.007). Thirty-eight cases of non-malignant diseases were observed in each group and spleen-preserving rate was higher in RDP (76.3%) compared to LDP(44.7%) (χ(2)=7.930, P=0.005).Postoperative hospital stay was similar in the RDP group and the LDP group (RDP: 9.4 days vs. LDP: 10.6 days; P=0.372). The overall morbidity and incidence of pancreatic fistula major complication rates (RDP: 12.2% vs. LDP: 14.6%, P=0.746; RDP: 7.3% vs. LDP: 9.8%, P=1.000) were similar.Total cost of RDP group was higher than that of LDP group ((80 563.7±10 641.8) yuan vs. (57 792.8±8 943.0) yuan, t=4.515, P<0.01). Conclusions: Both RDP and LDP are safe and feasible procedures. RDP is more expensive, but RDP is associated with significantly less blood loss and higher spleen-preserving rate, which is more suitable for the non-malignant diseases of pancreatic body and tail with an expectation of splenic preservation.

Drivers of Cost for Pancreatic Surgery: It's Not About Hospital Volume.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes for pancreatic resection have been studied extensively due to the high morbidity and mortality rates, with high-volume centers achieving superior outcomes. Ongoing investigations include healthcare costs, given the national focus on reducing expenditures. Therefore, we sought to evaluate the relationships between pancreatic surgery costs with perioperative outcomes and volume status. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 27,653 patients who underwent elective pancreatic resections from October 2013 to June 2017 using the Vizient database. Costs were calculated from charges using cost-charge ratios and adjusted for geographic variation. Generalized linear modeling adjusting for demographic, clinical, and operation characteristics was performed to assess the relationships between cost and length of stay, complications, in-hospital mortality, readmissions, and hospital volume. High-volume centers were defined as hospitals performing ≥ 19 operations annually. RESULTS: The unadjusted mean cost for pancreatic resection and corresponding hospitalization was $20,352. There were no differences in mean costs for pancreatectomies performed at high- and low-volume centers [- $1175, 95% confidence interval (CI) - $3254 to $904, p = 0.27]. In subgroup analysis comparing adjusted mean costs at high- and low-volume centers, there was no difference among patients without an adverse outcome (- $99, 95% CI - $1612 to 1414, p = 0.90), one or more adverse outcomes (- $1586, 95% CI - $4771 to 1599, p = 0.33), or one or more complications (- $2835, 95% CI - $7588 to 1919, p = 0.24). CONCLUSIONS: While high-volume hospitals have fewer adverse outcomes, there is no relationship between surgical volume and costs, which suggests that, in itself, surgical volume is not an indicator of improved healthcare efficiency reflected by lower costs. Patient referral to high-volume centers may not reduce overall healthcare expenditures for pancreatic operations.

Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas - a cost-effectiveness analysis of management strategies for the branch-duct subtype.

BACKGROUND: Branch-duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (BD-IPMN) presents a clinical conundrum. Rigorous long-term surveillance or surgical resection is recommended. The economic consequences of the management have not been fully investigated. METHODS: A Markov decision model compared 4 strategies for low-risk BD-IPMN: I = upfront total pancreatectomy, II = upfront partial pancreatectomy, III = initial surveillance, IV = watchful waiting. Surveillance was based on the Swedish Guidelines for Pancreatic Cancer. Probabilities and costs were obtained from the participating unit and from the scientific literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated and sensitivity analyses were performed by varying relevant parameters. Survival was reported in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: Strategy III was the most cost-effective strategy with an ICER of €31 682 compared to strategy IV. Strategy I was the most expensive but yielded the best QALY (9.32). Total number of years, annual risk of pancreatic cancer and annual risk of a low-risk BD-IPMN turning into a high-risk lesion had the greatest impact in the model. CONCLUSIONS: Initial surveillance seems to be the most cost-effective strategy in the management of low-risk asymptomatic BD-IPMN. However, the possibility of personalized approaches remains to be investigated.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Systemic Therapies in Advanced Pancreatic Cancer in the Canadian Health Care System.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of gemcitabine (G), G + 5-fluorouracil, G + capecitabine, G + cisplatin, G + oxaliplatin, G + erlotinib, G + nab-paclitaxel (GnP), and FOLFIRINOX in the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer from a Canadian public health payer's perspective, using data from a recently published Bayesian network meta-analysis. METHODS: Analysis was conducted through a three-state Markov model and used data on the progression of disease with treatment from the gemcitabine arms of randomized controlled trials combined with estimates from the network meta-analysis for the newer regimens. Estimates of health care costs were obtained from local providers, and utilities were derived from the literature. The model estimates the effect of treatment regimens on costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) discounted at 5% per annum. RESULTS: At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of greater than $30,666 per QALY, FOLFIRINOX would be the most optimal regimen. For a WTP threshold of $50,000 per QALY, the probability that FOLFIRINOX would be optimal was 57.8%. There was no price reduction for nab-paclitaxel when GnP was optimal. CONCLUSIONS: From a Canadian public health payer's perspective at the present time and drug prices, FOLFIRINOX is the optimal regimen on the basis of the cost-effectiveness criterion. GnP is not cost-effective regardless of the WTP threshold.

Comparison of different feeding regimes after pancreatoduodenectomy - a retrospective cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) is the most frequent pancreatic specific complication (PSC) after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). Several gastric decompression systems exist to manage DGE. Patients with a pancreatic tumor require prolonged nutrition; however, controversies exist concerning nutrition protocol after PD. The aim of the study was to assess the safety and efficacy of nasogastric (NG), gastrostomy (GT), and gastrojejunostomy (GJ) tubes with different feeding systems on postoperative courses. METHODS: Between January 2013 and March 2016, 86 patients underwent PD with pancreaticogastrostomy. Patients were divided into three groups: GJ group with enteral nutrition (EN, n = 12, 14%), NG (n = 31, 36%) and GT groups (n = 43, 50%), both with total parenteral nutrition (TPN). RESULTS: Patients in the GJ (n = 9, 75%) and GT (n = 18, 42%) groups had an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score of 3 more often than those in the NG group (n = 5, 16%, p ≤ 0.01). Multivariate analysis identified the GT tube with TPN as an independent risk factor of severe morbidity (p = 0.02) and DGE (p < 0.01). An ASA score of 3, jaundice, common pancreatic duct size ≤3 mm and soft pancreatic gland texture (p < 0.05) were found as independent risk factors of PSCs. Use of a GJ tube with EN, GT tube with TPN, jaundice, and PSCs were identified as independent risk factors for greater postoperative length of hospital stay (p < 0.01). Mean global hospitalization cost did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: GT tube insertion with TPN was associated with increased severe postoperative morbidity and DGE and should not be recommended. EN through a GJ tube after PD is feasible but does not have clear advantages on postoperative courses compared to an NG tube.