Cost-analysis of cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in patients with peritoneal malignancy: An Australian perspective with global application.

BACKGROUND: Cost-effective cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for treatment of patients with peritoneal malignancy remains an ongoing financial challenge for healthcare systems, hospitals and patients. This study aims to describe the detailed in-hospital costs of CRS and HIPEC compared with an Australian Activity Based Funding (ABF) system, and to evaluate how the learning curve, disease entities and surgical outcomes influence in-hospital costs. METHODS: A retrospective descriptive costing review of all CRS and HIPEC cases undertaken at a large public tertiary referral hospital in Sydney, Australia from April 2017 to June 2019. In-hospital cost variables included staff, critical care, diagnosis, operating theatre, and other costs. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to investigate the differences between actual cost and the provision of funding, and potential factors associated with these costs. RESULTS: Of the 118 CRS and HIPEC procedures included in the analyses, the median total cost was AU$130,804 (IQR: 105,744 to 153,972). Provision of funding via the ABF system was approximately one-third of the total CRS and HIPEC costs (p < 0.001). Surgical staff proficiency seems to reduce the total CRS and HIPEC costs. Surgical time, length of intensive care unit and hospital stay are the main predictors of total CRS and HIPEC costs. CONCLUSION: Delivery of CRS and HIPEC is expensive with high variability. A standard ABF system grossly underestimates the specific CRS and HIPEC funding required with supplementation essential to sustaining this complex highly specialised service.

A decision analysis comparing three strategies for peritoneal lavage cytology testing in staging of gastric cancer in China.

BACKGROUND: Positive peritoneal cytology (PCY) indicates metastasis (M1) in gastric cancer (GC) patients; both the American and Chinese guidelines recommend laparoscopic peritoneal lavage (LPL) for cytology. However, relatively high costs impair the widespread use of LPL in some resource-limited regions in China, and the cost-effectiveness of PCY testing remains unclear. Therefore, we performed a decision analysis to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PCY testing by comparing the guideline-recommended intraoperative LPL, a newly proposed preoperative percutaneous peritoneal lavage (PPL), and a third strategy of exploratory laparotomy with no cytology testing (ELNC) among GC patients. METHODS: We developed a decision-analytic Markov model of the aforementioned three strategies for a hypothetical cohort of GC patients with curative intent after initial imaging, from the perspective of Chinese society. We estimated costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) as primary outcomes; we also conducted one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to investigate the model's robustness. RESULTS: We found that ELNC was dominated (i.e., more expensive and less effective) by PPL and LPL. LPL was the most cost-effective method with an ICER of US$17,200/QALY compared to PPL, which was below the Chinese willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of US$29,313 per QALY gained. In sensitivity analyses, PPL was more likely to be cost-effective with a lower WTP threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Cytology testing through either LPL or PPL was less expensive and more effective than ELNC among GC patients. Moreover, LPL was the most cost-effective modality at the current WTP threshold, while PPL could potentially be cost-effective in lower-income areas.

Impact of extent of disease on 1-year healthcare costs in patients who undergo cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for colorectal peritoneal metastases: retrospective observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The goal of this retrospective observational study was to determine the impact of the extent of peritoneal disease on 1-year healthcare costs in patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases (PM) who undergo cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS + HIPEC). The extent of peritoneal disease, expressed by the Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI), directly affects the complexity of CRS + HIPEC and ultimately survival outcomes. The impact of the PCI on treatment-related healthcare costs remains unknown. METHODS: Data from patients with colorectal PM who underwent CRS + HIPEC between January 2012 and November 2017 were extracted retrospectively from an institutional database. Patients were divided into four subgroups with PCI scores ranging from 0 to 20. Treatment-related costs up to 1 year after CRS + HIPEC were obtained from the financial department. Differences in costs and survival outcomes were compared using the χ2 test and Kruskal-Wallis H test. RESULTS: Seventy-three patients were included (PCI 0-5, 22 patients; PCI 6-10, 19 patients; PCI 11-15, 17 patients; PCI 16-20, 15 patients). Median (i.q.r.) costs were significantly increased for the PCI 11-15 and PCI 16-20 groups (€51 029 (42 500-58 575) and €46 548 (35 194-60 533) respectively) compared with those for the PCI 0-5 and PCI 6-10 groups (€33 856 (25 293-42 235) and €39 013 (30 519-51 334) respectively) (P = 0·009). CONCLUSION: Treatment-related healthcare costs are significantly increased among patients with extensive tumour burden (PCI score 10 or above) who undergo CRS + HIPEC for the treatment of colorectal PM.

ANTECEDENTES: El objetivo de este estudio observacional retrospectivo fue determinar el impacto de la extensión de la enfermedad peritoneal sobre los costes de atención médica al año en pacientes con metástasis peritoneales (peritoneal metastases, PM) de origen colorrectal que se someten a cirugía citorreductora con quimioterapia intraperitoneal hipertérmica (cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy, CRS + HIPEC). La extensión de la enfermedad peritoneal, expresada por el índice de carcinomatosis peritoneal (peritoneal cancer index, PCI), afecta directamente a la complejidad de la CRS + HIPEC y, en última instancia, a los resultados de supervivencia. El impacto de la PCI en los costes de la atención médica relacionados con el tratamiento sigue siendo desconocido. MÉTODOS: Los datos de pacientes con PM de origen colorrectal que se sometieron a CRS + HIPEC entre enero de 2012 y noviembre de 2017 se extrajeron retrospectivamente de una base de datos institucional. Los pacientes se dividieron en cuatro subgrupos con PCI que variaron de 0 a 20. Los costes relacionados con el tratamiento hasta un año después de la CRS + HIPEC se obtuvieron del departamento financiero. Las diferencias en los costes y los resultados de supervivencia se compararon mediante los tests χ2 y de Kruskal-Wallis H. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 73 pacientes (PCI 0-5, 22 pacientes; PCI 6-10, 19 pacientes; PCI 11-15, 17 pacientes y PCI 16-20, 15 pacientes). Los costes medios aumentaron significativamente para los grupos PCI 11−15 y PCI 16−20 (51.029€ (rango intercuartílico, RIQ) 42.500€−58575€)) y 46.548€ (RIQ 35.194€-60.533€), respectivamente)) en comparación con los de los grupos PCI 0−5 y PCI 6-10 (33.856€ (RIQ 25.293€−42.23€) y 39.013€ (RIQ 30.519€-51.334€), respectivamente, P = 0,009). CONCLUSIÓN: Los costes de la atención médica relacionados con el tratamiento aumentan significativamente entre los pacientes con una carga tumoral extensa (es decir, PCI ≥ 10) que se someten a CRS + HIPEC para el tratamiento de PM de origen colorrectal.

The Chicago Consensus on Peritoneal Surface Malignancies: Standards.

The Chicago Consensus Working Group provides the following multidisciplinary recommendations for the care of patients with peritoneal surface malignancies. This article focuses on the standards of a peritoneal surface malignancy center, standards of billing and coding, standards of operative reports for cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy, standards of cytoreductive surgery training, and standards of intraoperative chemotherapy preparation. These guidelines are developed with input from leading experts including surgical oncologists, medical oncologists, pathologists, radiologists, palliative care physicians, and pharmacists. These guidelines recognize and address the emerging need for increased awareness in the appropriate management of peritoneal surface disease. They are not intended to replace the quest for higher levels of evidence.

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 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.

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.

CONFIRM: a double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III clinical trial investigating the effect of nivolumab in patients with relapsed mesothelioma: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Mesothelioma is an incurable, apoptosis-resistant cancer caused in most cases by previous exposure to asbestos and is increasing in incidence. It represents a growing health burden but remains under-researched, with limited treatment options. Early promising signals of activity relating to both PD-L1- and PD-1-targeted treatment in mesothelioma implicate a dependency of mesothelioma on this immune checkpoint. There is a need to evaluate checkpoint inhibitors in patients with relapsed mesothelioma where treatment options are limited. METHODS: The addition of 12 months of nivolumab (anti-PD1 antibody) to standard practice will be conducted in the UK using a randomised, placebo-controlled phase III trial (the Cancer Research UK CONFIRM trial). A total of 336 patients with pleural or peritoneal mesothelioma who have received at least two prior lines of therapy will be recruited from UK secondary care sites. Patients will be randomised 2:1 (nivolumab:placebo), stratified according to epithelioid/non-epithelioid, to receive either 240 mg nivolumab monotherapy or saline placebo as a 30-min intravenous infusion. Treatment will be for up to 12 months. We will determine whether the use of nivolumab increases overall survival (the primary efficacy endpoint). Secondary endpoints will include progression-free survival, objective response rate, toxicity, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Analysis will be performed according to the intention-to-treat principle using a Cox regression analysis for the primary endpoint (and for other time-to-event endpoints). DISCUSSION: The outcome of this trial will provide evidence of the potential benefit of the use of nivolumab in the treatment of relapsed mesothelioma. If found to be clinically effective, safe and cost-effective it is likely to become the new standard of care in the UK. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT Number: 2016-003111-35 (entered on 21 July 2016); ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03063450 . Registered on 24 February 2017.

Olaparib for Maintenance Treatment of BRCA 1 or 2 Mutated, Relapsed, Platinum-Sensitive Ovarian, Fallopian Tube and Peritoneal Cancer in People Whose Relapsed Disease has Responded to Platinum-Based Chemotherapy: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its Single Technology Appraisal process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of olaparib (AstraZeneca) to submit evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of olaparib for the maintenance treatment of BRCA1/2 mutated (BRCAm), platinum-sensitive relapsed (PSR) ovarian, fallopian tube and peritoneal cancer in people whose relapsed disease has responded to platinum-based chemotherapy. The Evidence Review Group (ERG) produced a critical review of the evidence contained within the company's submission (CS) to NICE. The clinical evidence related to one phase II, double-blind randomised controlled trial that recruited 265 patients with PSR serous ovarian cancer (OC) regardless of BRCAm status. Patients received olaparib 400 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) or matched placebo. In the whole population, the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) was met (hazard ratio [HR] 0.35; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.25-0.49, p < 0.01) for olaparib versus placebo. The BRCAm subgroup analysis (added after the study commenced but 1 month before the primary analysis was undertaken) reported an HR for PFS of 0.18 (95 % CI 0.10-0.31, p < 0.0001) for olaparib versus placebo, though interaction tests appeared inconclusive. Overall survival was not statistically significant in the whole group (HR 0.88; 95 % CI 0.64-1.21; p = 0.44) or the BRCAm subgroup (0.73; 95 % CI 0.45-1.17; p = 0.19), though treatment switching may have confounded results. The exclusion of data from sites allowing crossover resulted in an HR for overall survival (OS) of 0.52 (95 % CI 0.28-0.97, p = 0.039) in the BRCAm group. Health-related quality-of-life measures were not significantly different between groups. All post hoc exploratory outcomes (time to treatment discontinuation/death, time to first subsequent therapy/death, and time to second subsequent therapy/death) were statistically significantly better in the olaparib arm in the whole population and the BRCAm subgroup analyses. Adverse events were more frequent for olaparib but were largely minor or manageable. The company's semi-Markov model assessed the cost effectiveness of olaparib versus routine surveillance in patients with BRCAm PSR OC from a National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services (PSS) perspective over a lifetime horizon. The model suggests that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for olaparib versus routine surveillance is expected to be approximately £49,146 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The ERG did not consider the company's cost-effectiveness estimates to be credible. Additional ERG analyses suggested that the ICER is likely to be more than £92,214 per QALY gained. Additional analyses provided by the company in patients who received three or more lines of chemotherapy suggested a more favourable cost-effectiveness profile for olaparib. The NICE Appraisal Committee recommended olaparib for this subgroup provided the cost of olaparib for people who continue to receive treatment after 15 months will be met by the company.

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.

Peritonectomy and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: cost analysis and sustainability.

BACKGROUND: Malignancies of the peritoneum remain a challenge in any hospital that accepts to manage them, due not only to difficulties associated with the complexity of the procedures involved but also the costs, which - in Italy and other countries that use a diagnosis-related group (DRG) system - are not adequately reimbursed. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We analyzed data relative to 24 patients operated on between September 2010 and May 2013 with special regard to operating room expenditure, ICU stay, duration of hospitalization, and DRG reimbursement. The total costs per patient included clinical, operating room, procedure, pathology, imaging, ward care, allied healthcare, pharmaceutical, and ICU costs. RESULTS: Postoperative hospital stay, drugs and materials, and operating room occupancy were the main factors affecting the expenditure for cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. We had a median hospitalization of 14 days, median ICU stay of 2.4 days, and median operating room occupancy of 585 min. The median expenditure for each case was € 21,744; the median reimbursement by the national health system € 8,375. CONCLUSIONS: In a DRG reimbursement system, the economic effort in the management of patients undergoing peritonectomy procedures may not be counterbalanced by adequate reimbursement. Joint efforts between medical and administration parties are mandatory to develop appropriate treatment protocols and keep down the costs.

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 of cytoreductive surgery and perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy in the treatment of peritoneal malignancy in one Greek institute.

PURPOSE: Cytoreductive surgery and perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy in the treatment of patients with peritoneal malignancy is expensive. The purpose of this study was to estimate the current cost of cytoreductive surgery combined with perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy and identify the most significant related parameters in one center in Greece. METHODS: A retrospective economic study was carried out on 105 patients that underwent 108 cytoreductive operations and hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) from 2006-2011 for peritoneal malignancy. The economic cost included the daily cost of hospital bed occupancy, the daily cost of occupancy in the intensive care unit (ICU), the expenditures (materials and drugs), and the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative examinations. RESULTS: The mean length of stay in the ICU and the mean hospitalization time was 5 and 23 days, respectively. The hospital mortality and morbidity was 5.6% (6 patients) and 48.17percnt; respectively. The mean cost of treatment was 15677.3±11910.6 euros (range=4258,47-95990,87) per patient. Morbidity (p=0.009), and prolonged stay in the ICU (p<0.001) were the parameters that influenced independently the cost of treatment. CONCLUSION: Cytoreductive surgery combined with perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy is an expensive treatment. The economic cost is largely influenced by morbidity and the length of stay in the ICU.

[Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in the German DRG system. Analysis of case cost calculations of a maximum care university]. / Hypertherme intraperitoneale Chemotherapie im G-DRG-System. Analyse der Fallkostenkalkulationen eines universitären Maximalversorgers.

BACKGROUND: Cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) offers patients with peritoneal cancer of various origins the chance of a relevant increase in life expectancy. These cases are very complex from a medical viewpoint and very expensive from an economical aspect. An analysis of case cost calculations was performed to find out whether this procedure can on average be carried out cost-effectively by a maximum care university. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All cases from 2008 in which HIPEC was carried out were analyzed. The types of main diagnosis, secondary diagnoses, procedures, times from incision to suture and hospital stay were analyzed. On the basis of the case costs the proceeds and marginal returns were calculated from the diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) and additional remuneration when applicable. The causes of positive and negative marginal returns were explained using the InEK cost matrix. RESULTS: In 18 patients there were 9 different main diagnoses and 7 different "main procedures" (from a surgical perspective the most resource intensive procedures) and a total of 10 different DRGs were identified in the grouping algorithm. With an average of 2 operations (range 1-7) per patient the summed incision-to-suture time was 423 min (170-962 min). The patients stayed on average 6.4 days (1.3-17.6 days) in intensive care. The average case cost was 21,072€ (range 8,657-55,904€) and the proceeds 20,474€ (6,333-37,497€). Each case had on average a debit balance of 598€ (range from 11,843€ profit balance to 18,407€ debit balance) with an assumed base rate of 2,786€. The causes for positive or negative marginal profits were mostly operating times, incision-to-suture times and duration of intensive care. CONCLUSIONS: The proceeds showed on average a deficit of only 3% compared to the costs. The operating times must be decreased by optimization particularly of the preoperative approach. Interventions should be carried out in one stage only and the intraoperative connecting and waiting times should be reduced in order to reduce the incision-to-suture times.

Cost analysis of the combined procedure of cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC).

AIM: The aim of the present study was to address the economic cost of the innovative comprehensive approach involving cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) to treat peritoneal surface malignancies, and to compare it with the financial support received by our centre. METHODS: A retrospective economic analysis was carried out on 382 consecutive procedures performed at a tertiary referral centre during the period 1995-2008. The costs of the combined therapy were estimated using the activity-based costing methodology. The financial support was assessed according to the current diagnosis-related group classification and reimbursement rates. RESULTS: The mean cost for one hospital stay was euro36,015.89 (range 28,435.24-82,189.08); mean length of stay was 24.3 days (range 9-108). In counterpart, our hospital received a total financial support of euro804,483.30, resulting in a deficit of euro1861,301.99 for the two years. CONCLUSION: The Italian current diagnosis-related groups classification does not include cytoreduction and HIPEC. This results in a relevant economic deficit for the hospitals offering this treatment option to their patients and a slow diffusion of the technique in our country. Two corrective measures are needed: to include this procedure in the official list of medical acts, and to determine its specific cost for reimbursing.

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.

Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in the management of peritoneal carcinomatosis. Preliminary results and cost from two centers in Greece.

PURPOSE: To report our preliminary experience in the combined treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) using cytoreductive surgery plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective study included patients with PC from gynaecological, gastric and colon cancer, treated in two centers. Cytoreductive surgery included the peritonectomy procedures described by Jacquet and Sugarbaker as well as multivisceral resections in order to achieve a complete macroscopical cancer eradication. The HIPEC that followed was performed via the open abdomen technique. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients (3 men and 21 women, mean age 60 years) were treated. Twelve patients had PC from ovarian cancer, 7 from colon, 3 from gastric and 2 from uterine cancer. The mean duration of the procedure was 7.83 h (range 5 -12.30). Macroscopically, complete cytoreduction (CC) was achieved in 18 (75%) patients. Two (8.3%) patients died in the first 30 days. The overall morbidity was 42% and 2 patients were reoperated. The mean follow up was 22 months (range 3-36). The overall 1-year survival was 59.1%; concerning the gynaecological cancers it was 53.8% (mean survival 11.7 months) and for gastrointestinal cancers it was 44.4% (mean survival 9.5 months). CONCLUSION: Our preliminary data suggest that the combined treatment of cytoreduction plus HIPEC for PC is associated with acceptable mortality and morbidity and offers an improved survival in these patients. An optimal patient selection and establishment of experienced centres are of paramount importance.

A clinical pathway for patients undergoing primary cytoreductive surgery with rectosigmoid colectomy for advanced ovarian and primary peritoneal cancers.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety, feasibility, and economic impact of a clinical pathway, including rapid diet advancement, for patients undergoing rectosigmoid colectomy as part of cytoreductive surgery for advanced ovarian and primary peritoneal cancers. METHODS: Between 8/1/98 and 6/30/06, 64 consecutive patients met study inclusion criteria. Using case-control methodology, post-operative management was dictated by a prescribed clinical pathway in 19 patients (Group A) and directed by individual surgeon preference in 45 patients (Group B). Critical elements of the clinical pathway included: rapid diet advancement, early discontinuance of nasogastric suction, criteria-based utilization of parenteral nutrition, selective laboratory testing, and deferring initiation of chemotherapy until after discharge. RESULTS: Stage IIIC/IV disease was present in 94% of all patients. The median time to flatus was 6 days for both groups (p=0.95); however, the median time to tolerance of diet was 3 days for Group A and 6 days for Group B (p=0.013). Compared to Group B, patients in Group A had a significantly shorter median length of hospital stay (7 days vs 10 days, p=0.014) and lower median 30-day post-operative hospital cost ($19,700 vs $25,110, p=0.028), with no significant difference in 30-day readmission rate (21% vs 33%, p=0.379). Clinical pathway-directed management was associated with a median reduction in hospital cost of $5410 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: A critical pathway incorporating rapid diet advancement for patients undergoing primary cytoreductive surgery with rectosigmoid colectomy for ovarian and primary peritoneal cancers is feasible, safe, and associated with a significant reduction in length of hospital stay and hospital-related costs.

Mesothelioma.

Mesothelioma is one of the most aggressive human malignancies. In this article the research team of Dr. Michele Carbone reviewed the most significant scientific and medical advances in understanding the pathogenesis of mesothelioma and some novel preventive and therapeutic approaches that are being developed. The public health and litigation issues, together with the economics surrounding mesothelioma research and therapy are also discussed.