Cost of open and laparoscopic distal gastrectomy: surgeon perceptions versus the reality of hospital spending.

BACKGROUND: Rising health care costs have led to increasing focus on cost containment and accountability from health care providers. We sought to explore surgeon awareness of supply costs for open and laparoscopic distal gastrectomy. METHODS: Surveys were sent in 2015 to surgeons at 8 academic hospitals in Toronto who performed distal gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma. Respondents were asked to estimate the total cost, type and number of disposable equipment pieces required to perform open and laparoscopic distal gastrectomy. We determined the accuracy of estimates through comparisons with procedural invoices for distal gastrectomy performed between Jan. 1, 2011, and Dec. 31, 2015. All values are in 2015 Canadian dollars. RESULTS: Of the 53 surveys sent out, 12 were completed (response rate 23%). Surgeon estimates of total supply costs ranged from $500 to $3000 and from $1500 to $5000 for open and laparoscopic cases, respectively. Estimated supply costs for requested equipment ranged from $464 to $2055 for open cases and from $1870 to $2960 for laparoscopic cases. Invoices for actual equipment yielded a mean of $821 (standard deviation $543) (range $89-$2613) for open cases and $2678 (standard deviation $958) (range $835-$4102) for laparoscopic cases. Estimates of total cost were within 25% of the median invoice total in 1 response (9%) for open cases and 3 (27%) of those for laparoscopic cases. CONCLUSION: Respondents failed to accurately estimate equipment costs. The variation in true total costs and estimates of supply costs represents an opportunity for intraoperative cost minimization, efficient equipment selection and value-based purchasing arrangements.

CONTEXTE: En raison de l'augmentation des coûts des soins de santé on attend des professionnels qu'ils mettent davantage l'accent sur les restrictions budgétaires et l'imputabilité. Nous avons voulu vérifier à quel point les chirurgiens sont conscients du coût des fournitures utilisés dans les cas de gastrectomie distale ouverte et laparoscopique. MÉTHODES: Des questionnaires ont été envoyés en 2015 aux chirurgiens de 8 hôpitaux universitaires de Toronto qui pratiquent la gastrectomie distale pour l'adénocarcinome de l'estomac. On demandait aux participants d'estimé le coût total, le type et le nombre de fournitures jetables requises pour une gastrectomie distale ouverte et laparoscopique. Nous avons déterminé l'exactitude des estimations en comparant les factures pour les interventions de gastrectomie distale effectuées entre le 1er janvier 2011 et le 31 décembre 2015. Toutes les valeurs sont présentées en dollars canadiens. RÉSULTATS: Parmi les 53 questionnaires envoyés, 12 sont revenus complétés (taux de réponse 23 %). Les estimations des chirurgiens pour le coût total des fournitures allaient de 500 $ à 3000 $ et de 1500 $ à 5000 $ pour les interventions ouvertes et laparoscopiques, respectivement. Le coût estimé des fournitures pour l'équipement nécessaire variait de 464 $ à 2055 $ pour les interventions ouvertes et de 1870 $ à 2960 $ pour les interventions laparoscopiques. Les factures soumises pour les équipements réellement utilisés ont été en moyenne de 821 $ (écart-type 543 $) (éventail 89 $-2613 $) pour les interventions ouvertes et de 2678 $ (écart-type 958 $) (éventail 835 $-4102 $) pour les interventions laparoscopiques. Les estimations des coûts totaux se situaient à plus ou moins 25 % du montant total médian des factures dans 1 réponse (9 %) pour les interventions ouvertes et dans 3 réponses (27 %) pour les interventions laparoscopiques. CONCLUSION: Les participants n'ont pas été en mesure d'estimer avec exactitude le coût des fournitures. Cet écart entre les coûts totaux réels et estimés représente une occasion de réduire les coûts peropératoires, de sélectionner les équipements de façon efficiente et de conclure des contrats d'achat en fonction de la valeur.

Pasireotide for the Prevention of Pancreatic Fistula Following Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of perioperative administration of pasireotide for reduction of pancreatic fistula (PF). SUMMARY: PF is a major complication following pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), associated with significant morbidity and healthcare-related costs. Pasireotide is a novel multireceptor ligand somatostatin analogue, which has been demonstrated to reduce the incidence of PF following pancreas resection; however, the drug cost is significant. This study sought to estimate the cost-effectiveness of routine administration of pasireotide to patients undergoing PD, compared with no intervention from the perspective of the hospital system. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed to compare costs for perioperative administration of pasireotide versus no pasireotide. The model was populated using an institutional database containing all PDs performed 2002 to 2012 at a single institution, including data regarding clinically significant PF (International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula Grade B or C) and hospital-related inpatient costs for 90 days following PD, converted to 2014 $USD. Relative risk of PF associated with pasireotide was estimated from the published literature. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test robustness of the model. RESULTS: Mean institutional cost of index admissions was $67,417 and $31,950 for patients with and without PF, respectively. Pasireotide was the dominant strategy, associated with savings of $1685, and a mean reduction of 1.5 days length of stay. Univariate sensitivity analyses demonstrated cost-savings down to a PF rate of 5.6%, up to a relative risk of PF of 0.775, and up to a drug cost of $2817. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed 79% of simulations were cost saving. CONCLUSIONS: Pasireotide appears to be a cost-saving treatment following PD across a wide variation of clinical and cost scenarios.

Beyond the dollar: Influence of sociodemographic marginalization on surgical resection, adjuvant therapy, and survival in patients with pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: The single-payer universal health care system in Ontario, Canada creates a setting with reduced socioeconomic barriers to treatment. Herein, the authors sought to elucidate the influence of sociodemographic marginalization on receipt of pancreatectomy, overall survival (OS), and receipt of adjuvant treatment among patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer at the population level using an observational cohort study design. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in Ontario between January 2005 and January 2010 were identified using the provincial cancer registry and linked to administrative databases. Census data obtained from each patient's postal code were used as a proxy for that patient's median income, residential instability, material deprivation, ethnic concentration, and dependency (percentage aged <15 years, aged >65 years, and unemployed). Surgical specimen pathology reports were abstracted for histopathology and margin status. Independent predictors of undergoing pancreatectomy, OS after surgical resection, and receipt of adjuvant treatment were identified by logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards analysis. RESULTS: Of the 6296 patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, 820 (13%) underwent resection of their tumor. Increasing levels of residential instability (odds ratio [OR], 0.86; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.80-0.94) and material deprivation (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.79-0.94) predicted a decreased likelihood of undergoing surgical resection. Patients living in rural areas (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.51-0.91) and those living in urban areas with lower incomes (OR range, 0.49-0.77) were found to have a lower likelihood of undergoing surgical resection compared with patients in the urban areas with the highest income. After surgical resection, an association between sociodemographic marginalization with OS or receipt of adjuvant treatment was not identified. CONCLUSIONS: Sociodemographic marginalization exerts its influence early in the pancreatic cancer care continuum, and appears to be associated more with which patients undergo surgical resection than the receipt of adjuvant treatment. Cancer 2016;122:3175-82. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

A U.S. Cost Analysis of Triplet Regimens for Patients with Previously Treated Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, the FDA has approved several 3-agent (i.e., triplet) combinations for previously treated multiple myeloma (MM), and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) now recommends triplet regimens over doublets. Little is known about the real-world cost of triplet combinations because of the limited time that they have been on the market since FDA approval. Furthermore, traditional cost analyses developed to support market entrance rely on utilization assumptions that are difficult to validate when numerous comparators simultaneously enter the market. OBJECTIVE: To perform a 1-year cost analysis of novel triplets used for the treatment of patients with previously treated MM controlling for differences in utilization. METHODS: FDA-approved, NCCN-recommended (preferred and category 1 for previously treated MM) treatments included in the analysis were daratumumab plus lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (DARA/LEN/DEX), daratumumab plus bortezomib plus dexamethasone (DARA/BOR/DEX), elotuzumab plus lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (ELO/LEN/DEX), carfilzomib plus lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (CAR/LEN/DEX), and ixazomib plus lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (IXA/LEN/DEX). To control for market uptake, the model was designed to estimate the cost of treating an average patient over a 1-year time horizon. Drug administration and dosing, required comedications, postprogression therapy, monitoring requirements, and adverse event (AE) rates were based on FDA prescribing information or clinical trials. AEs ≥ grade 3 that occurred in ≥ 5% of patients were included. RED BOOK wholesale acquisition costs were used for drug acquisition costs. Costs of drug administration, AE management, and patient monitoring were based on the 2018 Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services payment rates or from published literature (inflated to 2018 U.S. dollars). The treatment duration for each regimen was estimated from modeled progression-free survival data; the 12-month progression-free survival rate was assumed to be equivalent to the probability that an average patient remained on therapy for at least 1 year after treatment initiation, which was used to estimate time-depended treatment-related costs. The probability of progression within 1 year of treatment initiation was used to inform the average postprogression therapy costs for each regimen. RESULTS: The estimated cost per patient for each triplet regimen was $13,890 (DARA/BOR/DEX), $22,231 (IXA/LEN/DEX), $24,322 (ELO/LEN/DEX), $26,410 (DARA/LEN/DEX), and $27,432 (CAR/LEN/DEX). Drug acquisition costs and treatment duration were the largest drivers of cost. Scenario analyses with plausible alternative input parameters found the maximum per month cost of therapy to be $30,657 (CAR/LEN/DEX) and the minimum per month cost of therapy to be $13,784 (DARA/BOR/DEX). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis controlled for differential utilization rates for 5 FDA-approved, NCCN-recommended triplet therapies for the treatment of previously treated MM. Of the examined regimens, treatment with DARA/BOR/DEX was estimated to have the lowest average monthly cost per patient, while CAR/LEN/DEX was the most expensive. As is common with modeling, some assumptions were necessary, and results may not be generalizable. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Janssen Scientific Affairs, which employs Maiese and funded Cornerstone Research Group, a health economic consulting group, to complete the cost analysis, interpret data, and develop the manuscript. Janssen was involved in the design of the analysis, interpretation of results, and manuscript development and approval. Grima is a founding partner of Cornerstone Research Group, which employs Hollmann, Goyert, and Moldaver. Hollmann, Goyert, and Moldaver were responsible for creation of the economic model. This work was peer-reviewed and presented as an abstract at the Lymphoma and Myeloma 2017 International Congress; October 26-28, 2017; New York, NY.

Letter--The Authors Respond.

DISCLOSURES: No additional funding was received for the writing of this letter. The published study referred to in this letter was funded by Janssen Scientific Affairs, which employs Maiese and funded Cornerstone Research Group, a health economic consulting group, to conduct the study. Grima is a founding partner of Cornerstone Research Group, which employs Hollmann, Goyert, and Moldaver.

Population-Level Symptom Assessment Following Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Adenocarcinoma.

Importance: Postoperative morbidity associated with pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PA) remains as high as 70%. However, to our knowledge, few studies have examined quality of life in this patient population. Objective: To identify symptom burden and trajectories and factors associated with high symptom burden following PD for PA. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study of patients undergoing PD for PA diagnosed between 2009 and 2015 linked population-level administrative health care data to routinely prospectively collected Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) scores from 2009 to 2015, with a data analysis undertaken in 2018. Exposures: Baseline characteristics, including age, sex, income quintile, rurality, immigration status, and comorbidity burden, as well as treatment characteristics, including year of surgery and receipt of chemotherapy. Main Outcome and Measures: The outcome of interest was moderate to severe symptoms (defined as ESAS ≥4) for anxiety, depression, drowsiness, lack of appetite, nausea, pain, shortness of breath, tiredness, and impaired well-being. The monthly prevalence of moderate to severe symptoms was presented graphically for each symptom. Multivariable regression models identified factors associated with the reporting of moderate to severe symptoms. Results: We analyzed 6058 individual symptom assessments among 615 patients with PA who underwent resection (285 women [46.3%]) with ESAS data. Tiredness (443 [72%]), impaired well-being (418 [68%]), and lack of appetite (400 [65%]) were most commonly reported as moderate to severe. The proportion of patients with moderate to severe symptoms was highest immediately after surgery (range, 14%-66% per symptom) and decreased over time, stabilizing around 3 months (range, 8%-42% per symptom). Female sex, higher comorbidity, and lower income were associated with a higher risk of reporting moderate to severe symptoms. Receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy was not associated with the risk of moderate to severe symptoms. Conclusions and Relevance: There is a high prevalence of symptoms following PD for PA, with improvement over the first 3 months following surgery. In what to our knowledge is the largest cohort reporting on symptom burden for this population, we have identified factors associated with symptom severity. These findings will aid in managing patients' perioperative expectations and designing strategies to improve targeted symptom management.

The Impact of Increasing Hospital Volume on 90-Day Postoperative Outcomes Following Pancreaticoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND: Performance of pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) in high-volume centers has been posited to improve postoperative morbidity and mortality, consistent with the volume-outcomes hypothesis. We sought to evaluate the impact of hospital volume on 90-day PD outcomes at hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) centers within a regionalized system. METHODS: A retrospective population-based observational cohort study was performed, using administrative records of patients undergoing PD between 2005 and 2013 in Ontario, Canada. Postoperative administrative codes were used to define complications. Patients' 90-day postoperative outcomes were compared between center-volume categories using chi-square tests and multivariable regression. Volume cutoffs were defined using minimal regional standards (20PD/year), with assessment of the impact of further volume increases. RESULTS: Of 2660 patients, 2563 underwent PD at HPB centers. Of these, 38.9% underwent surgery at higher-volume centers (>40 PD/year), 36.9% at medium-volume centers (20-39 PD/year), and 24.1% at lower-volume centers (10-19 PD/year). Mortality (30- and 90-day) was lowest at higher-volume hospitals (1.5%, 2.7%, respectively) compared to medium-volume (3.9%, 6.3%) and lower-volume hospitals (2.9%, 5.2%) (p < 0.01). Patients treated at higher- and medium-volume centers had lower reoperation rates (10.3%, 10.7% vs. 16.7%, p = 0.0002) and less prolonged length of stay (23.2%, 22.0% vs. 31.6%, p < 0.0001) compared to lower-volume centers. CONCLUSION: Progressive increases in hospital volume correspond to improved 90-day outcomes following PD.