Changes in Health Care Costs, Survival, and Time Toxicity in the Era of Immunotherapy and Targeted Systemic Therapy for Melanoma.

Importance: Melanoma treatment has evolved during the past decade with the adoption of adjuvant and palliative immunotherapy and targeted therapies, with an unclear impact on health care costs and outcomes in routine practice. Objective: To examine changes in health care costs, overall survival (OS), and time toxicity associated with primary treatment of melanoma. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study assessed a longitudinal, propensity score (PS)-matched, retrospective cohort of residents of Ontario, Canada, aged 20 years or older with stages II to IV cutaneous melanoma identified from the Ontario Cancer Registry from January 1, 2018, to March 31, 2019. A historical comparison cohort was identified from a population-based sample of invasive melanoma cases diagnosed from the Ontario Cancer Registry from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2012. Data analysis was performed from October 17, 2022, to March 13, 2023. Exposures: Era of melanoma diagnosis (2007-2012 vs 2018-2019). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were mean per-capita health care and systemic therapy costs (Canadian dollars) during the first year after melanoma diagnosis, time toxicity (days with physical health care contact) within 1 year of initial treatment, and OS. Standardized differences were used to compare costs and time toxicity. Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to compare OS among PS-matched cohorts. Results: A PS-matched cohort of 731 patients (mean [SD] age, 67.9 [14.8] years; 437 [59.8%] male) with melanoma from 2018 to 2019 and 731 patients (mean [SD] age, 67.9 [14.4] years; 440 [60.2%] male) from 2007 to 2012 were evaluated. The 2018 to 2019 patients had greater mean (SD) health care (including systemic therapy) costs compared with the 2007 to 2012 patients ($47 886 [$55 176] vs $33 347 [$31 576]), specifically for stage III ($67 108 [$57 226] vs $46 511 [$30 622]) and stage IV disease ($117 450 [$79 272] vs $47 739 [$37 652]). Mean (SD) systemic therapy costs were greater among 2018 to 2019 patients: stage II ($40 823 [$40 621] vs $10 309 [$12 176]), III ($55 699 [$41 181] vs $9764 [$12 771]), and IV disease ($79 358 [$50 442] vs $9318 [$14 986]). Overall survival was greater for the 2018 to 2019 cohort compared with the 2007 to 2012 cohort (3-year OS: 74.2% [95% CI, 70.8%-77.2%] vs 65.8% [95% CI, 62.2%-69.1%], hazard ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.61-0.85]; P < .001). Time toxicity was similar between eras. Patients with stage IV disease spent more than 1 day per week (>52 days) with physical contact with the health care system by 2018 to 2019 (mean [SD], 58.7 [43.8] vs 44.2 [26.5] days; standardized difference, 0.40; P = .20). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found greater health care costs in the treatment of stages II to IV melanoma and substantial time toxicity for patients with stage IV disease, with improvements in OS associated with the adoption of immunotherapy and targeted therapies. These health system-wide data highlight the trade-off with adoption of new therapies, for which there is a greater economic burden to the health care system and time burden to patients but an associated improvement in survival.

Chemotherapy After Diagnosis of Malignant Bowel Obstruction is Associated with Superior Survival for Medicare Patients with Advanced Malignancy.

BACKGROUND: Although malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) often is a terminal event, systemic therapies are advocated for select patients to extend survival. This study aimed to evaluate factors associated with receipt of chemotherapy after MBO and to determine whether chemotherapy after MBO is associated with survival. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study investigated patients 65 years of age or older with metastatic gastrointestinal, gynecologic, or genitourinary cancers who were hospitalized with MBO from 2008 to 2012 using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. Fine and Gray models were used to identify factors associated with receipt of chemotherapy accounting for the competing risk of death. Cox models identified factors associated with overall survival. RESULTS: Of the 2983 MBO patients, 39% (n = 1169) were treated with chemotherapy after MBO. No differences in receipt of chemotherapy between the surgical and medical patients were found in the univariable analysis (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86-1.07; p = 0.47) or multivariable analysis (SHR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.00-1.26; p = 0.06). Older age, African American race, medical comorbidities, non-colorectal and non-ovarian cancer diagnoses, sepsis, ascites, and intensive care unit stays were inversely associated with receipt of chemotherapy after MBO (p < 0.05). Chemotherapy with surgery was associated with longer survival than surgery (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.97; 95% CI, 2.65-3.34; p < 0.01) or medical management without chemotherapy (aHR, 4.56; 95% CI, 4.04-5.14; p < 0.01). Subgroup analyses of biologically diverse cancers (colorectal, pancreatic, and ovarian) showed similar results, with greater survival related to chemotherapy (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Chemotherapy plays an integral role in maximizing oncologic outcome for select patients with MBO. The data from this study are critical to optimizing multimodality care for these complex patients.

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

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

Defining Value for Pancreatic Surgery in Early-Stage Pancreatic Cancer.

Importance: Value-based care is increasingly important, with rising health care costs and advances in cancer treatment leading to greater survival for patients with cancer. Regionalization of surgical care for pancreatic cancer has been extensively studied as a strategy to improve perioperative outcomes, but investigation of long-term outcomes relative to health care costs (ie, value) is lacking. Objective: To identify patient and hospital characteristics associated with improved overall survival, decreased costs, and greater value among patients with pancreatic cancer undergoing curative resection. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study identified 2786 patients with stages I to II pancreatic cancer who underwent pancreatic resection at 157 hospitals from January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2012. The study used the California Cancer Registry, which collects data from all California residents newly diagnosed with cancer, linked to the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development database, which collects administrative data from all California licensed hospitals. Data were analyzed from November 11, 2017, through September 4, 2018. Exposures: Pancreatic resection at high-volume and/or National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were overall survival, surgical hospitalization costs, and value. High value was defined as the fourth quintile or higher for survival and the second quintile or less for costs. Costs were calculated from charges using cost-charge ratios and adjusted for geographic variation and inflation. Multivariable regression models were used to determine factors associated with overall survival, costs, and high value. Results: Among the 2786 patients included (1394 [50.0%] male; mean [SD] age, 67.0 [10.7] years), postoperative chemotherapy (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.71; 95% CI, 0.64-0.79; P < .001) and high-volume centers (aHR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.61-0.99; P = .04) were associated with greater overall survival. Higher Elixhauser comorbidity index scores (estimate, 0.006; 95% CI, 0.003-0.008), complications (estimate, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.17-0.27), readmissions (estimate, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.29-0.39), and longer lengths of stay (estimate, 0.03; 95% CI, 0.03-0.04) were associated with higher costs (P < .001), whereas postoperative chemotherapy was associated with lower costs (estimate, -0.06; 95% CI, -0.11 to -0.02; P = .006). National Cancer Institute-designated and high-volume centers were not associated with costs. Although grades III and IV tumors (odds ratio [OR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.39-0.91; P = .001), T3 category disease (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.46-0.95; P = .005), complications (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49-0.86; P < .001), readmissions (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.44-0.84; P < .001), and length of stay (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.78-0.85; P < .001) were inversely associated with high-value care, NCI designation (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.66-1.49; P = .74) and high-volume centers (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.54-1.61; P = .07) were not. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, high-value care was associated with important patient characteristics and postoperative outcomes. However, NCI-designated and high-volume centers were not associated with greater value. These data suggest that targeted measures to enhance value may be needed in these centers.

Clinical Outcomes and Costs Following Unplanned Excisions of Soft Tissue Sarcomas in the Elderly.

BACKGROUND: Surgical guidelines for soft tissue sarcoma (STS) emphasize pretreatment evaluation and reports of the perils of unplanned excision exist. Given the paucity of population-based data on this topic, our objective was to analyze clinical outcomes and costs of planned versus unplanned STS excisions in the Medicare population. METHODS: We analyzed 3913 surgical patients with STS ≥66 y old from 1992 to 2011 using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare datafiles. Planned excisions were classified based on preoperative MRI and/or biopsy, whereas unplanned excisions were classified by excision as the first procedure. Inverse probability of treatment weighting with propensity scores was used to adjust for clinicopathologic differences. Re-excisions, complications, and Medicare payments were compared with multivariate models. Overall survival and disease-specific survival were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards and competing risk models. RESULTS: Before the first excision, 24.3% had an MRI and biopsy, 27.3% had an MRI, 11.4% had a biopsy, and 36.9% were unplanned. Re-excision rates were highest for unplanned excisions: 46.3% compared to 18.1%, 36.4%, and 29.7% for other groups (P < 0.0001). There was no difference in disease-specific survival or overall survival between groups (P > 0.05). Planned excisions were associated with increased Medicare costs (P < 0.05), with the first resection contributing to the majority of costs. Subgroup analyses by histologic grade and tumor size revealed similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Survival was comparable with greater health care costs in elderly patients undergoing planned STS excision. Although unplanned excisions remain a quality of care issue with high re-excision rates, these data have important implications for the surgical management of STS in the elderly.

Interhospital Variability in Quality Outcomes of Pancreatic Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of optimal patient outcomes from health care delivery is critical for success amidst current reform. We developed a composite index of quality for pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and compared high and low performers nationwide. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 17,220 patients undergoing elective PD between October 2010 and June 2014 using the Vizient database. A quality index score (QIS) was developed from five variables associated with optimal outcomes: postoperative complication rate, length of stay, 30-d readmission rate, mortality rate, and hospital volume. Value was defined as hospital-based QIS divided by mean hospital charges. High-value centers (top quintile) were compared to low-value centers (bottom quintile). RESULTS: The majority of high-value centers (79%) achieved top performer status in 1-2 of five quality categories though only 11% were low performer in at least one category. Conversely, 41% of low-value centers were top performers in at least one category, although rarely more than one (8%); 63% of low-value centers were low performers in two or more categories. There was no significant association between QIS and hospital charges (-570, 95% CI -1308 to 168, P = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: High-value centers infrequently provided high quality surgical care across all five metrics but instead excelled in a few quality metrics while avoiding low performance in any quality metric. Although low-value centers could achieve excellence in one quality metric, they were frequently low performers in two or more outcomes. Improvements in value of PD can be achieved by a consistent effort across all quality metrics rather than efforts at constraining financial expenditures of health care delivery.

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.

The modified frailty index to predict morbidity and mortality for retroperitoneal sarcoma resections.

BACKGROUND: The modified frailty index (mFI) is an important method to risk-stratify surgical patients and has been validated for general surgery and selected surgical subspecialties. However, there are currently no data assessing the efficacy of the mFI to predict acute morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing surgery for retroperitoneal sarcoma. METHODS: Using the American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program from 2007 to 2012, we performed a retrospective analysis of patients with a diagnosis of primary malignant retroperitoneal neoplasm who underwent surgical resection. The mFI was calculated according to standard published methods. Univariate and multivariate statistical analyses including χ2 and logistic regression were used to identify predictors of 30-d overall morbidity, 30-d severe morbidity (Clavien III/IV), and 30-d mortality. RESULTS: We identified 846 patients with the diagnosis of primary malignant retroperitoneal neoplasm who underwent surgical resection. The distribution mFI scores was 0 (48.5%) or 1 (36.3%), with only 4.5% of patients presenting with a score ≥3. Rates of 30-d overall morbidity, serious morbidity, and mortality were 22.6%, 12.9%, and 1.2%, respectively. Only selected mFI scores were associated with serious morbidity and overall morbidity on multivariate analysis (P < 0.05), and mFI did not predict 30-d mortality (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate that the majority of patients undergoing retroperitoneal sarcoma resections have few, if any, comorbidities. The mFI was a limited predictor of overall and serious complications and was not a significant predictor of mortality. Better discriminators of preoperative risk stratification may be needed for this patient population.