No Geographical Inequalities in Survival for Sarcoma Patients in France: A Reference Networks' Outcome?

The national reference network NETSARC+ provides remote access to specialized diagnosis and the Multidisciplinary Tumour Board (MTB) to improve the management and survival of sarcoma patients in France. The IGéAS research program aims to assess the potential of this innovative organization to address geographical inequalities in cancer management. Using the IGéAS cohort built from the nationwide NETSARC+ database, the individual, clinical, and geographical determinants of the 3-year overall survival of sarcoma patients in France were analyzed. The survival analysis was focused on patients diagnosed in 2013 (n = 2281) to ensure sufficient hindsight to collect patient follow-up. Our study included patients with bone (16.8%), soft-tissue (69%), and visceral (14.2%) sarcomas, with a median age of 61.8 years. The overall survival was not associated with geographical variables after adjustment for individual and clinical factors. The lower survival in precarious population districts [HR 1.23, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.48] in comparison to wealthy metropolitan areas (HR = 1) found in univariable analysis was due to the worst clinical presentation at diagnosis of patients. The place of residence had no impact on sarcoma patients' survival, in the context of the national organization driven by the reference network. Following previous findings, this suggests the ability of this organization to go through geographical barriers usually impeding the optimal management of cancer patients.

Cost-Effectiveness of Conventional vs Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopy in Gynecologic Oncologic Indications.

OBJECTIVE: Robotic surgical techniques are known to be expensive, but they can decrease the cost of hospitalization and improve patients' outcomes. The aim of this study was to compare the costs and clinical outcomes of conventional laparoscopy vs robotic-assisted laparoscopy in the gynecologic oncologic indications. METHODS: Between 2007 and 2010, 312 patients referred for gynecologic oncologic indications (endometrial and cervical cancer), including 226 who underwent conventional laparoscopy and 80 who underwent robot-assisted laparoscopy, were included in this prospective multicenter study. The direct costs, operating theater costs, and hospital costs were calculated for both surgical strategies using the microcosting method. RESULTS: Based on an average number of 165 surgical cases performed per year with the robot, the total extra cost of using the robot was €1456 per intervention. The robot-specific costs amounted to €2213 per intervention, and the cost of the robot-specific surgical supplies was €957 per intervention. The cost of the surgical supplies specifically required by conventional laparoscopy amounted to €1432, which is significantly higher than that of the robotic supplies (P < 0.001). Hospital costs were lower in the case of the robotic strategy (€2380 vs €2841, P < 0.001) because these patients spent less time in intensive care (0.38 vs 0.85 days). Operating theater costs were higher in the case of the robotic strategy (€1490 vs €1311, P = 0.0004) because the procedure takes longer to perform (4.98 hours vs 4.38 hours). CONCLUSIONS: The main driver of additional costs is the fixed cost of the robot, which is not compensated by the lower hospital room costs. The robot would be more cost-effective if robotic interventions were performed on a larger number of patients per year or if the purchase price of the robot was reduced. A shorter learning curve would also no doubt decrease the operating theater costs, resulting in financial benefits to society.

Cost-effectiveness of intraperitoneal chemohyperthermia in the treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis from colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Our purpose was to assess the cost-effectiveness of intraperitoneal chemohyperthermia (IPCH) compared to palliative chemotherapy (STANDARD) against peritoneal carcinomatosis arising from colorectal cancer. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of 96 patients whose peritoneal carcinomatosis had been diagnosed between January 1998 and December 2003 and treated either with IPCH or with palliative chemotherapy in French comprehensive cancer centers. Patients were followed up over a 3-year period. Effectiveness was measured by restricted mean survival at 3 years. The Bang and Tsiatis method was used to handle cost-censored data. The confidence limits of the mean cost per patient in each group and the mean incremental cost per life-year saved were computed using 1000 bootstrapreplicates. We also computed an acceptability curve for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: We found that IPCH improved survival and was more costly than STANDARD treatment. Over a 3-year observation period, IPCH yielded an average survival gain of 8.3 months at the additional cost of euro58,086 (95% confidence interval 35,893-112,839) per life-year saved. CONCLUSION: The ICER of IPCH is acceptable given the severity and burden of peritoneal carcinomatosis for which there is no alternative curative treatment.