The Impact of Socioeconomic Deprivation on Clinical Outcomes for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma at a High-volume Cancer Center: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of a granular measure of SED on pancreatic surgical and cancer-related outcomes at a high-volume cancer center that employs a standardized clinic pathway. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Prior research has shown that low socioeconomic status leads to less treatment and worse outcomes for PDAC. However, these studies employed inconsistent definitions and categorizations of socioeconomic status, aggregated individual socioeconomic data using large geographic areas, and lacked detailed clinicopathologic variables. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 1552 PDAC patients between 2008 and 2015. Patients were stratified using the area deprivation index, a validated dataset that ranks census block groups based on SED. Multivariable models were used in the curative surgery cohort to predict the impact of SED on (1) grade 3/4 Clavien-Dindo complications, (2) initiation of adjuvant therapy, (3) completion of adjuvant therapy, and (4) overall survival. RESULTS: Patients from high SED neighborhoods constituted 29.9% of the cohort. Median overall survival was 28 months. The rate of Clavien-Dindo grade 3/4 complications was 14.2% and completion of adjuvant therapy was 65.6%. There was no evidence that SED impacted surgical evaluation, receipt of curative-intent surgery, postoperative complications, receipt of adjuvant therapy or overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: Although nearly one-quarter of curative-intent surgery patients were from high SED neighborhoods, this factor was not associated with measures of treatment quality or survival. These observations suggest that treatment at a high-volume cancer center employing a standardized clinical pathway may in part address socioeconomic disparities in pancreatic cancer.

Racial and ethnic disparities in a state-wide registry of patients with pancreatic cancer and an exploratory investigation of cancer cachexia as a contributor to observed inequities.

Pancreatic cancer (PC) is characterized by racial/ethnic disparities and the debilitating muscle-wasting condition, cancer cachexia. Florida ranks second in the number of PC deaths and has a large and understudied minority population. We examined the primary hypothesis that PC incidence and mortality rates may be highest among Black Floridians and the secondary hypothesis that biological correlates of cancer cachexia may underlie disparities. PC incidence and mortality rates were estimated by race/ethnicity, gender, and county using publicly available state-wide cancer registry data that included approximately 2700 Black, 25 200 Non-Hispanic White (NHW), and 3300 Hispanic/Latino (H/L) Floridians diagnosed between 2004 and 2014. Blacks within Florida experienced a significantly (P < 0.05) higher incidence (12.5/100 000) and mortality (10.97/100 000) compared to NHW (incidence = 11.2/100 000; mortality = 10.3/100 000) and H/L (incidence = 9.6/100 000; mortality = 8.7/100 000), especially in rural counties. To investigate radiologic and blood-based correlates of cachexia, we leveraged data from a subset of patients evaluated at two geographically distinct Florida Cancer Centers. In Blacks compared to NHW matched on stage, markers of PC-induced cachexia were more frequent and included greater decreases in core musculature compared to corresponding healthy control patients (25.0% vs 10.1% lower), greater decreases in psoas musculature over time (10.5% vs 4.8% loss), lower baseline serum albumin levels (3.8 vs 4.0 gm/dL), and higher platelet counts (332.8 vs 268.7 k/UL). Together, these findings suggest for the first time that PC and cachexia may affect Blacks disproportionately. Given its nearly universal contribution to illness and PC-related deaths, the early diagnosis and treatment of cachexia may represent an avenue to improve health equity, quality of life, and survival.

Selective Perioperative Administration of Pasireotide is More Cost-Effective Than Routine Administration for Pancreatic Fistula Prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: In a randomized trial, pasireotide significantly decreased the incidence and severity of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). Subsequent analyses concluded that its routine use is cost-effective. We hypothesized that selective administration of the drug to patients at high risk for POPF would be more cost-effective. STUDY DESIGN: Consecutive patients who did not receive pasireotide and underwent pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) or distal pancreatectomy (DP) between July 2011 and January 2014 were distributed into groups based on their risk of POPF using a multivariate recursive partitioning regression tree analysis (RPA) of preoperative clinical factors. The costs of treating hypothetical patients in each risk group were then computed based upon actual institutional hospital costs and previously published relative risk values associated with pasireotide. RESULTS: Among 315 patients who underwent pancreatectomy, grade B/C POPF occurred in 64 (20%). RPA allocated patients who underwent PD into four groups with a risk for grade B/C POPF of 0, 10, 29, or 60% (P < 0.001) on the basis of diagnosis, pancreatic duct diameter, and body mass index. Patients who underwent DP were allocated to three groups with a grade B/C POPF risk of 14, 26, or 44% (P = 0.05) on the basis of pancreatic duct diameter alone. Although the routine administration of pasireotide to all 315 patients would have theoretically saved $30,892 over standard care, restriction of pasireotide to only patients at high risk for POPF would have led to a cost savings of $831,916. CONCLUSION: Preoperative clinical characteristics can be used to characterize patients' risk for POPF following pancreatectomy. Selective administration of pasireotide only to patients at high risk for grade B/C POPF may maximize the cost-efficacy of prophylactic pasireotide.

Active Surveillance for Adverse Events Within 90 Days: The Standard for Reporting Surgical Outcomes After Pancreatectomy.

BACKGROUND: The rate of adverse events after pancreatectomy is widely reported as a measure of surgical quality. However, morbidity data are routinely acquired retrospectively and often are reported at 30 days. The authors hypothesized that morbidity after pancreatectomy is therefore underreported. They sought to compare rates of adverse events calculated at multiple time points after pancreatectomy. METHODS: The authors instituted an active surveillance system to detect, categorize, and grade the severity of all adverse events after pancreatectomy, using the modified Accordion system and International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery definitions. All patients and clinical events were monitored directly for at least 90 days after surgery. RESULTS: Of 315 consecutively monitored patients, 239 (76 %) experienced 500 unique adverse events. The absolute number of unique adverse events increased by 32 % between index discharge and 90 days and by 10 % between 30 and 90 days. The number of severe adverse events increased by 96 % between discharge and 90 days and by 29 % between 30 and 90 days. In this study, 16 % of the patients experienced at least one severe adverse event within the index hospitalization, 24 % within 30 postoperative days, and 29 % within 90 days. Among the 80 readmissions that occurred within 90 days, 28 (35 %) occurred later than 30 days after pancreatectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one-third of severe adverse events and readmissions are reported more than 30 days after surgery. All adverse events that occur within 90 days of surgery must be identified and reported for accurate characterization of the morbidity associated with pancreatectomy.

The cost-effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemoradiation is superior to a surgery-first approach in the treatment of pancreatic head adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In treating pancreatic cancer, there is no clearly defined optimal sequence of chemotherapy, radiation therapy and surgery. Therefore, cost-effectiveness should be considered. The objective of this study was to compare cost and outcomes between a surgery-first approach versus neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery for resectable pancreatic head cancer. METHODS: A decision analytic model was constructed to compare the 2 approaches. Data from the National Cancer Database, National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, and literature populated the surgery-first arm. Data from our prospectively maintained institutional pancreatic cancer database populated the neoadjuvant arm. Costs were estimated by Medicare payment (2011 U.S. dollars). Survival was reported in quality-adjusted life-months (QALMs). RESULTS: The neoadjuvant chemoradiation arm consisted of 164 patients who completed preoperative therapy. Of these, 36 (22 %) did not proceed to surgery; 12 (7 %) underwent laparotomy but had unresectable disease; and 116 (71 %) underwent definitive resection. The surgery-first approach cost $46,830 and yielded survival of 8.7 QALMs; the neoadjuvant chemoradiation approach cost $36,583 and yielded survival of 18.8 QALMs. In the neoadjuvant arm, costs and survival times for patients not undergoing surgery, those with unresectable disease at laparotomy, and those completing surgery were $12,401 and 7.7 QALMs, $20,380 and 7.1 QALMs, and $45,673 and 23.4 QALMs, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation for pancreatic cancer identifies patients with early metastases or poor performance status, who can be spared an ineffective or prohibitively morbid operation, and is associated with improved survival at significantly lower cost than a surgery-first approach. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery is a strategy that provides more cost-effective care than a surgery-first approach.

Frequency and intensity of postoperative surveillance after curative treatment of pancreatic cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Few data exist to guide oncologic surveillance following curative treatment of pancreatic cancer. We sought to identify a rational, cost-effective postoperative surveillance strategy. METHODS: We constructed a Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of 5 postoperative surveillance strategies. No scheduled surveillance served as the baseline strategy. Clinical evaluation and carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 testing without/with routine computed tomography and chest X-ray at either 6- or 3-month intervals served as the 4 comparison strategies of increasing intensity. We populated the model with symptom, recurrence, treatment, and survival data from patients who had received intensive surveillance after multimodality treatment at our institution between 1998 and 2008. Costs were based on Medicare payments (2011 US dollars). RESULTS: The baseline strategy of no scheduled surveillance was associated with a postoperative overall survival (OS) of 24.6 months and a cost of $3837/patient. Clinical evaluation and CA 19-9 assay every 6 months until recurrence was associated with a 32.8-month OS and a cost of $7496/patient, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $5364/life-year (LY). Additional routine imaging every 6 months incrementally increased total cost by $3465 without increasing OS. ICERs associated with clinic visits every 3 months without/with routine imaging were $127,680 and $294,696/LY, respectively. Sensitivity analyses changed the strategies' absolute costs but not the relative ranks of their ICERs. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing the frequency and intensity of postoperative surveillance of patients after curative therapy for pancreatic cancer beyond clinical evaluation and CA 19-9 testing every 6 months increases cost but confers no clinically significant survival benefit.

Cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies for pancreatic head adenocarcinoma and potential opportunities for improvement.

BACKGROUND: Generally dismal outcomes have led to a nihilistic attitude toward treating pancreatic cancer, while fiscal constraints have increased scrutiny of treatments costs. Our objective was to compare the cost-effectiveness of various treatment strategies for resectable pancreatic head adenocarcinoma, and to identify opportunities for improved cost effectiveness. METHODS: A decision model compared 6 strategies: no treatment, radiotherapy only, chemotherapy only, chemotherapy plus radiotherapy, surgery alone, and surgery plus adjuvant therapy. Outcomes and probabilities were identified using the National Cancer Data Base, the American Cancer Society National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, and the literature. Costs were estimated using Medicare payment. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated, and sensitivity analyses were performed by varying potentially modifiable parameters of the model. Survival was reported in quality-adjusted life-months (QALMs). RESULTS: Surgery plus adjuvant therapy, chemotherapy alone, and no treatment were the only viable strategies in terms of cost effectiveness. Surgery plus adjuvant therapy versus no treatment demonstrated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $7,663/QALM. Theoretically increasing survival in node-negative, margin-negative patients from 14 to 22 QALMs produced the largest reduction in the ICER for surgery plus adjuvant therapy compared to no treatment ($6,386/QALM), whereas reducing the perioperative mortality from 3 to 1 % had only a marginal effect. The ICER was significantly lower for high-performing centers ($5,991/QALM) than for low-performing centers ($9,144/QALM). CONCLUSIONS: Surgery plus adjuvant therapy for resectable pancreatic head adenocarcinoma extends survival, but at considerable expense. Significant cost reductions could be realized by improving treatment outcomes to levels of high-performing centers and development of increasingly effective adjuvant therapies.