Determining the Association Between Insurance Type and Myofascial Release in Large Ventral Hernias.

INTRODUCTION: Abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) utilizes advanced myofascial releases to perform complex ventral hernia repair (VHR). The relationship between the performance of AWR and disparities in insurance type is unknown. METHODS: The Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative was queried for adults who had undergone an elective VHR between 2013 and 2020 with a hernia size ≥10 cm. Patients with missing insurance data were excluded. Comparison groups were divided by insurance type: favorable (private, Medicare, Veteran's Administration, Tricare) or unfavorable (Medicaid and self-pay). Propensity score matching compared the cumulative incidence of AWR between the favorable and unfavorable insurance comparison groups. RESULTS: In total, 26,447 subjects met inclusion criteria. The majority (89%, n = 23,617) had favorable insurance, while (11%, n = 2830) had unfavorable insurance. After propensity score matching, 2821 patients with unfavorable insurance were matched to 7875 patients with favorable insurance. The rate of AWR with external oblique release or transversus abdominis release was significantly higher (23%, n = 655) among the unfavorable insurance group compared to those with favorable insurance (21%, n = 1651; P = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that patients with unfavorable insurance may undergo AWR with external oblique or transversus abdominis release at a greater rate than similar patients with favorable insurance. Understanding the mechanisms contributing to this difference and evaluating the financial implications of these trends represent important directions for future research in elective VHR.

The Association Between Financial Toxicity and Treatment Regret in Men With Localized Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Financial toxicity is emerging as an important patient-centered outcome and is understudied in prostate cancer patients. We sought to understand the association between financial burden and treatment regret in men with localized prostate cancer to better evaluate the role of financial discussions in patient counseling. METHODS: Utilizing the Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation dataset, we identified all men accrued between 2011 and 2012 who underwent surgery, radiation, or active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. Financial burden and treatment regret were assessed at 3- and 5-year follow-up. The association between financial burden and regret was assessed using multivariable longitudinal logistic regression controlling for demographic and disease characteristics, treatment, functional outcomes, and patient expectations. RESULTS: Of the 2924 eligible patients, regret and financial burden assessments for 3- and/or 5-year follow-up were available for 81% (n = 2359). After adjustment for relevant covariates, financial burden from "finances in general" was associated with treatment regret at 3 years (odds ratio [OR] = 2.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.33 to 4.57; P = .004); however, this association was no longer statistically significant at 5-year follow-up (OR = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.56 to 2.54; P = .7). CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based sample of men with localized prostate cancer, we observed associations between financial burden and treatment regret. Our findings suggest indirect treatment costs, especially during the first 3 years after diagnosis, may impact patients more profoundly than direct costs and are important for inclusion in shared decision making.

Association between pelvic nodal radiotherapy and patient-reported functional outcomes through 5 years among men undergoing external-beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer: An assessment of the comparative effectiveness analysis of surgery and radiation (CEASAR) cohort.

BACKGROUND: The role of pelvic irradiation in men receiving external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for prostate cancer is unclear, in part due to a lack of data on patient-reported outcomes. We sought to compare functional outcomes for men receiving prostate and pelvic versus prostate-only radiotherapy, longitudinally over 5 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a population-based, prospective cohort study of men with clinically-localized prostate cancer undergoing EBRT. We examined the effect of prostate and pelvic (n = 102) versus prostate-only (n = 485) radiotherapy on patient-reported disease-specific (using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite[EPIC]-26) and general health-related (using the SF-36) function, over 5 years. Regression models were adjusted for outcome-specific baseline function, clinicopathologic characteristics, and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). RESULTS: 587 men (median [quartiles] age 69 [64-73] years) met inclusion criteria and completed ≥1 post-treatment survey. More men treated with prostate and pelvic radiotherapy had high-risk disease (58% vs. 18%, P < 0.01) and received ADT (75% vs. 41%, P < 0.01). These men reported worse sexual (6 months-5 years), hormonal (at 6 months), and physical (6 months-5 years) function. Accounting for baseline function, patient and tumor characteristics, and use of ADT, pelvic irradiation was not associated with statistically or clinically significant differences in bowel function, urinary incontinence, irritative voiding symptoms or sexual function through 5-years (all P > 0.05). Marginally clinically important differences were noted in hormonal function at 3-years (adjusted mean difference 4.7, 95% confidence interval [1.2-8.3]; minimally clinically important difference (MCID) 4 to 6) and 5-years (4.2, [0.4-8.0]) following treatment. After adjustment, there was a transient statistically significant, but not clinically important, difference in emotional well-being at 6 months (3.0, [0.19-5.8]; MCID 6) that resolved by 1 year and no differences in physical functioning or energy and fatigue. CONCLUSION: This prospective, population-based cohort study of men with localized prostate cancer treated with EBRT, showed no clinically important differences in disease-specific or general health-related quality of life with the addition of pelvic irradiation to prostate radiotherapy, supporting the use of pelvic radiotherapy when it may be of clinical benefit, such as men with increased risk of nodal involvement.

Patient-Reported Financial Toxicity Associated with Contemporary Treatment for Localized Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Contemporary treatment modalities for localized prostate cancer provide comparable overall and cancer-specific survival. However, the degree of financial burden imposed by treatment, the factors contributing to that burden, and how different treatments compare with regard to financial toxicity remain poorly understood. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation (CEASAR) study enrolled men with localized prostate cancer from 2011 to 2012. Questionnaires were collected at 6, 12, 36, and 60 months after enrollment. Differences in patient-reported financial burden were compared between active surveillance, radical prostatectomy, and external beam radiotherapy using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 2,121 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 15% reported large or very large burden of treatment costs within 6 months, declining to 3% by year 5. When controlling for age, education, income and other covariates, external beam radiotherapy was associated with greater financial burden than active surveillance and radical prostatectomy at 1 year (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.2-4.1 and OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.0-2.3, respectively) and 3 years (OR 3.1 95% CI 1.1-8.8 and OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.2-3.7, respectively). Radical prostatectomy and active surveillance had similar rates of financial burden at all time points. Age, race, education, and D'Amico risk group were associated with financial burden. CONCLUSIONS: External beam radiotherapy was associated with the highest financial burden, even when controlling for age, education and income. Prospective studies that directly measure out-of-pocket and indirect costs and account more thoroughly for baseline socioeconomic differences are warranted in order to identify those most at risk.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Biologic and Biosynthetic Mesh in Ventral Hernia Repair: When Are They Worth It?

BACKGROUND: Biologic and biosynthetic meshes typically cost more than synthetic meshes for use in ventral hernia repair (VHR), with unknown comparative effectiveness. STUDY DESIGN: Cost-utility analysis was performed from a limited societal perspective assessing direct medical costs and outcomes for open, elective, retromuscular VHR. Short-term and 5-year major complications and costs were modeled using best available evidence from published studies, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project data, and Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative data. Costs were analyzed in 2017 US dollars, and utilities were assessed using quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine threshold probabilities of long-term complications favoring particular mesh types. RESULTS: Synthetic mesh was the preferred strategy, with a cost of $15,620 and QALYs of 18.85, assuming a baseline 5.6% rate of long-term complications for all meshes. One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that biosynthetic and biologic mesh became the better choice as long-term complication rates for synthetic mesh increased to 15.5% and 26.2%, respectively. Two-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that biologic and biosynthetic meshes became favorable as the cost of biologic mesh decreased and long-term synthetic mesh complication rates increased. Biologic and biosynthetic meshes also became more cost-effective when their relative long-term complication rates decreased and long-term synthetic mesh complication rates increased. CONCLUSIONS: Using modeling techniques, synthetic mesh is the best option for retromuscular VHR given currently available evidence. We established long-term complication thresholds, possibly justifying the higher up-front costs for biologic or biosynthetic meshes. This emphasizes the critical need to obtain long-term complication surveillance data to help individualize mesh choice in VHR.

Collection of social determinants of health in the community clinic setting: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Addressing social and behavioral determinants of health (SBDs) may help improve health outcomes of community clinic patients. This cross-sectional study explored how assessing SBDs can be used to complement health data collection strategies and provide clinicians with a more in-depth understanding of their patients. METHODS: Adult patients, ages 18 and older, at an urban community health care clinic in Tennessee, U.S.A., were asked to complete a questionnaire regarding health status, health history and SBDs while waiting for their clinic appointment. The SBD component included items from the National Academy of Medicine, the Protocol for Responding to and Assessing Patient Assets, Risks, and Experiences instrument, and the Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking. Data collection and analysis occurred in 2017. RESULTS: One hundred participants completed the study. The questionnaire took approximately 11 min to complete, and the response rate was 90% or higher for all items except annual household income (unanswered by 40 participants). The median number of negative SBDs was 4 (IQR 2.75-7.0), 96 participants had at least one unmet need, and the most common negative SBD was physical activity (75%; 75/100). CONCLUSIONS: The hybrid questionnaire provided insight into a community clinic population's SBDs and allowed for a more complete understanding than a single questionnaire alone. The brief questionnaire administration time and low non-response rate support the questionnaire's feasibility in the community clinic setting, and results can be used by clinicians to further the personalization goals of precision medicine. Next steps include evaluating how to connect patients with appropriate resources for addressing their SBDs.

Institute of Medicine Measures of Social and Behavioral Determinants of Health: A Feasibility Study.

INTRODUCTION: Social and behavioral factors are known to affect health but are not routinely assessed in medical practice. To date, no studies have assessed a parsimonious panel of measures of social and behavioral determinants of health (SBDs). This study evaluated the panel of SBD measures recommended by the Institute of Medicine and examined the effect of question order. METHODS: Adults, aged ≥18 years, were recruited using ResearchMatch.org for this randomized, parallel design study conducted in 2015 (data analyzed in 2015-2016). Three versions of the SBD measures, sharing the same items but in different orders of presentation (Versions 1-3), were developed. Randomized to six groups, participants completed each version at least 1 week apart (Weeks 1-3). Version order was counterbalanced across each administration and randomization was stratified by gender, race, and age. Main outcomes were effect of question order, completion time, and non-response rates. RESULTS: Of 781 participants, 624 (80%) completed the Week 1 questionnaire; median completion time for answering all SBD questions was 5 minutes, 583/624 participants answered all items, and no statistically significant differences associated with question order were observed when comparing responses across all versions. No significant differences in responses within assignment groups over time were found, with the exception of the stress measure for Group 5 (p=0.036). CONCLUSION: Question order did not significantly impact participant responses. Time to complete the questionnaire was brief, and non-response rate was low. Findings support the feasibility of using the Institute of Medicine-recommended questionnaire to capture SBDs.

Hidden Morbidity of Ventral Hernia Repair with Mesh: As Concerning as Common Bile Duct Injury?

BACKGROUND: Ventral hernia repair with mesh is increasingly common, but the incidence of long-term complications that necessitate mesh explantation is unknown. We aimed to determine the epidemiology of mesh explantation after ventral hernia repair and to compare this with common bile duct injury, a dreaded complication of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. STUDY DESIGN: We evaluated a retrospective cohort of patients undergoing ventral hernia repair by linking the all-payers State Inpatient Databases and State Ambulatory Surgery Databases for New York, California, and Florida. We followed patients longitudinally from 2005 to 2011 for the primary end point of mesh explantation, designated by concurrent procedure codes for ventral hernia repair and foreign body removal. We determined time to mesh explantation and calculated cumulative costs for surgical care, comparing these with historical data for common bile duct injury. RESULTS: During the study period, 619,751 patients underwent at least one ventral hernia repair (91% open, 9% laparoscopic). In a mean follow-up of 3 years, 438 patients (0.07%) had mesh removed at a median of 346 days after repair. Median cumulative cost for patients requiring mesh explantation was $21,889 vs $6,983 without (p < 0.01). Rates of mesh explantation and costs were on par with laparoscopic common bile duct injury, based on published data, but occurred later in the postoperative course. CONCLUSIONS: By this conservative estimate, complications of ventral hernia repair with implantable mesh are comparably as frequent as for common bile duct injury, but occur later in a patient's experience. Long-term follow-up is critically necessary to fully understand the ramifications of implanted devices.