Impact of Cancer Care Regionalization on Patient Volume.

BACKGROUND: Cancer centers are regionalizing care to expand patient access, but the effects on patient volume are unknown. This study aimed to compare patient volumes before and after the establishment of head and neck regional care centers (HNRCCs). METHODS: This study analyzed 35,394 unique new patient visits at MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) before and after the creation of HNRCCs. Univariate regression estimated the rate of increase in new patient appointments. Geospatial analysis evaluated patient origin and distribution. RESULTS: The mean new patients per year in 2006-2011 versus 2012-2017 was 2735 ± 156 patients versus 3155 ± 207 patients, including 464 ± 78 patients at HNRCCs, reflecting a 38.4 % increase in overall patient volumes. The rate of increase in new patient appointments did not differ significantly before and after HNRCCs (121.9 vs 95.8 patients/year; P = 0.519). The patients from counties near HNRCCs, showed a 210.8 % increase in appointments overall, 33.8 % of which were at an HNRCC. At the main campus exclusively, the shift in regional patients to HNRCCs coincided with a lower rate of increase in patients from the MDACC service area (33.7 vs. 11.0 patients/year; P = 0.035), but the trend was toward a greater increase in out-of-state patients (25.7 vs. 40.3 patients/year; P = 0.299). CONCLUSIONS: The creation of HNRCCs coincided with stable increases in new patient volume, and a sizeable minority of patients sought care at regional centers. Regional patients shifted to the HNRCCs, and out-of-state patient volume increased at the main campus, optimizing access for both local and out-of-state patients.

Quality assessment across a national cancer network.

The approaches outlined in this report, coupled with a spirit of internal and external collaboration, enable complete translation of the MD Anderson multidisciplinary care model as well as extension of our organizational research mission. Quality management with the ability to benchmark quality metrics against our main Houston campus remains a cornerstone of our overarching strategy to maintain consistent high-quality care throughout our national network.

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 pulmonary resection and systemic chemotherapy in the management of metastatic soft tissue sarcoma: a combined analysis from the University of Texas M. D. Anderson and Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centers.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine the cost-effectiveness of different treatment strategies for patients with pulmonary metastases from soft tissue sarcoma. METHODS: We constructed a decision tree to model the outcomes of 4 treatment strategies for patients with pulmonary metastases from soft tissue sarcoma: pulmonary resection, systemic chemotherapy, pulmonary resection and systemic chemotherapy, and no treatment. Data from 1124 patients with pulmonary metastases from soft tissue sarcoma were used to estimate disease-specific survival for pulmonary resection and no treatment. Outcomes of systemic chemotherapy and pulmonary resection and of systemic chemotherapy were estimated by assuming a 12-month improvement in disease-specific survival with chemotherapy; this was done on the basis of the widely held but unproven assumption that chemotherapy provides a survival benefit in patients with metastatic soft tissue sarcoma. Direct costs were examined for a series of patients who underwent protocol-based pulmonary resection or doxorubicin/ifosfamide-based chemotherapy. RESULTS: The mean cost of pulmonary resection was 20,339 dollars per patient; the mean cost of 6 cycles of chemotherapy was 99,033 dollars. Compared with no treatment and assuming a 12-month survival advantage with chemotherapy, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 14,357 dollars per life-year gained for pulmonary resection, 104,210 dollars per life-year gained for systemic chemotherapy, and 51,159 dollars per life-year gained for pulmonary resection and systemic chemotherapy. Compared with pulmonary resection, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of pulmonary resection and systemic chemotherapy was 108,036 dollars per life-year gained. Sensitivity analyses showed that certain patient and tumor features, as well as the assumed benefit of chemotherapy, affected cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with pulmonary metastases from soft tissue sarcoma who were surgical candidates, pulmonary resection was the most cost-effective treatment strategy evaluated. Even with favorable assumptions regarding its clinical benefit, systemic chemotherapy alone, compared with no treatment, was not a cost-effective treatment strategy for these patients.

Cost-effectiveness of staging computed tomography of the chest in patients with T2 soft tissue sarcomas.

BACKGROUND: Published practice guidelines recommend routine chest computed tomography (CT) scanning as part of the staging evaluation for patients with T2 soft tissue sarcomas (STS), although there is no direct evidence to support this practice. The objective of this study was to determine the yield and cost-effectiveness of routine versus selective chest CT scanning for the staging of patients with T2 STS and to identify any subgroups for whom a more selective approach to chest CT scanning could be considered. METHODS: Six hundred consecutive patients with primary, nonthoracic, T2 (> 5 cm) STS underwent both chest X-ray (CXR) and chest CT scanning to evaluate the presence of pulmonary metastatic disease (M1). The authors constructed a decision tree that modeled the outcomes of diagnostic testing for two hypothetical diagnostic strategies: 1) routine chest CT (rCT) or 2) CXR and selective chest CT (sCT). The yield and cost of each strategy were determined; the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated as the cost per additional patient with pulmonary metastases identified by rCT versus sCT. RESULTS: The yield of rCT was higher than that of sCT (M1 disease identified in 19.2% vs. 16.0% of patients, respectively), but rCT was more costly ($1301 vs. $418 per patient, respectively). The ICER of rCT compared with sCT was $27,594 per patient identified with pulmonary metastasis. The expected yields, costs, and ICERs of the diagnostic strategies varied across patient subgroups based on grade, anatomic site, and tumor size. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with T2 STS, rCT was most cost-effective in patients with high-grade lesions or extremity lesions. The findings of this study do not support the routine use of chest CT scanning in all patients with T2 STS.