Differences in outcome for patients with cholangiocarcinoma: Racial/ethnic disparity or socioeconomic factors?

BACKGROUND: Inequities in cancer survival are well documented. Whether disparities in overall survival (OS) result from inherent racial differences in underlying disease biology or socioeconomic factors (SEF) is not known. Our aim was to define the association of race/ethnicity and SEF with OS in pts with cholangiocarcinoma (CCA). METHODS: Patients with CCA of all sites and stages in the National Cancer Data Base (2004-13) were included. Racial/ethnic groups were defined as non-Hispanic White (NH-W), non-Hispanic Black (NH-B), Asian, and Hispanic. Income and education were based on census data for patients' zip code. Income was defined as high (≥$63,000) vs low (<$63,000). Primary outcome was OS. RESULTS: 27,151 patients were included with a mean age of 68 yrs; 51% were male. 78% were NH-W, 8% NH-B, 8% Hispanic, and 6% Asian. 56% had Medicare, 33% private insurance, 7% Medicaid, and 4% were uninsured. 67% had low income. 19% lived in an area where >20% of adults did not finish high school. NH-B and Hispanic patients had more unfavorable SEF including uninsured status, low income, and less formal education than NH-W and Asian pts (all p < 0.001). They were also younger, more likely to be female and to have metastatic disease (all p < 0.001). Despite this, NH-B race and Hispanic ethnicity were not associated with decreased OS. Male sex, older age, non-private insurance, low income, lower education, non-academic facility, location outside the Northeast, higher Charlson-Deyo score, worse grade, larger tumor size, and higher stage were all associated with decreased OS (all p < 0.001). On MV analysis, along with adverse pathologic factors, type of insurance (p = 0.003), low income (p < 0.001), and facility type and location of treatment (p < 0.001) remained associated with decreased OS; non-white race/ethnicity was not. CONCLUSIONS: Disparities in survival exist in CCA, however they are not driven by race/ethnicity. Non-privately insured and low-income patients had decreased OS, as did patients treated at non-academic centers and outside the Northeast. This suggests that decreased ability to access and afford care results in worse outcomes, rather than biological differences amongst racial/ethnic groups.

Optimal Surveillance Frequency After CRS/HIPEC for Appendiceal and Colorectal Neoplasms: A Multi-institutional Analysis of the US HIPEC Collaborative.

BACKGROUND: No guidelines exist for surveillance following cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC) for appendiceal and colorectal cancer. The primary objective was to define the optimal surveillance frequency after CRS/HIPEC. METHODS: The U.S. HIPEC Collaborative database (2000-2017) was reviewed for patients who underwent a CCR0/1 CRS/HIPEC for appendiceal or colorectal cancer. Radiologic surveillance frequency was divided into two categories: low-frequency surveillance (LFS) at q6-12mos or high-frequency surveillance (HFS) at q2-4mos. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Among 975 patients, the median age was 55 year, 41% were male: 31% had non-invasive appendiceal (n = 301), 45% invasive appendiceal (n = 435), and 24% colorectal cancer (CRC; n = 239). With a median follow-up time of 25 mos, the median time to recurrence was 12 mos. Despite less surveillance, LFS patients had no decrease in median OS (non-invasive appendiceal: 106 vs. 65 mos, p < 0.01; invasive appendiceal: 120 vs. 73 mos, p = 0.02; colorectal cancer [CRC]: 35 vs. 30 mos, p = 0.8). LFS patients had lower median PCI scores compared with HFS (non-invasive appendiceal: 10 vs. 19; invasive appendiceal: 10 vs. 14; CRC: 8 vs. 11; all p < 0.01). However, on multivariable analysis, accounting for PCI score, LFS was still not associated with decreased OS for any histologic type (non-invasive appendiceal: hazard ratio [HR]: 0.28, p = 0.1; invasive appendiceal: HR: 0.73, p = 0.42; CRC: HR: 1.14, p = 0.59). When estimating annual incident cases of CRS/HIPEC at 375 for non-invasive appendiceal, 375 invasive appendiceal and 4410 colorectal, LFS compared with HFS for the initial two post-operative years would potentially save $13-19 M/year to the U.S. healthcare system. CONCLUSIONS: Low-frequency surveillance after CRS/HIPEC for appendiceal or colorectal cancer is not associated with decreased survival, and when considering decreased costs, may optimize resource utilization.

A Novel Validated Recurrence Risk Score to Guide a Pragmatic Surveillance Strategy After Resection of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors: An International Study of 1006 Patients.

OBJECTIVE: Despite heterogeneous biology, similar surveillance schemas are utilized after resection of all pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PanNETs). Given concerns regarding excess radiation exposure and financial burden, our aim was to develop a prognostic score for disease recurrence to guide individually tailored surveillance strategies. METHODS: All patients with primary nonfunctioning, nonmetastatic well/moderately differentiated PanNETs who underwent curative-intent resection at 9-institutions from 2000 to 2016 were included (n = 1006). A Recurrence Risk Score (RRS) was developed from a randomly selected derivation cohort comprised of 67% of patients and verified on the validation-cohort comprised of the remaining 33%. RESULTS: On multivariable analysis, patients within the derivation cohort (n = 681) with symptomatic tumors (jaundice, pain, bleeding), tumors >2 cm, Ki67 >3%, and lymph node (LN) (+) disease had increased recurrence. Each factor was assigned a score based on their weighted odds ratio that formed a RRS of 0 to 10: symptomatic = 1, tumor >2 cm = 2, Ki67 3% to 20% = 1, Ki67 >20% = 6, LN (+) = 1. Patients were grouped into low- (RRS = 0-2; n = 247), intermediate-(RRS = 3-5; n = 204), or high (RRS = 6-10; n = 9)-risk groups. At 24 months, 33% of high RRS recurred, whereas only 2% of low and 14% of intermediate RRS recurred. This persisted in the validation cohort (n = 325). CONCLUSIONS: This international, novel, internally validated RRS accurately stratifies recurrence-free survival for patients with resected PanNETs. Given their unique recurrence patterns, surveillance intervals of 12, 6, and 3 months are proposed for low, intermediate, and high RRS patients, respectively, to minimize radiation exposure and optimize cost/resource utilization.

Decreasing Hospital Readmission in Ileostomy Patients: Results of Novel Pilot Program.

BACKGROUND: Nearly 30% of patients with newly formed ileostomies require hospital readmission from severe dehydration or associated complications. This contributes to significant morbidity and rising healthcare costs associated with this procedure. Our aim was to design and pilot a novel program to decrease readmissions in this patient population. STUDY DESIGN: An agreement was established with Visiting Nurse Health System (VNHS) in March 2015 that incorporated regular home visits with clinical triggers to institute surgeon-supervised corrective measures aimed at preventing patient decompensation associated with hospital readmissions. Thirty-day readmission data for patients managed with and without VNHS support for 10.5 months before and after implementation of this new program were collected. RESULTS: Of 833 patients with small bowel procedures, 162 were ileostomies with 47 in the VNHS and 115 in the non-VNHS group. Before program implementation, VNHS (n = 24) and non-VNHS patients (n = 54) had similar readmission rates (20.8% vs 16.7%). After implementation, VNHS patients (n = 23) had a 58% reduction in hospital readmission (8.7%) and non-VNHS patient hospital readmissions (n = 61) increased slightly (24.5%). Total cost of readmissions per patient in the cohort decreased by >80% in the pilot VNHS group. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a novel program reduced the 30-day readmission rate by 58% and cost of readmissions per patient by >80% in a high risk for readmission patient population with newly created ileostomies. Future efforts will expand this program to a greater number of patients, both institutionally and systemically, to reduce the readmission-rate and healthcare costs for this high-risk patient population.

An assessment of feeding jejunostomy tube placement at the time of resection for gastric adenocarcinoma: A seven-institution analysis of 837 patients from the U.S. gastric cancer collaborative.

BACKGROUND: Jejunostomy feeding tubes (J-tubes) are often placed during resection for gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC). Their effect on postoperative complications and receipt of adjuvant therapy is unclear. METHODS: Patients who underwent curative-intent resection of GAC at seven institutions of the U.S. Gastric Cancer Collaborative from 2000 to 2012 were identified. The associations of J-tubes with postoperative complications and receipt of adjuvant therapy were determined. RESULTS: Of 837 patients, 265 (32%) received a J-tube. Patients receiving J-tubes demonstrated greater incidence of preoperative weight loss, lower BMI, greater extent of resection, and more advanced TNM stage. J-tube placement was associated with increased infectious complications (36% vs. 19%; P < 0.001), including surgical-site (14% vs. 6%; P < 0.001) and deep intra-abdominal (11% vs. 4%; P < 0.001) infections. On multivariate analysis, J-tubes remained independently associated with increased risk of infectious complications (all: HR = 1.93; P = 0.001; surgical-site: HR = 2.85; P = 0.001; deep intra-abdominal: HR = 2.13; P = 0.04). J-tubes were not associated with increased receipt of adjuvant therapy (HR = 0.82; P = 0.34). Subset analyses of patients undergoing total and subtotal gastrectomy similarly demonstrated an association of J-tubes with increased risk of infectious outcomes and no association with increased receipt of adjuvant therapy. CONCLUSIONS: J-tube placement after resection of gastric adenocarcinoma is associated with increased postoperative infectious outcomes and is not associated with increased receipt of adjuvant therapy. Selective use of J-tubes is recommended.

Association between hospital finances, payer mix, and complications after hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: deficiencies in the current healthcare reimbursement system and future implications.

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing implementation of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), there are little data on its financial implications. We analyzed hospital cost and reimbursement data within the context of insurance provider type and postoperative complications. METHODS: Clinicopathologic variables, hospital costs, and reimbursement for all patients undergoing CRS/HIPEC at a single institution from 2009 to 2013 were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 64 patients underwent CRS/HIPEC. Median PCI score was 19, and average operative time was 550 min. Tumor histology included appendiceal (n = 40; 62 %), colorectal (n = 16; 25 %), goblet cell (n = 5; 8 %), and mesothelioma (n = 3; 5 %). Median length-of-stay was 13 days. Complications occurred in 42 patients (66 %), including 13 (20 %) with major (Clavien grade III-IV) complications. Payer mix included 42 private insurance and 22 Medicare/Medicaid. Financial data was available for 56 patients: average total hospital cost was $49,248 and reimbursement was $63,771, for a hospital profit of $14,523/patient. Despite similar costs between Medicare/Medicaid and private-insurance patients, Medicare/Medicaid reimbursed much less ($30,713 vs $80,747; p < 0.001), resulting in a net loss of $17,342 per patient. For private-insured patients, major complications were associated with increased cost and increased reimbursement, resulting in a net profit of $36,285, compared with a net loss of $54,274 in Medicare/Medicaid patients. CONCLUSIONS: CRS/HIPEC is profitable in privately insured patients, even for those with major complications, but loses money in patients with Medicare/Medicaid. Under a future bundled-reimbursement system, complications will be negatively associated with profit. With these impending changes, hospitals must place emphasis on value, recalculate the reimbursement necessary for financial viability, and focus on decreasing costs and minimizing complications.

The Association Between Hospital Finances and Complications After Complex Abdominal Surgery: Deficiencies in the Current Health Care Reimbursement System and Implications for the Future.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between complications after 3 common general surgery procedures and per-episode hospital finances. BACKGROUND: With impending changes in health care reimbursement, maximizing the value of care delivered is paramount. Data on the relative clinical and financial impact of postoperative complications are necessary for directing surgical quality improvement efforts. METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of patients enrolled in the American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy, hepatectomy, and colectomy at a single academic institution between September 2009 and August 2012. Clinical outcomes data were subsequently linked with hospital billing data to determine hospital finances associated with each episode. We describe the association between postoperative complications, hospital length of stay, and different financial metrics. Multivariable linear regression modeling tested linear association between postoperative outcomes and cost data. RESULTS: There was a positive association between the number of surgical complications, payments, length of stay, total charges, total costs, and contribution margin for the three procedures. Multivariable models indicated that complications were independently associated with total cost among the selected procedures. Payments increased with complications, offsetting increased costs. CONCLUSIONS: In the current fee-for-service environment, the financial incentives are misaligned with quality improvement efforts. As we move to a value-driven method of reimbursement, administrators and health care providers alike will need to focus on improving the quality of patient care while remaining conscious of the cost of care delivered. Reducing complications effectively improves value.

Cost comparison analysis of open versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.

BACKGROUND: In comparison with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP), laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is associated with fewer complications and shorter hospital stays, but comparative cost data for the two approaches are limited. METHODS: Records of all distal pancreatectomies carried out from January 2009 to June 2013 were reviewed and stratified according to operative complexity. Patient factors and outcomes were recorded. Total variable costs (TVCs) were tabulated for each patient, and stratified by category [e.g. 'floor', 'operating room' (OR), 'radiology']. Costs for index admissions and 30-day readmissions were compared between LDP and ODP groups. RESULTS: Of 153 procedures, 115 (70 LDP, 45 ODP) were selected for analysis. The TVC of the index admission was US$3420 less per patient in the LDP group (US$10 480 versus US$13 900; P = 0.06). Although OR costs were significantly greater in the LDP cohort (US$5756 versus US$4900; P = 0.02), the shorter average hospitalization in the LDP group (5.2 days versus 7.7 days; P = 0.01) resulted in a lower overall cost. The total cost of index hospitalization combined with readmission was significantly lower in the LDP cohort (US$11 106 versus US$14 803; P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In appropriately selected patients, LDP is more cost-effective than ODP. The increased OR cost associated with LDP is offset by the shorter hospitalization. These data clarify targets for further cost reductions.

An assessment of feeding jejunostomy tube placement at the time of resection for gastric adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Feeding jejunostomy tubes (J-tube) are often placed during gastrectomy for cancer to decrease malnutrition and promote delivery of adjuvant therapy. We hypothesized that J-tubes actually are associated with increased complications and do not improve nutritional status nor increase rates of adjuvant therapy. METHODS: One hundred thirty-two patients were identified from a prospectively maintained database that underwent gastric resection for gastric adenocarcinoma between 1/00 and 3/11 at one institution. Pre- and postoperative nutritional status and relevant intraoperative and postoperative parameters were examined. RESULTS: Median age was 64 years (range 23-85). Forty-six (35%) underwent a total and 86 (65%) a subtotal gastrectomy. J-tubes were placed in 66 (50%) patients, 34 of whom underwent a subtotal and 32 a total gastrectomy. Preoperative nutritional status was similar between J-tube and no J-tube groups as measured by serum albumin (3.5 vs. 3.4 g/dL). Tumor grade, T, N, and overall stage were similar between groups. J-tube placement was associated with increased postop complications (59% vs. 41%, P = 0.04) and infectious complications (36% vs. 17%, P = 0.01), of which majority were surgical site infections. J-tubes were associated with prolonged length of stay (13 vs. 11 days; P = 0.05). There was no difference in postoperative nutritional status as measured by 30, 60, and 90-day albumin levels and the rate of receiving adjuvant therapy was similar between groups (J-tube: 61%, no J-tube: 53%, P = 0.38). Multivariate analyses revealed J-tubes to be associated with increased postop complications (HR: 4.8; 95% CI: 1.3-17.7; P = 0.02), even when accounting for tumor stage and operative difficulty and extent. Subset analysis revealed J-tubes to have less associated morbidity after total gastrectomy. CONCLUSION: J-tube placement after gastrectomy for gastric cancer may be associated with increased postoperative complications with no demonstrable advantage in receiving adjuvant therapy. Routine use of J-tubes after subtotal gastrectomy may not be justified, but may be selectively indicated in patients undergoing total gastrectomy. A prospective trial is needed to validate these results.

Is it time to abandon routine operative drain use? A single institution assessment of 709 consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies.

BACKGROUND: Routine use of operative (primary) drains after pancreaticoduodenctomy (PD) remains controversial. We reviewed our experience with PD for postoperative (secondary) drainage and postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) rates based on use of primary drains. STUDY DESIGN: We identified consecutive patients who underwent PD between 2005 and 2012 from our pancreatectomy database. Primary closed suction drains were placed at the surgeon's discretion. Patient and operative factors were assessed, along with POPF, complications, and secondary drain placement rates. RESULTS: There were 709 PDs performed, and 251 (35%) patients had primary drains placed. Age, sex, body mass index, and comorbidities were similar among groups; however, drained patients had slightly larger pancreatic ducts (mean diameter 3.8 mm vs 2.2 mm; p < 0.01). The overall secondary drainage rate was 7.1%. Primary drain placement did not affect the need for secondary drainage (with primary drain, 8.4% vs without primary drain 6.3%, p = 0.36), reoperation (5.6% vs 5.7%, p = 1.00), readmission (17.5% vs 16.8%, p = 0.89), or 30-day mortality (2.0% vs 2.5%, p = 0.80). When compared with the no drain group, patients with primary drains experienced higher rates of overall morbidity (68.1% vs 54.1%, p < 0.01) and significant POPF (16.3% vs 7.6%; p < 0.01), as well as longer hospital stays (13.8 days vs 11.3 days; p < 0.01). On multivariate analysis, primary drain placement remained an independent risk factor for pancreatic fistula formation (hazard ratio 3.3, p < 0.01), but did not have an impact on secondary drainage rates (p = 0.85). CONCLUSIONS: Placement of closed suction drains during pancreaticoduodenectomy does not appear to decrease the rate of secondary drainage procedures or reoperation, and may be associated with increased pancreatic fistula formation and overall morbidity. These data support foregoing routine primary operative drainage at time of pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Insurance status and survival disparities among nonelderly rectal cancer patients in the National Cancer Data Base.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with colorectal cancer, insurance status is associated with disparities in survival as well as differences in stage and treatment. The role of stage and treatment differences in these survival disparities is not clear because insurance status is also strongly correlated with race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and other factors. METHODS: The authors used data from the National Cancer Data Base, a national hospital-based cancer registry, to examine insurance status and other factors related to survival among 19,154 rectal cancer patients aged 18 to 64 years. The authors examined the impact of 10 factors on 5-year survival: age, sex, race/ethnicity, histologic grade, histologic subtype, neighborhood education and income levels, facility type, stage, and treatment. RESULTS: Adjusted only for age, the hazard ratio (HR) for death at 5 years was 1.00 (referent) among privately insured patients, 2.05 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.89-2.23) among Medicaid-insured patients, and 2.01 (95% CI, 1.84-2.19) among uninsured patients. After adjustment for all factors other than stage and treatment, the HRs were 1.88 (95% CI, 1.722.04) for Medicaid-insured patients and 1.84 (95% CI, 1.69-2.01) for uninsured patients. After further adjustment for stage and treatment, the HRs were 1.34 (95% CI, 1.22-1.46) for Medicaid-insured patients and 1.29 (95% CI, 1.18-1.42) for uninsured patients. CONCLUSIONS: After adjustment for age, further adjustment for 9 other factors reduced the excess mortality among rectal cancer patients without private insurance by approximately 70%. Disparities in stage and treatment accounted for approximately 53% of the excess mortality, whereas factors other than stage and treatment accounted for approximately 17%.