Total and out-of-pocket costs of different primary management strategies in ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Communicating healthcare costs to patients is an important component of delivering high-quality value-based care, yet cost data are lacking. This is especially relevant for ovarian cancer, where no clinical consensus on optimal first-line treatment exists. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to generate cost estimates of different primary management strategies in ovarian cancer. STUDY DESIGN: All women who underwent treatment for ovarian cancer from 2006-2015 were identified from the MarketScan database (n=12,761) in this observational cohort study. Total and out-of-pocket costs were calculated with the use of all claims within 8 months from initial treatment and normalized to 2017 US dollars. The generalized linear model method was used to assess cost by strategy. RESULTS: Among patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and those who underwent primary debulking, mean adjusted total costs were $113,660 and $107,153 (P<.001) and mean out-of-pocket costs were $2519 and $2977 (P<.001), respectively. Total costs for patients who had intravenous standard, intravenous dose-dense, and intraperitoneal/intravenous chemotherapy were $105,047, $115,099, and $121,761 (P<.001); and out-of-pocket costs were $2838, $3405, and $2888 (P<.001), respectively. Total costs for regimens that included bevacizumab were higher than those without it ($171,468 vs $104,482; P<.001); out-of-pocket costs were $3127 vs $2898 (P<.001). Among patients who did not receive bevacizumab, 25% paid ≥$3875, and 10% paid ≥$6265. For patients who received bevacizumab, 25% paid ≥$4480, and 10% paid ≥$6635. Among patients enrolled in high-deductible health plans, median out-of-pocket costs were $4196, with 25% paying ≥$6680 and 10% paying ≥$9751. CONCLUSION: Costs vary across different treatment strategies, and patients bear a significant out-of-pocket burden, especially those enrolled in high-deductible health plans.

National trends, outcomes, and costs of radiation therapy in the management of low- and high-intermediate risk endometrial cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To assess treatment patterns, outcomes, and costs for women with low-(LIR) and high-intermediate risk endometrial cancer (HIR) who are treated with and without adjuvant radiotherapy. METHODS: All patients with stage I endometrioid endometrial cancer who underwent surgery from 2000 to 2011 were identified from the SEER-Medicare database. LIR was defined as G1-2 tumors with <50% myometrial invasion or G3 with no invasion. HIR was defined as G1-2 tumors with ≥50% or G3 with <50% invasion. Patients were categorized according to whether they received adjuvant radiotherapy (vaginal brachytherapy [VBT], external beam radiotherapy [EBRT], or both) or no radiotherapy. Outcomes were analyzed and compared (primary outcome was overall survival). RESULTS: 10,842 patients met inclusion criteria. In the LIR group (n = 7609), there was no difference in 10-year overall survival between patients who received radiotherapy and those who did not (67% vs 65%, adjusted HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.81-1.11). In the HIR group (n = 3233), patients who underwent radiotherapy had a significant increase in survival (60% vs 47%, aHR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67-0.85). Radiotherapy was associated with increased costs compared to surgery alone ($26,585 vs $16,712, p < .001). Costs for patients receiving VBT, EBRT, and concurrent VBT/EBRT were $24,044, $27,512, and $31,564, respectively (p < .001). Radiotherapy was associated with an increased risk of gastrointestinal (7 vs 4%), genitourinary (2 vs 1%), and hematologic (16 vs 12%) complications (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Radiotherapy was associated with improved survival in women with HIR, but not in LIR. It also had increased costs and a higher morbidity risk. Consideration of observation without radiotherapy in LIR may be reasonable.

Three Lymphadenectomy Strategies in Low-Risk Endometrial Carcinoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-utility of three lymphadenectomy strategies in the management of low-risk endometrial carcinoma. METHODS: A decision analysis model compared three lymphadenectomy strategies in women undergoing minimally invasive surgery for low-risk endometrial carcinoma: 1) routine lymphadenectomy in all patients, 2) selective lymphadenectomy based on intraoperative frozen section criteria, and 3) sentinel lymph node mapping. Costs and outcomes were obtained from published literature and Medicare reimbursement rates. Costs categories consisted of hospital, physician, operating room, pathology, and lymphedema treatment. Effectiveness was defined as 3-year disease-specific survival adjusted for the effect of lymphedema (utility=0.8) on quality of life. A cost-utility analysis was performed comparing the different strategies. Multiple deterministic sensitivity analyses were done. RESULTS: In the base-case scenario, routine lymphadenectomy had a cost of $18,041 and an effectiveness of 2.79 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Selective lymphadenectomy had a cost of $17,036 and an effectiveness of 2.81 QALYs, whereas sentinel lymph node mapping had a cost of $16,401 and an effectiveness of 2.87 QALYs. With a difference of $1,005 and 0.02 QALYs, selective lymphadenectomy was both less costly and more effective than routine lymphadenectomy, dominating it. However, with the lowest cost and highest effectiveness, sentinel lymph node mapping dominated the other modalities and was the most cost-effective strategy. These findings were robust to multiple sensitivity analyses varying the rates of lymphedema and lymphadenectomy, surgical approach (open or minimally invasive surgery), lymphedema utility, and costs. For the estimated 40,000 women undergoing surgery for low-risk endometrial carcinoma each year in the United States, the annual cost of routine lymphadenectomy, selective lymphadenectomy, and sentinel lymph node mapping would be $722 million, $681 million, and $656 million, respectively. CONCLUSION: Compared with routine and selective lymphadenectomy, sentinel lymph node mapping had the lowest costs and highest quality-adjusted survival, making it the most cost-effective strategy in the management of low-risk endometrial carcinoma.

Treatment Patterns, Outcomes, and Costs for Bowel Obstruction in Ovarian Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess treatment patterns, outcomes, and costs for bowel obstruction in ovarian cancer. METHODS/MATERIALS: All patients with stage II to IV ovarian cancer who were admitted for bowel obstruction greater than or equal to 6 months after cancer diagnosis from 2000 to 2011 were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry-Medicare database. Management strategies and outcomes of bowel obstruction were compared. RESULTS: Among 1397 women with bowel obstruction, 562 (40%) underwent surgery, and 154 (11%) had a gastrostomy or jejunostomy (G/J) tube placed. Thirty-four percent of patients who underwent surgery subsequently received chemotherapy, compared with 8% of those managed with a G/J tube (odds ratio, 4.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.7-8.8). Thirty-day complications were higher for patients in the surgery group compared with those in the tube group (69% vs 46%; odds ratio, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.8-3.7), as were mean adjusted 30-day total costs ($28,872 vs $18,528, P < 0.001). Median survival was greater for women who underwent surgery compared with those who had a G/J tube (5.3 vs 1.2 months; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.25-0.38). The median survival of patients in whom surgical correction failed and required G/J tube placement during the same inpatient admission was 2.6 months. Women who received postintervention chemotherapy had improved survival compared with those who did not in both the surgery (17.0 vs 2.8 months, P < 0.001) and G/J tube (5.7 vs 1.0 months, P < 0.001) groups. CONCLUSIONS: In women with ovarian cancer who develop bowel obstruction, surgery may benefit a subset of patients, likely related to the ability to receive subsequent chemotherapy. Efforts to identify those who derive no benefit may reduce unnecessary laparotomy, along with its associated complications and costs. Given this population's limited survival, patient preferences should be evaluated in future studies assessing the management of bowel obstruction.

A multicenter assessment of the ability of preoperative computed tomography scan and CA-125 to predict gross residual disease at primary debulking for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the ability of preoperative computed tomography scan and CA-125 to predict gross residual disease (RD) at primary cytoreduction in advanced ovarian cancer. METHODS: A prospective, non-randomized, multicenter trial of patients who underwent primary debulking for stage III-IV epithelial ovarian cancer previously identified 9 criteria associated with suboptimal (>1cm residual) cytoreduction. This is a secondary post-hoc analysis looking at the ability to predict any RD. Four clinical and 18 radiologic criteria were assessed, and a multivariate model predictive of RD was developed. RESULTS: From 7/2001-12/2012, 350 patients met eligibility criteria. The complete gross resection rate was 33%. On multivariate analysis, 3 clinical and 8 radiologic criteria were significantly associated with the presence of any RD: age≥60years (OR=1.5); CA-125≥600U/mL (OR=1.3); ASA 3-4 (OR=1.6); lesions in the root of the superior mesenteric artery (OR=4.1), splenic hilum/ligaments (OR=1.4), lesser sac >1cm (OR=2.2), gastrohepatic ligament/porta hepatis (OR=1.4), gallbladder fossa/intersegmental fissure (OR=2); suprarenal retroperitoneal lymph nodes (OR=1.3); small bowel adhesions/thickening (OR=1.1); and moderate-severe ascites (OR=2.2). All ORs were significant with p<0.01. A 'predictive score' was assigned to each criterion based on its multivariate OR, and the rate of having any RD for patients who had a total score of 0-2, 3-5, 6-8, and ≥9 was 45%, 68%, 87%, and 96%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We identified 11 criteria associated with RD, and developed a predictive model in which the rate of having any RD was directly proportional to a predictive score. This model may be helpful in treatment planning.

Impact of body mass index and operative approach on surgical morbidity and costs in women with endometrial carcinoma and hyperplasia.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of body mass index (BMI) and operative approach on surgical morbidity and costs in patients with endometrial carcinoma (EC) and hyperplasia (EH). METHODS: All women with BMI data who underwent surgery for EC or EH from 2008 to 2014 were identified from MarketScan, a healthcare claims database. Differences in 30-day complications and costs were compared between BMI groups and stratified by surgical modality. RESULTS: Of 1112 patients, 35%, 36%, and 29% had a BMI of ≤29, 30-39, and ≥40kg/m2, respectively. Compared to patients with a BMI of 30-39 and ≤29, women with a BMI ≥40 had higher rates of venous thromboembolism (3% vs 0.2% vs 0.3%, p<0.01) and wound infection (7% vs 3% vs 3%, p=0.02). This increase was driven by the subset of patients who had laparotomy and was not seen in those undergoing minimally invasive surgery (MIS). Median total costs for women with a BMI ≥40, 30-39, and ≤29 were U.S. $17.3k, $16.8k, and $16.6k respectively (p=0.53). Costs were higher for patients who had laparotomy than those who had MIS across all BMI groups, with the cost difference being highest in morbidly obese women (≥40: $21.6k vs $14.9k, p<0.01; 30-39: $18.9k vs $16.1k, p=0.01; ≤29: $19.3k vs $15k, p<0.01). Patients who had complications had higher costs compared to those who did not, with a higher cost difference in the laparotomy group ($27.7k vs $16.4k, p<0.01) compared to the MIS group ($19.9k vs $15k, p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: MIS may increase the value of care by minimizing complications and decreasing costs. This may be most pronounced in morbidly obese women.