Postoperative Global Period Cost Reduction Using 3 Successive Risk-Stratified Pancreatectomy Clinical Pathways.

BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that iterative revisions of our original 2016 risk-stratified pancreatectomy clinical pathways would be associated with decreased 90-day perioperative costs. STUDY DESIGN: From a single-institution retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients with 3 iterations: "version 1" (V1) (October 2016 to January 2019), V2 (February 2019 to October 2020), and V3 (November 2020 to February 2022), institutional data were aggregated using revenue codes and adjusted to constant 2022-dollar value. Grand total perioperative costs (primary endpoint) were the sum of pancreatectomy, inpatient care, readmission, and 90-day global outpatient care. Proprietary hospital-based costs were converted to ratios using the mean cost of all hospital operations as the denominator. RESULTS: Of 814 patients, pathway V1 included 363, V2 229, and V3 222 patients. Accordion Grade 3+ complications decreased with each iteration (V1: 28.4%, V2: 22.7%, and V3: 15.3%). Median length of stay decreased (V1: 6 days, interquartile range [IQR] 5 to 8; V2: 5 [IQR 4 to 6]; and V3: 5 [IQR 4 to 6]) without an increase in readmissions. Ninety-day global perioperative costs decreased by 32% (V1 cost ratio 12.6, V2 10.9, and V3 8.6). Reduction of the index hospitalization cost was associated with the greatest savings (-31%: 9.4, 8.3, and 6.5). Outpatient care costs decreased consistently (1.58, 1.41, and 1.04). When combining readmission and all outpatient costs, total "postdischarge" costs decreased (3.17, 2.59, and 2.13). Component costs of the index hospitalization that were associated with the greatest savings were room or board costs (-55%: 1.74, 1.14, and 0.79) and pharmacy costs (-61%: 2.20, 1.61, and 0.87; all p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Three iterative risk-stratified pancreatectomy clinical pathway refinements were associated with a 32% global period cost savings, driven by reduced index hospitalization costs. This successful learning health system model could be externally validated at other institutions performing abdominal cancer surgery.

Laparoscopic transverse abdominis plane block: how I do it and a cost efficiency analysis.

PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy and efficiency of laparoscopic transverse abdominis plane block (Lap-TAP) in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy and gastrectomy compared to those of ultrasound-guided TAP (US-TAP). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the records of patients who underwent open or minimally invasive (MIS) pancreatoduodenectomy and major gastrectomy with the use of Lap-TAP or US-TAP at our institution between November 1, 2018, and September 30, 2021. We compared the estimated time and cost associated with Lap-TAP and US-TAP. We also compared postoperative opioid use and pain scores between patients who underwent open laparotomy with these TAPs. RESULTS: A total of 194 patients were included. Overall, 114 patients (59%) underwent pancreatectomy, and 80 patients (41%) underwent gastrectomy. Additionally, 138 patients (71%) underwent an open procedure, and 56 patients (29%) underwent MIS. A total of 102 patients (53%) underwent US-TAP, and 92 (47%) underwent Lap-TAP. The median time to skin incision was significantly shorter in the Lap-TAP group (US-TAP, 59 min vs. Lap-TAP, 45 min; P < 0.001), resulting in an estimated reduction in operation cost by $602. Pain scores and postoperative opioid use were similar between Lap-TAP and US-TAP among open surgery patients, indicating equivalent pain control between Lap-TAP and US-TAP. CONCLUSION: Lap-TAP was equally effective in pain control as US-TAP after pancreatectomy and gastrectomy, and Lap-TAP can reduce operation time and cost. Lap-TAP is considered the preferred approach for MIS pancreatectomy and gastrectomy, which occasionally needs conversion to laparotomy.

Surgical Eligibility Does Not Imply Surgical Equity: Recommendations for Curative Treatment in Patients With Stage I/II Pancreatic Head Adenocarcinoma Differ by Age and Race.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to characterize differences in pancreatectomy recommendation rates to surgically eligible patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic head across age and racial groups. BACKGROUND: Pancreatectomy is not recommended in almost half of otherwise healthy patients with stage I/II pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma lacking a surgical contraindication. We characterized differences in pancreatectomy recommendation among surgically eligible patients across age and racial groups. METHODS: Non-Hispanic White (NHW) and Non-Hispanic Black (NHB) patients were identified in the National Cancer Database with clinical stage I/II pancreatic head adenocarcinoma, Charlson Comorbidity Index of 0 to 1, and age 40 to 89 years. Rates of surgery recommendation and overall survival (OS) by age and race were compared. A Pancreatectomy Recommendation Equivalence Point (PREP) was defined as the age at which the rate of not recommending surgery matched the rate of recommending and completing surgery. Marginal standardization was used to identify association of age and race with recommendation. OS was compared using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression models. RESULTS: Among 40,866 patients, 36,133 (88%) were NHW and 4733 (12%) were NHB. For the entire cohort, PREP was 79 years. PREP was 5 years younger in NHB patients than in NHW patients (75 vs 80 years). Adjusted rates of not recommending surgery were significantly higher for NHB than for NHW patients in each age group. After adjusting for surgery recommendation, we found no difference in OS between NHW and NHB patients (hazard ratio 0.98 [95% CI 0.94-1.02]). CONCLUSIONS: PREP of NHB patients was 5 years younger than NHW patients, and in every age group, the rate of not recommending pancreatectomy was higher in NHB patients. Age and race disparities in treatment recommendations may contribute to shorter longevity of NHB patients.

Contemporary Assessment of Need for Palliative Bypass After Aborted Pancreatoduodenectomy Following Neoadjuvant Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Planned pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) can be aborted due to intraoperative findings. There is little guidance regarding the need for prophylactic bypass following an aborted PD to prevent symptomatic biliary obstruction or gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) postoperatively. The aim of this study was to characterize postoperative interventions and postsurgical survival in patients following aborted PD. METHODS: Patients with PDAC treated with neoadjuvant therapy and staging laparoscopy prior to planned PD between 2010 and 2015 were reviewed for aborted PDs. Data on postoperative biliary obstruction, GOO, procedural intervention, and postsurgical survival were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 271 planned PDs, 47 (17.3%) were aborted. Thirty-six patients had ≥ 2 months of follow-up data and were included. Six patients underwent hepaticojejunostomy and nine patients underwent gastrojejunostomy at the time of the aborted PD. Sixteen of 30 patients (53%) without a surgical biliary bypass required endoscopic intervention, but none required palliative surgery. Ten of 27 patients (37%) without an operative gastrojejunostomy required intervention, but none required palliative surgery. Endoscopic or percutaneous therapy was required to treat 13/16 (81%) patients who presented with postoperative biliary obstructions and 6/10 (60%) of GOOs. Median survival following aborted PD was 13.3 months (CI 8.9-17.7). There were no differences in survival when comparing patients who developed a biliary obstruction (p = 0.92) or GOO (p = 0.90) to asymptomatic patients. CONCLUSIONS: Following aborted PD, patients commonly develop obstructive symptoms. However, these symptoms can generally be managed without surgical intervention. In asymptomatic patients, preemptive surgical bypasses are not required at the time of aborted PD.

Association of Medicaid Expansion with Pancreatic Cancer Treatment and Outcomes: Evidence from the National Cancer Database.

BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic- and demographic-based disparities exist in the treatment of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Medicaid expansion (ME) may have an impact on these disparities. Analyses of patients with PDAC from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) were performed to examine the impact of ME on access to treatment and outcomes. METHODS: Patients with non-metastatic PDAC diagnosed between 2006 and 2016 were identified. Multiple logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate factors associated with curative-intent surgical resection, multimodal therapy, treatment at a high-volume facility (HVF), and survival. RESULTS: The study identified 41,876 patients who met the criteria. Medicaid expansion was independently associated with curative-intent resection (odds ratio [OR] 1.54; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.43-1.67; p < 0.001). In a multivariable analysis, ME was independently associated with multimodal therapy (OR 1.60; 95 % CI 1.44-1.76; p < 0.001) and treatment at an HVF (OR 1.57; 95 % CI 1.42-1.74; p < 0.001). Medicaid expansion was independently associated with improved 30-day mortality (OR 0.49; 95 % CI 0.34-0.79) and 90-day mortality (OR 0.48 95 % CI 0.35-0.59). Cox regression analysis demonstrated that after adjustment for other variables, ME status was associated with improved overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 95 % CI 0.73-0.90; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid expansion is associated with increased use of care processes that improve outcomes in PDAC, operative outcomes, and overall survival. The study data suggest that ME has helped to improve disparities in PDAC in ME states.

Perceptions of opioid use and prescribing habits in oncologic surgery: A survey of the society of surgical oncology membership.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to assess current perceptions surrounding opioid prescribing in surgical oncology to inform perioperative quality improvement initiatives. METHODS: After the Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) approval, a survey was distributed to its membership. Five sample procedures were used to assess provider perceptions and prescribing habits. Data were summarized and compared by self-reported demographics. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-five participants completed the survey: 149 (85%) faculty, 24 (14%) trainees, and 2 (1%) advanced practice providers. Most participants (76%) practiced in academic programs and 21% practiced in non-US locations. Few differences were identified based on clinical role, academic rank, or practice years. Compared with non-US providers, US providers expected higher pain scores at discharge, recommended greater opioid prescriptions, and estimated more days of opioid use for almost every procedure. More non-US providers believed discharge opioids should not be distributed to patients who are opioid-free in their last 24 inpatient hours (80% vs 50%, P = .001). All providers ranked education as "very important" for reducing opioid prescriptions. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with their international counterparts, US surgical oncology providers expected greater opioid needs and recommended higher prescription numbers. Educating providers on multimodal opioid-sparing bundles, accelerated weaning protocols, and standardized discharge prescribing habits could have a positive impact the US opioid epidemic.

Educating Surgical Oncology Providers on Perioperative Opioid Use: Results of a Departmental Survey on Perceptions of Opioid Needs and Prescribing Habits.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing oncologic surgery are at risk for persistent postoperative opioid use. As a quality improvement initiative, this study sought to characterize provider perceptions regarding opioid-prescribing after oncologic procedures. METHODS: Surgical oncology attending physicians, clinical fellows, and advanced practice providers (APPs) at a high-volume cancer center were surveyed before and after educational sessions focusing on the opioid epidemic with review of departmental data. RESULTS: The pre-education response rates were 72 (70%) of 103: 22 (65%) of 34 attending physicians, 19 (90%) of 21 fellows, and 31 (65%) of 48 APPs. For five index operations (open abdominal resection, laparoscopic colectomy, wide local excision, thyroidectomy, port), the fellows answered that patients should stop receiving opioids sooner than recommended by the attending surgeons or APPs. For four of five procedures, the APPs recommended higher discharge opioid prescriptions than the attending surgeons or fellows. Almost half of the providers (n = 46, 45%) responded to both the pre- and post-education surveys. After the intervention, the providers recommended lower numbers of opioid pills and indicated that patients should be weaned from opioids sooner for all the procedures. Compared with pre-education, more providers agreed post-education that discharge opioid prescriptions should be based on a patient's last 24 h of inpatient opioid use (83 vs 91%; p = 0.006). The providers who did not attend a session showed no difference in perceptions or recommendations at the repeat assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Variation exists in perioperative opioid-prescribing among provider types, with those most involved in daily care and discharge processes generally recommending more opioids. After education, providers lowered discharge opioid recommendations and thought patients should stop receiving opioids sooner. The next steps include assessing for quantitative changes in opioid-prescribing and implementing standardized opioid prescription algorithms.

The effects of tenure and promotion on surgeon productivity.

BACKGROUND: Studies investigating the impact of promotion and tenure on surgeon productivity are lacking. The aim of this study is to elucidate the relationship of promotion and tenure to surgeon productivity. METHODS: We reviewed data for the Department of Surgery at our institution. Relative value units (RVUs) billed per year, publications per year, and grant funding per year were used to assess productivity from 2010 to 2016. We analyzed tenure-track (TT) and non-tenure-track (NT) surgeons and compared the productivity within these groups by rank: assistant professor (ASST), associate professor (ASSOC), and full professor (FULL). Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess significance and relationships between the groups. RESULTS: A TT faculty was promoted if they produced more research, with the highest publication rates in TT FULL. TT faculty publishing rates increased from ASST to ASSOC (1 versus 2, P = 0.006) and from ASSOC to FULL (2 versus 4, P < 0.001). There were no differences in the low publication rates among NT ranks. Grant funding was also highest at the TT FULL level. The clinical production (RVUs) was highest between TT ASSOC and NT FULL. TT faculty increased productivity between ASST and ASSOC (7023 versus 8384, P = 0.001) and decreased between ASSOC and FULL (8384 versus 6877, P < 0.001). Among NT faculty, RVUs were stagnant between ASST and ASSOC levels (4877 versus 6313, P = 0.312) and increased between ASSOC and FULL levels (6313 versus 8975, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Tenure and nontenure pathways appear to appropriately incentivize surgical faculty over the course of their advancement. TT FULL has the highest research production and grant funding, whereas NT FULL has the highest clinical production.

Failure to operate on resectable gastric cancer: implications for policy changes and regionalization.

BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of patients never receive curative-intent surgery for resectable gastric cancer (GC). The primary aims of this study were to identify disparities and targetable risk factors associated with failure to operate in the context of national trends in surgical rates for resectable GC. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was used to identify patients with resectable GC (adenocarcinoma, clinical stage IA-IIIC, 2004-2013). Multivariate modeling was used to identify predictors of resection and to analyze the impact of surgery on overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Of 46,970 patients with resectable GC, 18,085 (39%) did not receive an appropriate operation. Among unresected patients, 69% had no comorbidities. Failure to resect was associated with reduced median OS (44.4 versus 11.8 mo, hazard ratio [HR]: 2.09, P < 0.001). In the multivariate analysis, the most critical factors affecting OS were resection (HR: 2.09) and stage (reference IA; HR range: 1.16-3.50, stage IB-IIIC). Variables independently associated with no surgery included insurance other than private or Medicare (odds ratio [OR]: 1.60/1.54), nonacademic/nonresearch hospital (OR: 1.16), non-Asian race (OR: 1.72), male (OR: 1.19), older age (OR: 1.04), Charlson-Deyo score >1 (OR: 1.17), residing in areas with median income <$48,000 (OR: 1.23), small urban populations <20,000 (OR: 1.41), and stage (reference IA; OR range: 1.36-3.79, stage IB-IIIC, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Over one-third of patients with resectable GC fail to receive surgery. Suitable insurance coverage and treatment facility are the most salient (and only modifiable) risk factors for omitting surgery. To mitigate national disparities in surgical care, policymakers should consider improving insurance coverage in underserved areas and regionalization of gastric cancer care.

Pancreas fistula risk prediction: implications for hospital costs and payments.

BACKGROUND: As payment models evolve, disease-specific risk stratification may impact patient selection and financial outcomes. This study sought to determine whether a validated clinical risk score for post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) could predict hospital costs, payments, and profit margins. METHODS: A multi-institutional cohort of 1193 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) were matched to an independent hospital where cost, in US$, and payment data existed. An analytic model detailed POPF risk and post-operative sequelae, and their relationship with hospital cost and payment. RESULTS: Per-patient hospital cost for negligible-risk patients was $37,855. Low-, moderate-, and high- risk patients had incrementally higher hospital costs of $38,125 ($270; 0.7% above negligible-risk), $41,128 ($3273; +8.6%), and $41,983 ($3858; +10.9%), respectively. Similarly, hospital payment for negligible-risk patients was $42,685/patient, with incrementally higher payments for low-risk ($43,265; +1.4%), moderate-risk ($45,439; +6.5%) and high-risk ($46,564; +9.1%) patients. The lowest 30-day readmission rates - with highest net profit - were found for negligible/low-risk patients (10.5%/11.1%), respectively, compared with readmission rates of moderate/high-risk patients (15%/15.7%). CONCLUSION: Financial outcomes following PD can be predicted using the FRS. Such prediction may help hospitals and payers plan for resource allocation and payment matched to patient risk, while providing a benchmark for quality improvement initiatives.

Does finding early recurrence improve outcomes, and at what cost?

The putative goal of surveillance is the early detection of recurrence while both the cancer and patient are still treatable. To be cost and clinically effective, surveillance requires a tailored approach based on stage, tumor biology, conditional survival, and available treatment options. Although surveillance is the major component of care for cancer patients after potentially curative treatment, current guidelines for surveillance lack the high-level data seen on the treatment side of the patient care continuum. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;114:329-335. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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.