Is Robotic Surgery the Future for Resectable Esophageal Cancer?: A Systematic Literature Review of Oncological and Clinical Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Radical esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer is a major surgical intervention, associated with considerable postoperative morbidity. The introduction of robotic surgical platforms in esophagectomy may enhance advantages of minimally invasive surgery enabled by laparoscopy and thoracoscopy, including reduced postoperative pain and pulmonary complications. This systematic review aims to assess the clinical and oncological benefits of robot-assisted esophagectomy. METHODS: A systematic literature search of the MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase and Cochrane databases was performed for studies published up to 1 August 2023. This review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocols and was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42022370983). Clinical and oncological outcomes data were extracted following full-text review of eligible studies. RESULTS: A total of 113 studies (n = 14,701 patients, n = 2455 female) were included. The majority of the studies were retrospective in nature (n = 89, 79%), and cohort studies were the most common type of study design (n = 88, 79%). The median number of patients per study was 54. Sixty-three studies reported using a robotic surgical platform for both the abdominal and thoracic phases of the procedure. The weighted mean incidence of postoperative pneumonia was 11%, anastomotic leak 10%, total length of hospitalisation 15.2 days, and a resection margin clear of the tumour was achieved in 95% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: There are numerous reported advantages of robot-assisted surgery for resectable esophageal cancer. A correlation between procedural volume and improvements in outcomes with robotic esophagectomy has also been identified. Multicentre comparative clinical studies are essential to identify the true objective benefit on outcomes compared with conventional surgical approaches before robotic surgery is accepted as standard of practice.

Introduction of day-case robotic liver surgery: a case series from a tertiary hepatobiliary and pancreatic centre.

BACKGROUND: Liver surgery is associated with a significant hospital stay regardless the type of liver resection. A large incision is essential for open liver surgery which is a major factor in the course of the patient's recovery. For patients with small parenchyma liver lesions requiring surgical resection, robotic surgery potentially offers the opportunity to transform the patient's post-operative course. A day-case robotic liver resection pathway was formulated and implemented at our institution when patients were planned for discharge within 24 h of admission for liver surgery. METHODS: Single surgeon case series of cases performed at a tertiary hepatobiliary and pancreatic centre between September 2022 and November 2023. The inclusion criteria were non-anatomical wedge resections, < 2 anatomical segmental resections, left lateral hepatectomy and minimally invasive surgery. RESULTS: This is the first series of robotic day-case minor liver resection in the United Kingdom. 20 patients were included in this case series. The mean operative time was 86.6 ± 30.9 min and mean console time was 58.6 ± 24.5 min. Thirteen patients (65%) were discharged within 24 h of surgery. The main cause of hospitalisation beyond 24 h was inadequate pain relief. There were no Clavien-Dindo grade III or above complications, no 30-day readmission and 90-day mortalities. CONCLUSION: This case series demonstrates that robotic day-case liver resection is safe and feasible. Robust follow-up pathways must be in place to allow for the safe implementation of this approach, to monitor for any complications and to allow intervention as required in a timely manner.

Safety of robotic cholecystectomy as index training procedure: the UK experience.

AIMS: To evaluate the safety profile of robotic cholecystectomy performed within the United Kingdom (UK) Robotic Hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) training programme. METHODS: A retrospective evaluation of prospectively collected data from eleven centres participating in the UK Robotic HPB training programme was conducted. All adult patients undergoing robotic cholecystectomy for symptomatic gallstone disease or gallbladder polyp were considered. Bile duct injury, conversion to open procedure, conversion to subtotal cholecystectomy, length of hospital stay, 30-day re-admission, and post-operative complications were the evaluated outcome parameters. RESULTS: A total of 600 patients were included. The median age was 53 (IQR 65-41) years and the majority (72.7%; 436/600) were female. The main indications for robotic cholecystectomy were biliary colic (55.5%, 333/600), cholecystitis (18.8%, 113/600), gallbladder polyps (7.7%, 46/600), and pancreatitis (6.2%, 37/600). The median length of stay was 0 (IQR 0-1) days. Of the included patients, 88.5% (531/600) were discharged on the day of procedure with 30-day re-admission rate of 5.5% (33/600). There were no bile duct injuries and the rate of conversion to open was 0.8% (5/600) with subtotal cholecystectomy rate of 0.8% (5/600). CONCLUSION: The current study confirms that robotic cholecystectomy can be safely implemented to routine practice with a low risk of bile duct injury, low bile leak rate, low conversion to open surgery, and low need for subtotal cholecystectomy.

Patient and Plan Spending after State Specialty-Drug Out-of-Pocket Spending Caps.

BACKGROUND: Specialty drugs are used to treat complex or life-threatening conditions, often at high financial costs to both patients and health plans. Three states - Delaware, Louisiana, and Maryland - passed legislation to cap out-of-pocket payments for specialty drugs at $150 per prescription. A concern is that these caps could shift costs to health plans, increasing insurance premiums. Estimates of the effect of the caps on patient and health-plan spending could inform future policies. METHODS: We analyzed a sample that included 27,161 persons under 65 years of age who had rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, hepatitis C, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, Crohn's disease, or ulcerative colitis and who were in commercial health plans from 2011 through 2016 that were administered by three large nationwide insurers. The primary outcome was the change in out-of-pocket spending among specialty-drug users who were in the 95th percentile for spending on specialty drugs. Other outcomes were changes in mean out-of-pocket and health-plan spending for specialty drugs, nonspecialty drugs, and nondrug health care and utilization of specialty drugs. We compared outcomes in the three states that enacted caps with neighboring control states that did not, 3 years before and up to 3 years after enactment of the spending cap. RESULTS: Caps were associated with an adjusted change in out-of-pocket costs of -$351 (95% confidence interval, -554 to -148) per specialty-drug user per month, representing a 32% reduction in spending, among users in the 95th percentile of spending on specialty drugs. This finding was supported by multiple sensitivity analyses. Caps were not associated with changes in other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Caps for spending on specialty drugs were associated with substantial reductions in spending on specialty drugs among patients with the highest out-of-pocket costs, without detectable increases in health-plan spending, a proxy for future insurance premiums. (Funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Health Data for Action Program.).

Designing a Value-Based Formulary for a Commercial Health Plan: A Simulated Case Study of Diabetes Medications.

OBJECTIVES: The healthcare expenditure for managing diabetes with glucose-lowering medications has been substantial in the United States. We simulated a novel, value-based formulary (VBF) design for a commercial health plan and modeled possible changes in spending and utilization of antidiabetic agents. METHODS: We designed a 4-tier VBF with exclusions in consultation with health plan stakeholders. The formulary information included covered drugs, tiers, thresholds, and cost sharing amounts. The value of 22 diabetes mellitus drugs was determined primarily in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Using pharmacy claims database (2019-2020), we identified 40 150 beneficiaries who were on the included diabetes mellitus medicines. We simulated future health plan spending and out-of-pocket costs with 3 VBF designs, using published own price elasticity estimates. RESULTS: The average age of the cohort is 55 years (51% female). Compared with the current formulary, the proposed VBF design with exclusions is estimated to reduce total annual health plan spending by 33.2% (current: $33 956 211; VBF: $22 682 576), saving $281 in annual spending per member (current: $846; VBF: $565) and $100 in annual out-of-pocket spending per member (current: $119; VBF: $19). Implementing the full VBF with new cost shares, along with exclusions, has the potential to achieve the greatest savings, compared with the 2 intermediate VBF designs (ie, VBF with prior cost sharing and VBF without exclusions). Sensitivity analyses using various price elasticity values showed declines in all spending outcomes. CONCLUSION: Designing a VBF with exclusions in a US employer-based health plan has the potential to reduce health plan and patient spending.

Cost of Implementing an Evidence-Based Intervention to Support Safer Use of Antipsychotics in Youth.

To estimate the cost of implementing a clinical program designed to support safer use of antipsychotics in children and adolescents (youth) age 3-17 years at the time of initiating an antipsychotic medication. We calculate the costs of implementing a psychiatric consultation and navigation program for youth prescribed antipsychotic medications across 4 health systems, which included an electronic health record (EHR) decision support tool, consultation with a child and adolescent psychiatrist, and up to 6 months of behavioral health care navigation, as well as telemental health for patients (n = 348). Cost data were collected for both start-up and ongoing intervention phases and are estimated over a 1-year period. Data sources included study records and time-in-motion reports, analyzed from a health system perspective. Costs included both labor and nonlabor costs (2019 US dollars). The average total start-up and ongoing costs per health system were $34,007 and $185,174, respectively. The average total cost per patient was $2,128. The highest average ongoing labor cost components were telemental health ($901 per patient), followed by child and adolescent psychiatrist consultation ($659), and the lowest cost component was primary care/behavioral health provider time to review/respond to the EHR decision support tool and case consultation ($24). For health systems considering programs to promote safer and targeted use of antipsychotics among youth, this study provides estimates of the full start-up and ongoing costs of an EHR decision support tool, psychiatric consultation service, and psychotherapeutic services for patients and families.Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03448575.

Incentivizing Prescription Drug Switching to Reduce Patient and Health Plan Spending: A Microsimulation Model.

OBJECTIVES: Most spending for prescription drugs is on branded drugs that do not have direct generic equivalents but many of these drugs do have therapeutic alternatives within class. We estimate the potential savings from providing patients a financial incentive to switch from a higher cost drug to a lower cost, therapeutic alternative drug. METHODS: We used individual state-transition microsimulations to model medication use and spending with and without financial incentives over a 12-month time horizon with a healthcare sector perspective. Costs and utilization inputs were from individuals on branded insulins or multiple sclerosis drugs enrolled in a regional mixed-model health maintenance organization. Base-case model used a one-time financial incentive of $83 and $250 offered to patients on higher cost insulin and multiple sclerosis treatments, respectively, to switch to lower cost drugs within class. RESULTS: Savings per individual offered an incentive in the insulin and multiple sclerosis classes were, respectively, $84 (95% CI $46-$122) and $2,127 (95% CI $267-$3,987). Varying the incentive size and switch probability resulted in maximum savings of $712 at elasticity of 0.2 and incentive size $250 for the insulin drug class. For the multiple sclerosis drug class, maximum savings of $5945 was at elasticity of 0.2 and incentive size of $1000. Short time horizon makes our savings estimates conservative. CONCLUSIONS: If programs such as financial incentives could encourage even a small proportion of patients to switch among drugs within therapeutic class, then substantial savings could be generated.

Challenges of Health Technology Assessment in Pluralistic Healthcare Systems: An ISPOR Council Report.

Health technology assessment (HTA) has been growing in use over the past 40 years, especially in its impact on decisions regarding the reimbursement, adoption, and use of new drugs, devices, and procedures. In countries or jurisdictions with "pluralistic" healthcare systems, there are multiple payers or sectors, each of which could potentially benefit from HTA. Nevertheless, a single HTA, conducted centrally, may not meet the needs of these different actors, who may have different budgets, current standards of care, populations to serve, or decision-making processes. This article reports on the research conducted by an ISPOR Health Technology Assessment Council Working Group established to examine the specific challenges of conducting and using HTA in countries with pluralistic healthcare systems. The Group used its own knowledge and expertise, supplemented by a narrative literature review and survey of US payers, to identify existing challenges and any initiatives taken to address them. We recommend that countries with pluralistic healthcare systems establish a national focus for HTA, develop a uniform set of HTA methods guidelines, ensure that HTAs are produced in a timely fashion, facilitate the use of HTA in the local setting, and develop a framework to encourage transparency in HTA. These efforts can be enhanced by the development of good practice guidance from ISPOR or similar groups and increased training to facilitate local use of HTA.

Does Sleeve Gastrectomy Expose the Distal Esophagus to Severe Reflux?: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to appraise the prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), esophagitis, and Barrett's esophagus (BE) after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) through a systematic review and meta-analysis. BACKGROUND: The precise prevalence of new-onset or worsening GERD after SG is controversial. Subsequent esophagitis and BE can be a serious unintended sequalae. Their postoperative prevalence remains unclear. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed to identify studies evaluating postoperative outcomes in primary SG for morbid obesity. The primary outcome was prevalence of GERD, esophagitis, and BE after SG. Meta-analysis was performed to calculate combined prevalence. RESULTS: A total of 46 studies totaling 10,718 patients were included. Meta-analysis found that the increase of postoperative GERD after sleeve (POGAS) was 19% and de novo reflux was 23%. The long-term prevalence of esophagitis was 28% and BE was 8%. Four percent of all patients required conversion to RYGB for severe reflux. CONCLUSIONS: The postoperative prevalence of GERD, esophagitis, and BE following SG is significant. Symptoms do not always correlate with the presence of pathology. As the surgical uptake of SG continues to increase, there is a need to ensure that surgical decision-making and the consent process for this procedure consider these long-term complications while also ensuring their postoperative surveillance through endoscopic and physiological approaches. The long-term outcomes of this commonly performed bariatric procedure should be considered alongside its weight loss and metabolic effects.

Capture of biologic and biosimilar dispensings in a consortium of U.S.-based claims databases: Utilization of national drug codes and Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System modifiers in medical claims.

PURPOSE: To assess the capture of biologics (originator and biosimilar) in the Biologics and Biosimilars Collective Intelligence Consortium (BBCIC) Distributed Research Network (DRN), with a focus on medical claim National Drug Code (NDC), a new data field, and Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) modifier. METHODS: We conducted a repeated cross-sectional study among patients with medical and pharmacy benefits enrolled in insurance plans participating in the BBCIC DRN between 1 January 2013 and 30 September 2017. We calculated the proportion of medical claims with ≥1 NDC and identified select biologics using four different approaches: (a) specific HCPCS alone, (b) specific HCPCS and NDC, (c) non-specific HCPCS with NDC, and (d) HCPCS with modifiers (applicable to biosimilars). Numbers of dispensings were calculated for each biologic by approach and select patient and claim characteristics. RESULTS: More than 1.5 million eligible participants contributed approximately 4 million person-years of data, including 1.2 billion medical claims. The proportion of medical claims with ≥1 NDC increased from 1.2% in 2013 to 3.0% in 2017. Medical claim NDCs identified 39% and 28% of vedolizumab dispensed in 2014 and 2015 and 30% of Epogen/Procrit dispensed overall. Out of 26,381 filgrastim biosimilar dispensings identified, 51% had a HCPCS modifier and 12% had a medical claim NDC for Zarxio. HCPCS modifiers and medical claim NDCs were present for 38% and 3% of all infliximab biosimilars dispensed (total n = 1,244). CONCLUSIONS: Medical claim NDC and HCPCS modifier improves identification of select biologics without product-specific HCPCS code, thereby facilitating product-specific biologic research.

US Health Care Spending by Payer and Health Condition, 1996-2016.

Importance: US health care spending has continued to increase and now accounts for 18% of the US economy, although little is known about how spending on each health condition varies by payer, and how these amounts have changed over time. Objective: To estimate US spending on health care according to 3 types of payers (public insurance [including Medicare, Medicaid, and other government programs], private insurance, or out-of-pocket payments) and by health condition, age group, sex, and type of care for 1996 through 2016. Design and Setting: Government budgets, insurance claims, facility records, household surveys, and official US records from 1996 through 2016 were collected to estimate spending for 154 health conditions. Spending growth rates (standardized by population size and age group) were calculated for each type of payer and health condition. Exposures: Ambulatory care, inpatient care, nursing care facility stay, emergency department care, dental care, and purchase of prescribed pharmaceuticals in a retail setting. Main Outcomes and Measures: National spending estimates stratified by health condition, age group, sex, type of care, and type of payer and modeled for each year from 1996 through 2016. Results: Total health care spending increased from an estimated $1.4 trillion in 1996 (13.3% of gross domestic product [GDP]; $5259 per person) to an estimated $3.1 trillion in 2016 (17.9% of GDP; $9655 per person); 85.2% of that spending was included in this study. In 2016, an estimated 48.0% (95% CI, 48.0%-48.0%) of health care spending was paid by private insurance, 42.6% (95% CI, 42.5%-42.6%) by public insurance, and 9.4% (95% CI, 9.4%-9.4%) by out-of-pocket payments. In 2016, among the 154 conditions, low back and neck pain had the highest amount of health care spending with an estimated $134.5 billion (95% CI, $122.4-$146.9 billion) in spending, of which 57.2% (95% CI, 52.2%-61.2%) was paid by private insurance, 33.7% (95% CI, 30.0%-38.4%) by public insurance, and 9.2% (95% CI, 8.3%-10.4%) by out-of-pocket payments. Other musculoskeletal disorders accounted for the second highest amount of health care spending (estimated at $129.8 billion [95% CI, $116.3-$149.7 billion]) and most had private insurance (56.4% [95% CI, 52.6%-59.3%]). Diabetes accounted for the third highest amount of the health care spending (estimated at $111.2 billion [95% CI, $105.7-$115.9 billion]) and most had public insurance (49.8% [95% CI, 44.4%-56.0%]). Other conditions estimated to have substantial health care spending in 2016 were ischemic heart disease ($89.3 billion [95% CI, $81.1-$95.5 billion]), falls ($87.4 billion [95% CI, $75.0-$100.1 billion]), urinary diseases ($86.0 billion [95% CI, $76.3-$95.9 billion]), skin and subcutaneous diseases ($85.0 billion [95% CI, $80.5-$90.2 billion]), osteoarthritis ($80.0 billion [95% CI, $72.2-$86.1 billion]), dementias ($79.2 billion [95% CI, $67.6-$90.8 billion]), and hypertension ($79.0 billion [95% CI, $72.6-$86.8 billion]). The conditions with the highest spending varied by type of payer, age, sex, type of care, and year. After adjusting for changes in inflation, population size, and age groups, public insurance spending was estimated to have increased at an annualized rate of 2.9% (95% CI, 2.9%-2.9%); private insurance, 2.6% (95% CI, 2.6%-2.6%); and out-of-pocket payments, 1.1% (95% CI, 1.0%-1.1%). Conclusions and Relevance: Estimates of US spending on health care showed substantial increases from 1996 through 2016, with the highest increases in population-adjusted spending by public insurance. Although spending on low back and neck pain, other musculoskeletal disorders, and diabetes accounted for the highest amounts of spending, the payers and the rates of change in annual spending growth rates varied considerably.

Long-Term Patterns of Oral Anticancer Agent Adoption, Duration, and Switching in Patients With CML.

BACKGROUND: Oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have been the standard of care for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) since 2001. However, few studies have evaluated changes in the treatment landscape of CML over time. This study assessed the long-term treatment patterns of oral anticancer therapies among patients with CML. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients newly diagnosed with CML between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2016, from 10 integrated healthcare systems. The proportion of patients treated with 5 FDA-approved oral TKI agents-bosutinib, dasatinib, imatinib, nilotinib, and ponatinib-in the 12 months after diagnosis were measured, overall and by year, between 2000 and 2017. We assessed the use of each oral agent through the fourth-line setting. Multivariable logistic regression estimated the odds of receiving any oral agent, adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Among 853 patients with CML, 81% received an oral agent between 2000 and 2017. Use of non-oral therapies decreased from 100% in 2000 to 5% in 2005, coinciding with imatinib uptake from 65% in 2001 to 98% in 2005. Approximately 28% of patients switched to a second-line agent, 9% switched to a third-line agent, and 2% switched to a fourth-line agent. Adjusted analysis showed that age at diagnosis, year of diagnosis, and comorbidity burden were statistically significantly associated with odds of receiving an oral agent. CONCLUSIONS: A dramatic shift was seen in CML treatments away from traditional, nonoral chemotherapy toward use of novel oral TKIs between 2000 and 2017. As the costs of oral anticancer agents reach new highs, studies assessing the long-term health and financial outcomes among patients with CML are warranted.

Defining and Managing High-Priced Cures: Healthcare Payers' Opinions.

OBJECTIVES: Recent regulatory approvals of potentially curative but high-cost treatments have made these therapies a focus of health policy discussions. Cures present new challenges to healthcare payers because they have high upfront costs but have life-long health benefits. The objectives of this study are to understand how healthcare payers define and manage cures. We investigated payers' views on key features of curative treatments and the affordability and value challenges they present. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews in 2016 with key informants in US payer organizations. Interviewees were directly involved in coverage determination for highly effective and curative therapies. RESULTS: We contacted 24 individuals and 18 participated. When asked what aspects of cures were important for coverage determination, an equal percentage of respondents (61% each) mentioned clinical and economic factors. In defining a cure, half of respondents included an economic element such as no downstream costs associated with the disease. When asked about challenges, 72% of respondents mentioned uncertainty regarding long-term outcomes and 56% mentioned membership churn and competition. CONCLUSIONS: Payers expressed a novel definition of a cure-which we call a "healthcare cost cure"-that captures both the clinical and economic consequences of treatment. This definition may be more pertinent in fragmentary financing systems that unevenly distribute cure costs and benefits across payers. Overall findings indicate that decision makers desire evidence to ensure that the long-term real-world consequences of covering cures match the expected benefits. Future policies need to balance upfront acquisition costs with downstream financial benefits.

Price elasticities of pharmaceuticals in a value based-formulary setting.

Empirical estimates of price elasticities of demand (PED) for pharmaceuticals suggest that they are relatively price inelastic. However, in many settings, a medication and its substitutes and complements face simultaneous differential changes in prices that affect the observed "composite" PED. We exploit an implementation of a value-based formulary (VBF) that utilized drug-specific incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) to inform drug copayments, resulting in increases in copayments for some medications and decreases in copayments for others. We first show theoretically that by changing the price of a medication and its substitute in opposite directions, VBF designs can leverage cross-price effects to increase the range of composite PEDs. We then empirically estimate PED and welfare effects using a consumer surplus approach. Overall PED was -0.16, similar to the RAND Health Insurance Experiment estimate. However, there was substantial dispersion of PED across the VBF copayment tiers ranging from -0.09 to -0.87 with a statistically significant trend aligned with the levels of value as reflected by the ICER estimates (p < 0.001). The net welfare increase was $147,000 for the cohort or $28 per member over the postpolicy year. Further experimentations of VBF designs with alternative cost-effectiveness thresholds, copayment levels and value definitions could be quite promising for improving welfare.

Impact of a Value-based Formulary on Medication Utilization, Health Services Utilization, and Expenditures.

BACKGROUND: Value-based benefit design has been suggested as an effective approach to managing the high cost of pharmaceuticals in health insurance markets. Premera Blue Cross, a large regional health plan, implemented a value-based formulary (VBF) for pharmaceuticals in 2010 that explicitly used cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to inform medication copayments. OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY: The objective of the study was to determine the impact of the VBF. DESIGN: Interrupted time series of employer-sponsored plans from 2006 to 2013. SUBJECTS: Intervention group: 5235 beneficiaries exposed to the VBF. CONTROL GROUP: 11,171 beneficiaries in plans without any changes in pharmacy benefits. INTERVENTION: The VBF-assigned medications with lower value (estimated by CEA) to higher copayment tiers and assigned medications with higher value to lower copayment tiers. MEASURES: Primary outcome was medication expenditures from member, health plan, and member plus health plan perspectives. Secondary outcomes were medication utilization, emergency department visits, hospitalizations, office visits, and nonmedication expenditures. RESULTS: In the intervention group after VBF implementation, member medication expenditures increased by $2 per member per month (PMPM) [95% confidence interval (CI), $1-$3] or 9%, whereas health plan medication expenditures decreased by $10 PMPM (CI, $18-$2) or 16%, resulting in a net decrease of $8 PMPM (CI, $15-$2) or 10%, which translates to a net savings of $1.1 million. Utilization of medications moved into lower copayment tiers increased by 1.95 days' supply (CI, 1.29-2.62) or 17%. Total medication utilization, health services utilization, and nonmedication expenditures did not change. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-sharing informed by CEA reduced overall medication expenditures without negatively impacting medication utilization, health services utilization, or nonmedication expenditures.

Complete Primary Pathological Response Following Neoadjuvant Treatment and Radical Resection for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: Neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) for borderline (BD) or locally advanced (LA) primary pancreatic cancer (PDAC) is now a widely adopted approach. We present a case series of patients who have achieved a complete pathological response of the primary tumour on final histology following neoadjuvant chemotherapy +/- chemoradiation and radical surgery. METHODS: Patients who underwent radical pancreatic resection following neoadjuvant treatment between March 2006 and March 2023 at a single institution were identified by retrospective case note review of a prospectively maintained database. RESULTS: Ten patients were identified to have a complete primary pathological response (ypT0) on postoperative histology. Before treatment, five patients were considered BD and five were LA according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. All patients underwent staging Computed Tomography (CT) and nine underwent 18Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography (18FDG-PET/CT) imaging, with a mean maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of the primary lesion at 6.14 ± 1.98 units. All patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and eight received further chemoradiotherapy prior to resection. Mean pre- and post-neoadjuvant treatment serum Ca19-9 was 148.0 ± 146.3 IU/L and 18.0 ± 18.7 IU/L, respectively (p = 0.01). The mean duration of NAT was 5.6 ± 1.7 months. The mean time from completion of NAT to surgery was 13.1 ± 8.3 weeks. The mean lymph node yield was 21.1 ± 10.4 nodes, with one patient found to have 1 lymph node involved. All resections were reported to be R0. The mean length of stay was 11.8 ± 6.2 days. At the time of analysis, one death was reported at 35 months postoperatively. Two cases of recurrence were reported at 16 months (surgical bed) and 33 months (pulmonary). All other patients remain alive and under active surveillance. The current overall survival is 26.6 ± 20.7 months and counting. CONCLUSIONS: Complete primary pathological response is uncommon but possible following neoadjuvant treatment in patients with PDAC. Further work to identify the common denominator within this unique cohort may lead to advances in the therapeutic approach and offer hope for patients diagnosed with borderline or locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Asthma control, cost and race: results from a national survey.

OBJECTIVE: Although interventions have been shown to alleviate symptoms in most patients suffering from asthma, only one-third of asthma patients have disease that is well-controlled. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether partly and uncontrolled asthmas are associated with increased costs for asthma-related healthcare utilization compared to well-controlled asthma and to determine whether these associations differed across racial groups. METHODS: We classified respondents from the Asthma Insights and Management survey into those with well-, partly and uncontrolled asthma and compared utilization of healthcare services and costs among these groups, as well as between whites and non-whites. RESULTS: Respondents categorized as having asthma that was not well-controlled reported lower income levels, higher rates of unemployment and more trouble paying for healthcare; similar results were found in analyses stratified by race. Patients whose asthma was partly or uncontrolled had greater use of asthma-related medications and medical services compared to patients whose asthma was well-controlled. Total unadjusted and adjusted costs were greater in patients whose asthma was classified as partly and uncontrolled. Similar results were found in analyses stratified on race. Across all levels of asthma control, non-whites had higher rates of utilization of emergency rooms and urgent care facilities and had greater rates of hospitalizations compared to whites. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that patients with asthma that is not well-controlled utilized more healthcare resources and had greater medical costs, despite lacking of health insurance which may suggest less access to care.