Economic Impact of Reducing Reexcision Rates after Breast-Conserving Surgery in a Large, Integrated Health System.

BACKGROUND: Reexcision after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is costly for patients, but few studies have captured the economic burden to a healthcare system. We quantified operating room (OR) charges as well as OR time and then modeled expected savings of a reexcision reduction initiative. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort review of all breast cancer patients with BCS between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2020. Operating room charges of disposable supplies and implants as well as operative time were calculated. RESULTS: During the 5-year period, the 8804 patients who underwent BCS, 1628 (18.5%) required reexcision. The reexcision cohort was younger (61 vs. 64 years, p < 0.001), more likely to have ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (23.7% vs. 15.2%, p < 0.001), and had larger tumors (T1+T2 73.2% vs. 83.1%, p < 0.001). Reexcision costs represented 39% of total costs, the cost per patient for surgery was fourfold higher for reexcision patients. Reexcision operations comprised 14% of total operating room (OR) time (1848 of 13,030 hours). The reexcision rate for 54 surgeons varied from 7.2-39.0% with 46% (n = 25) having a reexcision rate >20%. A model simulating reducing reexcision rates to 20% or below for all surgeons reduced the reexcision rate to 16.2% overall. Using per procedure data, the model predicted a decrease in reexcision operations by 18% (327 operations), OR costs by 14% ($287,534), and OR time by 11% (204 hours). CONCLUSIONS: Reexcision after BCS represents 39% of direct OR costs and 14% of OR time in our healthcare system. Modest improvements in surgeon reexcision rates may lead to significant economic and OR time savings.

Care in the time of COVID-19: impact on the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer in a large, integrated health care system.

PURPOSES: To delineate operational changes in Kaiser Permanente Northern California breast care and evaluate the impact of these changes during the initial COVID-19 Shelter-in-Place period (SiP, 3/17/20-5/17/20). METHODS: By extracting data from institutional databases and reviewing electronic medical charts, we compared clinical and treatment characteristics of breast cancer patients diagnosed 3/17/20-5/17/20 to those diagnosed 3/17/19-5/17/2019. Outcomes included time from biopsy to consultation and treatment. Comparisons were made using Chi-square or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. RESULTS: Fewer new breast cancers were diagnosed in 2020 during the SiP period than during a similar period in 2019 (n = 247 vs n = 703). A higher percentage presented with symptomatic disease in 2020 than 2019 (78% vs 37%, p < 0.001). Higher percentages of 2020 patients presented with grade 3 (37% vs 25%, p = 0.004) and triple-negative tumors (16% vs 10%, p = 0.04). A smaller percentage underwent surgery first in 2020 (71% vs 83%, p < 0.001) and a larger percentage had neoadjuvant chemotherapy (16% vs 11%, p < 0.001). Telehealth utilization increased from 0.8% in 2019 to 70.0% in 2020. Times to surgery and neoadjuvant chemotherapy were shorter in 2020 than 2019 (19 vs 26 days, p < 0.001, and 23 vs 28 days, p = 0.03, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: During SiP, fewer breast cancers were diagnosed than during a similar period in 2019, and a higher proportion presented with symptomatic disease. Early-stage breast cancer diagnoses decreased, while metastatic cancer diagnoses remained similar. Telehealth increased significantly, and times to treatment were shorter in 2020 than 2019. Our system continued to provide timely breast cancer treatment despite significant pandemic-driven disruption.

Implementation of Intraoperative Ultrasound Localization for Breast-Conserving Surgery in a Large, Integrated Health Care System is Feasible and Effective.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative ultrasound (IUS) localization for breast cancer is a noninvasive localization technique. In 2015, an IUS program for breast-conserving surgery (BCS) was initiated in a large, integrated health care system. This study evaluated the clinical results of IUS implementation. METHODS: The study identified breast cancer patients with BCS from 1 January to 31 October 2015 and from 1 January to 31 October 2019. Clinicopathologic characteristics were collected, and localization types were categorized. Clinical outcomes were analyzed, including localization use, surgeon adoption of IUS, day-of-surgery intervals, and re-excision rates. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate predictors of re-excision. RESULTS: The number of BCS procedures increased 23%, from 1815 procedures in 2015 to 2226 procedures in 2019. The IUS rate increased from 4% of lumpectomies (n = 79) in 2015 to 28% of lumpectomies (n = 632) in 2019 (p < 0.001). Surgeons using IUS increased from 6% (5 of 88 surgeons) in 2015 to 70% (42 of 60 surgeons) in 2019. In 2019, 76% of IUS surgeons performed at least 25% of lumpectomies with IUS. The mean time from admission to incision was shorter with IUS or seed localization than with wire localization (202 min with IUS, 201 with seed localization, 262 with wire localization in 2019; p < 0.001). The IUS re-excision rates were lower than for other localization techniques (13.6%, vs 19.6% for seed localization and 24.7% for wire localization in 2019; p = 0.006), and IUS predicted lower re-excision rates in a multivariable model (odds ratio [OR], 0.59). CONCLUSIONS: In a high-volume integrated health system, IUS was adopted for BCS by a majority of surgeons. The use of IUS decreased the time from admission to incision compared with wire localization, and decreased re-excision rates compared with other localization techniques.

Outpatient Mastectomy: Factors Influencing Patient Selection and Predictors of Return to Care.

BACKGROUND: After implementation of the Surgical Home Recovery (SHR) initiative for mastectomy within a large, integrated health delivery system, most patients are discharged on the day of the procedure. We sought to identify predictors of SHR and unplanned return to care (RTC). STUDY DESIGN: Mastectomy cases with and without reconstruction from October 2017 to August 2019 were analyzed. Patient characteristics, operative variables, and multimodal pain management were compared between admitted patients and SHR patients using logistic regression. We identified predictors of RTC in SHR patients, defined as 7-day readmission, reoperation, or emergency department visit. RESULTS: Of 2,648 mastectomies, 1,689 (64%) were outpatient procedures and the mean age of patients was 58.5 years. Predictors of SHR included perioperative IV acetaminophen (odds ratio [OR] 1.59; 95% CI, 1.28 to 1.97), perioperative opiates (OR 1.47; 95% CI, 1.06 to 2.02), and operation performed by a high-volume breast surgeon (OR 2.12; 95% CI, 1.42 to 3.18). Bilateral mastectomies (OR 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.91), immediate reconstruction (OR 0.52; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.70), and American Society of Anesthesiologists class 3 to 4 (OR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.87) decreased the odds of SHR. Of SHR patients, 111 of 1,689 patients (7%) experienced RTC. Patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists class 3 to 4 (OR 2.01; 95% CI, 1.29 to 3.14) and African American race (OR 2.30; 95% CI, 1.38 to 4.91) were more likely to RTC; receiving IV acetaminophen (OR 0.56; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.88) and filling an opiate prescription (OR 0.51; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.77) decreased the odds of RTC. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeon volume and multimodal pain medication increased the odds of SHR. Within the SHR group, American Society of Anesthesiologists Class 3 to 4 and African American patients increased the likelihood of RTC. This study helps optimize patient selection and perioperative practice for successful SHR.

Adoption of Opioid-Sparing and Non-Opioid Regimens After Breast Surgery in a Large, Integrated Health Care Delivery System.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative prescriptions have contributed to the opioid epidemic. In response, a large, integrated health care delivery system implemented initiatives to reduce outpatient opioid prescriptions. We evaluated the impact of these interventions on opioid-prescribing practices after breast surgery. METHODS: We examined postoperative prescribing practices before and after the 2016-2018 intervention period. Primary endpoints were the use of non-opioid regimens (NORs) and morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) prescribed for postoperative pain management, while secondary endpoints were emergency department (ED) visits and readmissions within 7 days of surgery. RESULTS: In a survey of breast surgeons, 23% reported using NORs in 2017 versus 79% in 2019 (p < 0.001). Comparing 1917 breast operations from 2016 with 2166 operations from 2019, NORs increased from 9% in 2016 to 39% in 2019 (p < 0.001). Average discharge MMEs per operation decreased from 190 in 2016 to 106 in 2019 (p < 0.001). NOR failure (defined as an additional opioid prescription within 2 weeks of surgery) was < 1%. Significantly fewer postoperative ED visits occurred in the NOR group (1.9% NOR vs. 3.4% opioid regimen [OR]; p < 0.001). The 7-day readmission rates for NOR and OR patients were similar (0.49% NOR vs. 0.32% OR; p = 0.45). CONCLUSION: Between 2016 and 2019, breast surgeons in a large, integrated health care delivery system adopted NORs for nearly 40% of breast operations, and prescribed significantly fewer MMEs, with no increases in ED visits or readmissions for NOR patients. This suggests that initiatives to decrease opioid prescribing were successful and that a NOR for pain management after breast surgery is feasible.

Implementation of a Post-mastectomy Home Recovery Program in a Large, Integrated Health Care Delivery System.

BACKGROUND: The number of outpatient mastectomies, with and without reconstruction, has increased nationwide. In well-selected patient populations, same-day surgery for mastectomy is a safe option. A pilot project was initiated within the Kaiser Permanente Northern California healthcare system to facilitate surgical home recovery (SHR) for mastectomy patients, including patients undergoing implant-based reconstruction and bilateral mastectomies. METHODS: Surgical home recovery for mastectomy patients was implemented in October 2017. Specific measures in this initiative included management of patient expectations at initial consultation, education about postoperative home care, multimodality pain management, and timely post-discharge follow-up. All patients undergoing mastectomy were included, except those undergoing autologous tissue reconstructions. After a 6-month implementation period, rate of same day discharge over 6 months was compared before and after the SHR initiative. We also compared emergency department (ED) visits, reoperations, and readmissions within 7 days. RESULTS: Twenty-one medical centers participated in this initiative. Before implementing SHR, 164 of the 717 (23%) mastectomies were outpatient procedures, compared with 403 of the 663 (61%) after the implementation period. Although the rate of outpatient mastectomy increased significantly, there were no statistically significant differences in ED visits (5.2% vs. 5.1%, p = 0.98), reoperation (3.5% vs. 3.5%, p = 0.99), or readmission rates (1.4% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: By implementing standard expectations and sharing best practices, there was a significant increase in the rate of home recovery for mastectomy without compromising quality of patient care. The success of this pilot program supports SHR for mastectomy.

Can high-volume teams of anesthesiologists and surgeons decrease perioperative costs for pancreatic surgery?

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic surgery outcomes are associated with surgeon and center experience. Anesthesiologists as potential value drivers for pancreatic surgery have not been explored. We sought to evaluate whether anesthesiologists impact perioperative costs for pancreatic surgery. METHODS: Within an integrated health care system, 796 pancreatic surgeries (526 PDs and 270 DPs) were performed from January 2014 to June 2017. Mean direct operative and anesthesia costs driven by anesthesiologists (operating room (OR) time, anesthesia billing and anesthesia procedures) were determined for each case. The volumes of pancreatic cases per anesthesiologist were calculated, and those above the 75th percentile for volume (4 cases) were considered high-volume. A multivariable analysis of OR/anesthesia costs was performed. RESULTS: Mean OR and anesthesia costs for PD were $7064 for low-volume anesthesiologists (LVA), higher than $5968 for high-volume anesthesiologists (HVA) (p < 0.001). By multivariable analysis, HVA were associated with decreased costs of $2278 (p < 0.001). Teams of HVA and high-volume surgeons (HVS) were also associated with decreased mean costs of $1790 (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: These data suggest that anesthesiologists experienced in the management of complex pancreatic operations such as PDs may contribute to improved efficiencies in care by reducing perioperative costs.

What Are the Most Significant Cost and Value Drivers for Pancreatic Resection in an Integrated Healthcare System?

BACKGROUND: An initiative was established to improve value-based care for pancreatic surgery in a large nonprofit health system. Cost data were presented bimonthly to a hepatobiliary clinical performance group via videoconference. STUDY DESIGN: The direct costs were calculated for all patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy (DP) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) between January 2014 and July 2017. Median length of stay, 30-day and 90-day mortality rates, readmission rate, and costs were stratified by surgeon volume using 2 published criteria: "volume pledge" criteria (≥5 PDs/year) and Leapfrog criteria (≥11 PDs/year). RESULTS: There were 270 DPs and 526 PDs performed in 14 hospitals spanning 4 states. Median PD costs were lower for high-volume surgeons (≥5 PDs/year), $21,026 vs $24,706 (p = 0.005). High-volume surgeons had a shorter length of stay (9 days vs 11 days; p < 0.001) for PD and DP (6 days vs 7 days; p = 0.001). Increased costs for low-volume surgeons included operative/anesthesia costs ($7,321 vs $6,325; p = 0.03), room and board ($5,828 vs $4,580; p = 0.01), and intensive care costs ($4,464 vs $3,113; p = 0.04). Operating time was increased for high-volume surgeons for DP and PD (p < 0.001). There was no difference in 30-day or 90-day mortality rates or readmissions for DP or PD when stratified by volume pledge criteria. There was no difference in total costs for DP or PD when stratified by Leapfrog criteria. CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant cost reduction for PD but not DP when the threshold of 5 PDs was used as a definition of high volume. The sharing of detailed financial data with HPB surgeons on a regular basis provides an opportunity to evaluate practice patterns and thereby reduce direct costs.

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Improves Survival in Patients with Clinical T4b Colon Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In 2016, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network included neoadjuvant chemotherapy as a treatment option for patients with clinical T4b colon cancer. However, there is little published data on the survival impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced colon cancer. METHODS: Adult patients with non-metastatic clinically staged T3 or T4 colon cancer who underwent surgical resection were identified from the National Cancer Data Base between 2006 and 2014. Treatment was categorized as neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery and surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. Overall survival was compared between the two groups using propensity score matching. RESULTS: Of 27,575 patients that met inclusion criteria, 26,654 (97%) were treated with surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy and 921 (3%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery. After propensity score matching, patients with T4b colon cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy had a 23% lower risk of death at 3 years compared to patients that had adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60-0.98; p = 0.04). However, neoadjuvant chemotherapy did not demonstrate a similar significant benefit for patients with T3 and T4a disease. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with clinical T4b colon cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy may have an improved survival compared to those who receive adjuvant chemotherapy. Further prospective investigation is warranted.

Preferential Use of Total Thyroidectomy without Prophylactic Central Lymph Node Dissection for Early-Stage Papillary Thyroid Cancer: Oncologic Outcomes in an Integrated Health Plan.

CONTEXT: The oncologic benefit of prophylactic central lymph node dissection (pCLND) in node-negative papillary thyroid cancer has been debated. OBJECTIVE: To determine the use of pCLND in an integrated health care system and to evaluate recurrence in the cohort. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of patients with clinically node-negative papillary thyroid cancer who underwent total thyroidectomy with or without pCLND in Kaiser Permanente Southern California Region hospitals between January 1996 and December 2008. Chart review of all patients was performed to collect demographic data, tumor features, stage, and recurrences. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion undergoing pCLND and recurrence rate of papillary thyroid cancer. RESULTS: There were 864 patients identified (mean age, 46.1 years). Almost all patients had total thyroidectomy alone, and 34 (3.9%) underwent pCLND. The TNM (tumor, node, metastasis) stages for the 2 groups were not significantly different (p = 0.18). Overall recurrence was 24 (2.8%). There were 23 (2.8%) recurrences in the no-pCLND group and 1 (2.9%) recurrence in the pCLND group (p = 0.95). The rate of recurrence in the central neck compartment in those without pCLND was 1.1% and 0% in the pCLND group (p = 0.54). The recurrence rate in the lateral neck compartment in the no-pCLND group was 2.2%, and this rate was 2.9% in the pCLND group (p = 0.76). The no-pCLND group had a recurrence-free survival rate of 96.4% at 10 years vs 96.8% in the pCLND patients (p = 0.80). CONCLUSION: Presently, routine pCLND is difficult to advocate in our medical system.