Costs of matched-sibling, unrelated, and haploidentical hematopoietic cell transplantation and risk factors for greater financial burden - a Brazilian FACT-accredited single-center analysis.

The complexity and costs of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) have increased over the last decades with the popularization of unrelated donor (URD) transplantation and the introduction of haploidentical transplantation with posttransplant cyclophosphamide. Few studies have addressed this issue. The objective of this study was to analyze HCT costs in a single FACT-accredited private non-profit hospital. We included 79 patients who underwent HCT between 2018 and 2020. We have included all costs from admission day until D + 180. We used a lognormal regression. Median age was 53 y/o and most donors were unrelated (51%). Costs were higher with haploidentical donor (42%, p = 0.017, compared with URD), higher HCT-CI (15% for each point, p = 0.0056), and in patients with liver or gastrointestinal GVHD (45%, p = 0.033), and lower in patients who received CD34 > 2.5 × 10E6/kg (42%, p = 0.0038). We built a score based on the following risk factors: HCT-CI > 3, CD34 ≤ 2.5 × 10E6/kg, haploidentical donor, and donor age > 30 y/o. Patients with 2 + risk factors (N = 53) had a median cost of USD 226,156.00, compared with USD 93,048.00 in patients with zero or 1 point (N = 26, p < 0.0001). In summary, we have shown that HCT costs are higher with lower doses of CD34 cells, haploidentical HCT (provided that the costs of stem cell procurement and ATG are not included), and in patients with higher HCT-CI. Prospective and refined cost analyses comparing haploidentical and URD transplants, as well as effective strategies for patients with higher HCT-CI scores, are warranted. We found no difference in costs between URD and MSD transplantation.

Percutaneous Cryoablation versus Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy of Renal T1A Tumors: a Single-Center Retrospective Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of percutaneous cryoablation (PCA) versus robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RPN) in patients with small renal tumors (T1a stage), considering perioperative complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective study from November 2008 to April 2017 of 122 patients with a T1a renal mass who after being analyzed by a multidisciplinary board underwent to PCA (59 patients) or RPN (63 patients). Hospital costs in US dollars, and clinical and tumor data were compared. Non-complicated intervention was considered as an effective outcome. A hypothetical model of possible complications based on Clavien-Dindo classification (CDC) was built, grouping them into mild (CDC I and II) and severe (CDC III and IV). A decision tree model was structured from complications of published data. RESULTS: Patients who underwent PCA were older (62.5 vs. 52.8 years old, p < 0.001), presented with more coronary disease and previous renal cancer (25.4% vs. 10.1%, p = 0.023 and 38% vs. 7.2%, p < 0.001, respectively). Patients treated with PCA had a higher preoperative risk (American Society of Anesthesiologists-ASA ≥ 3) than those in the RPN group (25.4% vs. 0%, p < 0.001). Average operative time was significantly lower with PCA than RPN (99.92 ± 29.05 min vs. 129.28 ± 54.85 min, p < 0.001). Average hospitalization time for PCA was 2.2 ± 2.95 days, significantly lower than RPN (mean 3.03 ± 1.49 days, p = 0.04). The average total cost of PCA was significantly lower than RPN (US$12,435 ± 6,176 vs. US$19,399 ± 6,047, p < 0.001). The incremental effectiveness was 5% higher comparing PCA with RPN, resulting a cost-saving result in favor of PCA. CONCLUSION: PCA was the dominant strategy (less costly and more effective) compared to RPN, considering occurrence of perioperative complications.