Cost-Benefit Analysis of Robotic vs. Laparoscopic Hepatectomy: A Propensity-Matched Retrospective Cohort Study of American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database.

BACKGROUND: Robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomies having increased utilization as minimally invasive techniques are explored for hepatobiliary malignancies. Although the data on outcomes from these 2 approaches are emerging, the cost-benefit analysis of these approaches remains sparse. This study compares the costs associated with robotic vs. laparoscopic liver resections, taking into account 30-day complications. METHODS: Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database, a propensity-matched cohort of patients with laparoscopic or robotic liver resections between 2014 and 2017 was identified. Costs were assigned to perioperative variables, including operating room (OR) time, length of stay, blood transfusions, and 30-day complications. Cost estimates were obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services billing data (2017), American Hospital Association data (2017), relevant literature, and local institutional cost data. RESULTS: In our matched cohort of 454 patients (227 per group), total costs associated with laparoscopic liver resections were estimated at $5.5 M ($24 K per patient) vs. $6.8 M ($29.8 K per patient) for robotic liver resections (21.3% difference, P < .001). The higher cost associated with robotic hepatectomies was related to blood transfusions ($22.0 K vs. $12.1 K, P = .02), length of stay ($2.05 M vs. $1.76 M, P = .046), and OR time ($4.01 M vs. $3.24 M, P < .0001). DISCUSSION: Robotic hepatectomies were associated with higher costs compared to laparoscopic hepatectomies. The 2 major contributors to the cost disparity were increased OR time and increased length of stay. Future studies are warranted to analyze high-volume Minimally Invasive Surgery surgeons' impact in specialty centers on potentially mitigating this current cost disparity.

The Role of Neoadjuvant Versus Adjuvant Therapy for Duodenal Adenocarcinoma: A National Cancer Database Propensity Score Matched Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Adjuvant therapy is recommended in duodenal adenocarcinoma (DA), but the role of neoadjuvant therapy remains undefined. We compared the effect of neoadjuvant therapy to adjuvant therapy on overall survival, 30-day, and 90-day mortality following the resection of DA. METHODS: A retrospective review of the National Cancer Database was performed on patients with DA who received either adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy in addition to surgical resection. Propensity score matching was done for patient, socioeconomic, and tumor characteristics. Overall survival, 30-day, and 90-day mortality were compared. RESULTS: A total of 112 patients were identified; 55 received adjuvant therapy; 57 received neoadjuvant therapy. There was no difference in 30-day (0% vs. 1.75%; P = 1.00), 90-day mortality (1.82% vs. 7.02%; P = .36), nor overall survival (1 yr: 86% vs. 76; 3 yr: 49% vs. 46%; 5 yr: 42% vs. 39%; P = .28). CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in overall survival after propensity score matched analysis.

Inguinal Lymph Node Dissection Does Not Improve Overall Survival in Anal Cancer Nodal Disease.

BACKGROUND: Anal SCC is a rare disease mainly treated with chemoradiation. Abdominoperineal resection (APR), once the mainstay of treatment for anal cancer, now serves a role as salvage therapy for persistent or recurrent disease after chemoradiation. In addition, clinically positive nodes are currently treated by extending the radiation field to the groin. The role of inguinal lymph node dissection in recurrent or persistent anal SCC is unclear. The aim of the study is to determine the role of inguinal lymph node dissection in the management of inguinal lymph node metastasis for anal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). METHODS: Retrospective analysis of patients with anal SCC in the National Cancer Database with positive inguinal nodes undergoing salvage APR between 2004 and 2014 was performed. A comparison of overall survival between patients who underwent APR with lymph node dissection versus APR only was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier plot. RESULTS: A total of 3424 patients underwent salvage APR, with 274 (8%) having clinically positive nodes. Within the subgroup that had clinically positive nodes, 195 (71%) underwent APR, whereas 79 (29%) underwent both APR and node dissection. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrates no difference in overall survival in the two groups (P = 0.99). Five-year survival for both groups was similar (36% versus 42%; P = 0.987). No significant difference was found when adjusted for age, gender, and Tumor Node Metastasis staging. CONCLUSIONS: Inguinal lymph node dissection does not appear to improve overall survival in patients with advanced-stage anal cancer requiring salvage APR. Proper patient selection for node dissection is essential to spare patients from additional morbid procedures.