Optimal age to discontinue long-term surveillance of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms: comparative cost-effectiveness of surveillance by age.

OBJECTIVE: Current guidelines recommend long-term image-based surveillance for patients with low-risk intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs). This simulation study aimed to examine the comparative cost-effectiveness of continued versus discontinued surveillance at different ages and define the optimal age to stop surveillance. DESIGN: We constructed a Markov model with a lifetime horizon to simulate the clinical course of patients with IPMNs receiving imaging-based surveillance. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for continued versus discontinued surveillance at different ages to stop surveillance, stratified by sex and IPMN types (branch-duct vs mixed-type). We determined the optimal age to stop surveillance as the lowest age at which the ICER exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold of US$100 000 per quality-adjusted life year. To estimate model parameters, we used a clinical cohort of 3000 patients with IPMNs and a national database including 40 166 patients with pancreatic cancer receiving pancreatectomy as well as published data. RESULTS: In male patients, the optimal age to stop surveillance was 76-78 years irrespective of the IPMN types, compared with 70, 73, 81, and 84 years for female patients with branch-duct IPMNs <20 mm, =20-29 mm, ≥30 mm and mixed-type IPMNs, respectively. The suggested ages became younger according to an increasing level of comorbidities. In cases with high comorbidity burden, the ICERs were above the willingness-to-pay threshold irrespective of sex and the size of branch-duct IPMNs. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness of long-term IPMN surveillance depended on sex, IPMN types, and comorbidity levels, suggesting the potential to personalise patient management from the health economic perspective.

Screening for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Are We Asking the Impossible?

Pancreatic cancer is projected to become the second leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States by 2020. Because of this, significant interest and research funding has been devoted to development of a screening test to identify individuals during a prolonged asymptomatic period; however, to date, no such test has been developed. We evaluated current NIH spending and clinical trials to determine the focus of research on pancreatic cancer screening as compared with other cancer subtypes. Using statistical methodology, we determined the effects of population-based pancreatic cancer screening on overall population morbidity and mortality. Population-based pancreatic cancer screening would result in significant harm to non-diseased individuals, even in cases where a near-perfect test was developed. Despite this mathematical improbability, NIH funding for pancreatic cancer demonstrates bias toward screening test development not seen in other cancer subtypes. Focusing research energy on development of pancreatic screening tests is unlikely to result in overall survival benefits. Efforts to increase the number of patients who are candidates for surgery and improving surgical outcomes would result in greater population benefit.Prevention Relevance: For patients with pancreatic cancer, early stage detection offers the greatest survival benefit. However, the incidence of pancreatic cancer and associated mortality of pancreatic resections make development of a screening test a difficult, if not impossible, challenge.

Real-World Assessment of Health Care Costs for Patients with Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer Following Initiation of First-Line Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Management of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDA) places a significant financial burden on the U.S. health care system because of such factors as treatment with multidrug chemotherapy regimens, management of chemotherapy-related adverse events, and disease- or treatment-related hospitalizations. Depending on functional status, first-line chemotherapy regimens that are guideline recommended include nab-paclitaxel with gemcitabine (AG) and FOLFIRINOX (FFX), the combination of fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin. However, few previous studies have examined overall health care costs associated with mPDA management. OBJECTIVE: To describe health care costs following initiation of first-line treatment with AG or FFX among patients with mPDA. METHODS: Retrospective cohorts of first-line AG and FFX initiators were constructed from the MarketScan database (2014-2017). The index date was the date of first-line AG or FFX initiation. Included patients had insurance enrollment for 6 months before the index date. Total cumulative health care costs and costs from outpatient services, inpatient admissions, emergency department visits, chemotherapy administrations, and pharmacy dispensing were assessed within 12 months after the index date (i.e., 0-1, 0-2, …, 0-12 months). Patient-level cost data began accruing from the first paid claim and continued accruing until the censoring date. RESULTS: A total of 2,199 patients with mPDA initiated first-line AG (n = 1,352) or FFX (n = 847). Compared with AG initiators, FFX patients were younger (mean age 59 vs. 63 years) and had better baseline health status, with fewer having diabetes (43% vs. 57%) or coronary artery disease (12% vs. 22%). Median follow-up was 5.4 and 7.2 months for AG and FFX, respectively. Median first-line treatment duration was 2.1 months with AG and 2.3 months with FFX. Six months following first-line treatment initiation, total cumulative health care costs (median) were $85,714 (95% CI = $79,683-$91,788) and $114,116 (95% CI = $105,816-$119,591) for AG and FFX initiators, respectively. Outpatient services contributed the largest fractional cost for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Total health care costs for patients with mPDA who initiated FFX or AG are driven mostly by outpatient rather than inpatient costs. Further research, using comparative methodology, is warranted to fully understand cost drivers and whether higher costs for FFX patients relate primarily to use of FFX or higher underlying use of outpatient care among FFX patients. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Halozyme Therapeutics. Oestreicher and Yeganegi were employees of Halozyme Therapeutics at the time of the study and were involved in study design, data interpretation, and the decision to submit the data for publication. Bullock reports advisory board fees from Eisai, Exelixis, Bayer, and Taiho and consulting fees from Halozyme Therapeutics, outside the submitted work. Rowan reports consulting fees from Halozyme Therapeutics, during the conduct of the study. Chiorean reports grants and consulting fees from Celgene and Halozyme Therapeutics; grants from Lilly, Stemline, Ignyta, Roche, Merck, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol Meyer Squibb, Incyte, Macrogenics, Rafael, and AADi; and consulting fees from Astra Zeneca, Array, Eisai, Ipsen, Five Prime Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Vicus, and Legend, outside the submitted work.

Treatment patterns and outcomes in pancreatic cancer: Retrospective claims analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer represents the third leading cause of US cancer deaths, with median survival <1 year. The goal of this study was to describe systemic treatments, healthcare utilization and costs, and overall survival among patients with unresectable/metastatic disease. METHODS: This study used healthcare claims for commercial and Medicare Advantage enrollees diagnosed with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (at index date) during January 01 2010 to 31 May 2017. Included patients were aged ≥18 years, with continuous 6-month preindex enrollment. Patients were excluded by resectable disease, another primary cancer, or pregnancy. Cohorts were based on first-line (LOT1) chemotherapy regimen. RESULTS: Overall, 12 978 patients (mean age 70 years, 51% male) were included, among which 5610 (43%) received chemotherapy. Of those, 23% received gemcitabine monotherapy, 22% gemcitabine-nab paclitaxel, 22% FOLFIRINOX, 3% FOLFOX, and 29% received other regimens. Mean LOT1 duration was 112 days; 60% did not undergo subsequent lines of therapy. Moreover, 50% of patients had an emergency room visit and 45% were hospitalized during LOT1. Among treated and untreated patients, mean total 6-month costs were $52 101. We found that patients receiving FOLFIRINOX had the highest costs, whereas those who received gemcitabine monotherapy had the lowest. Median overall survival (mOS) was 335 days with any first-line treatment. FOLFIRINOX-treated patients had the highest mOS (492 days), whereas gemcitabine monotherapy-treated patients had the lowest (223 days). CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion (57%) of patients with unresectable/metastatic pancreatic cancer did not receive chemotherapy. Healthcare costs were higher for fluorouracil-based regimens, while lower for gemcitabine-based regimens. Survival rates were within expectations for advanced pancreatic cancer.

A systematic review of economic evaluation in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

OBJECTIVES: The economic evaluation (EE) of healthcare interventions has become a necessity. However, high quality needs to be ensured in order to achieve validated results and help making informed decisions. Thus, the objective of the present study was to systematically identify and review published pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma-related EEs and to assess their quality. METHODS: Systematic literature research was conducted in PubMed and Cochrane to identify published EEs between 2000 and 2015. The quality of each selected EE was assessed by two independent reviewers, using the Drummond's checklist. RESULTS: Our systematic review was based on 32 EEs and showed a wide variety of methodological approaches, including different perspectives, time horizon, and cost effectiveness analyses. Nearly two-thirds of EEs are full EEs (n = 21), and about one-third of EEs had a Drummond score ≥7, synonymous with 'high quality'. Close to 50% of full EEs had a Drummond score ≥7, whereas all of partial EEs had a Drummond score <7 (n = 11). CONCLUSIONS: Over the past 15 years, a lot of interest has been evinced over the EE of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and its direct impact on therapeutic advances in PDAC. To provide a framework for health care decision-making, to facilitate transferability and to lend credibility to health EEs, their quality must be improved. For the last 4 years, a tendency towards a quality improvement of these studies has been observed, probably coupled with a context of rational decision-making in health care, a better and wider spread of recommendations and thus, medical practitioners' full endorsement.

Utility of a multidisciplinary tumor board in the management of pancreatic and upper gastrointestinal diseases: an observational study.

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES: Multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDTBs) are frequently employed in cancer centers but their value has been debated. We reviewed the decision-making process and resource utilization of our MDTB to assess its utility in the management of pancreatic and upper gastrointestinal tract conditions. METHODS: A prospectively-collected database was reviewed over a 12-month period. The primary outcome was change in management plan as a result of case discussion. Secondary outcomes included resources required to hold MDTB, survival, and adherence to treatment guidelines. RESULTS: Four hundred seventy cases were reviewed. MDTB resulted in a change in the proposed plan of management in 101 of 402 evaluable cases (25.1%). New plans favored obtaining additional diagnostic workup. No recorded variables were associated with a change in plan. For newly-diagnosed cases of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (n = 33), survival time was not impacted by MDTB (p = .154) and adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines was 100%. The estimated cost of physician time per case reviewed was $190. CONCLUSIONS: Our MDTB influences treatment decisions in a sizeable number of cases with excellent adherence to national guidelines. However, this requires significant time expenditure and may not impact outcomes. Regular assessments of the effectiveness of MDTBs should be undertaken.

Pancreaticoduodenectomy hospital resource utilization in octogenarians.

BACKGROUND: Although pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is feasible in patients greater than or equal to 80 years, little is known about the potential strain on resource utilization. METHODS: Outcomes and inpatient charges were compared across age cohorts (I: ≤70, II: 71 to 79, III: ≥80 years) in 99 patients who underwent PD (2005 to 2013) at our institution. The generalized linear modeling approach was used to estimate the impact of age. RESULTS: Perioperative complications were equivalent among cohorts. Increasing age was associated with intensive care unit use, increased length of stay (LOS), and the likelihood of discharge to a skilled facility. After controlling for covariates, hospital charges were significantly higher in Cohort III (P = .006) and Cohort II (P = .035) when compared with Cohort I. However, hospital charges between Cohorts II and III were equivalent (P = .374). Complications (P = .005) and LOS (P < .001) were associated with higher hospital charges. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing age was associated with increased intensive care unit, LOS, and discharge to skilled facilities. However, octogenarians had equivalent PD charges and outcome measures when compared with septuagenarians and future studies should validate these findings in larger national studies.

A grading system can predict clinical and economic outcomes of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: results in 755 consecutive patients.

AIM: Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) has a wide range of clinical and economical implications due to the difference of the associated complications and management. The aim of this study is to verify the applicability of the International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF) definition and its capability to predict hospital costs. METHODS: This is a retrospective study based on prospectively collected data of 755 patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy in our institution between November 1996 and October 2006. A number of 147 patients (19.5%) have developed a POPF according to ISGPF definition. RESULTS: Grade A fistula, which has no clinical impact, occurred in 19% of all cases. Grade B occurred in 70.7% and was successfully managed with conservative therapy or mini-invasive procedures. Grade C (8.8%) was associated to severe clinical complications and required invasive therapy. Pulmonary complications were statistically higher in the groups B and C rather than the group A POPFs (p < 0.005; OR 8). Patients with carcinoma of the ampullary region had a higher incidence of POPF compared to ductal cancer, with a predominance of grade A (p = 0.036). Increasing fistula grades have higher hospital costs (€11,654, €25,698, and €59,492 for grades A, B, and C, respectively; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The development of a POPF does not always determine a substantial change of the postoperative management. Clinically relevant fistulas can be treated conservatively in most cases. Higher fistula severity corresponds to increased costs. The grading system proposed by the ISGPF allows a correct stratification of the complicated patients based on the real clinical and economic impact of the POPF.