Drivers of Cost Associated With Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: In this era of value-based healthcare, costs must be measured alongside patient outcomes to prioritize quality improvement and inform performance-based reimbursement strategies. We sought to identify drivers of costs for patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. METHODS: Patients who underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer from December 2008 to March 2020 were included. Our institutional Society of Thoracic Surgeons database was merged with financial data to determine inpatient direct accounting costs in 2020 US dollars for total, operative (surgery and anesthesia), and postoperative (intensive care, floor, radiology, laboratory, etc) services. A supervised machine learning quantitative method, the lasso estimator with 10-fold cross-validation, was applied to identify predictors of costs. RESULTS: In the study cohort (n = 240) most had ≥cT2 pathology (82%), adenocarcinoma histology (90%), and received neoadjuvant therapy (78%). Mean length of stay was 8.00 days (SD, 4.13) with 45% inpatient morbidity rate and no deaths. The largest proportions of cost were from the operating room (30%), inpatient floor (30%), and postanesthesia care/intensive care units (20%). Preoperative predictors of operative costs were age (-5.18% per decade [95% confidence interval {CI}, -9.95 to -0.27], P = .039), body mass index ≥ 30 (+12.9% [95% CI, 0.00-27.5], P = .050), forced expiratory volume in 1 second (-3.24% per 10% forced expiratory volume in 1 second [95% CI, -5.80 to -0.61], P = .017), and year of surgery (+2.55% [95% CI, 0.97-4.15], P = .002). Predictors of postoperative costs were postoperative renal failure (+91.6% [95% CI, 9.93-233.8], P = .022), respiratory failure (+414.6% [95% CI, 158.7-923.6], P < .001), pneumonia (+136.1% [95% CI, 71.1-225.8], P < .001), and reoperation (+60.5% [95% CI, 21.5-111.9], P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Costs associated with minimally invasive esophagectomy are driven by preoperative risk factors and postoperative outcomes. These data enable surgeons and policymakers to reduce cost variation, improve quality through standardization, and ultimately provide greater value to patients.

Evaluating the Cost for Robotic vs "Non-Robotic" Transhiatal Esophagectomy.

INTRODUCTION: This study was undertaken to analyze and compare the cost of robotic transhiatal esophagectomy (THE) to "non-robotic" THE (ie, "open" and laparoscopic). METHODS: With IRB approval, we prospectively followed 82 patients who underwent THE. We analyzed clinical outcomes and perioperative charges and costs associated with THE. To compare profitability, the robotic approach was analyzed against "non-robotic" approaches of THE using F-test, Mann-Whitney U test/Student's t-test, and Fisher's exact test. Statistical significance was reported as P ≤0.05. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). RESULTS: 67 patients underwent the robotic approach, and 15 patients underwent "non-robotic" approach; 4 were "open" and 11 were laparoscopic. 79 patients had adenocarcinoma. Operative duration for robotic THE was 327 (331 ± 82.8) vs 213 (225 ± 62.0) minutes (P = 0.0001) and estimated blood loss was 150 (184 ± 136.1) vs 300 (476 ± 708.7) mL (P = 0.0001). Length of stay was 7 (11 ± 11.8) vs 8 (12 ± 10.6) days (P = 0.76). 16 patients had post-operative complications with a Clavien-Dindo score of three or more. Hospital charges for robotic THE were $197,405 ($259,936 ± 203,630.8) vs "non-robotic" THE $159,588 ($201,565 ± $185,763.5) (P = 0.31). Cost of care for robotic THE was $34,822 ($48,844 ± $45,832.8) vs "non-robotic" THE was $23,939 ($39,386 ± $44,827.2) (P = 0.47). Payment received for robotic THE was $14,365 ($30,003 ± $40,874.7) vs "non-robotic" THE was $28,080 ($41,087 ± $44,509.1) (P = 0.41). 15% of robotic operations were profitable vs 13% of "non-robotic" operations. CONCLUSIONS: Patients were predominantly older overweight men who had adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. The robotic approach had increased operative time and minimal blood loss. More than a fourth of operations included concomitant procedures. Patients were discharged approximately one week after THE. Overall, the robotic approach has no apparent significant differences in charges, cost, or profitability.

Outcomes of Complex Gastrointestinal Cancer Resection at US News & World Report Top-Ranked vs Non-Ranked Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: The US News & World Report (USNWR) annual ranking of the best hospitals for gastroenterology and gastrointestinal surgery offers direction to patients and healthcare providers, especially for recommendations on complex medical and surgical gastrointestinal (GI) conditions. The objective of this study was to examine the outcomes of complex GI cancer resections performed at USNWR top-ranked, compared to non-ranked, hospitals. STUDY DESIGN: Using the Vizient database, data for patients who underwent esophagectomy, gastrectomy, and pancreatectomy for malignancy between January and December 2018 were reviewed. Perioperative outcomes were analyzed according to USNWR rank status. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes include length of stay, mortality index (observed-to-expected mortality ratio), rate of serious complication, and cost. Secondary analysis was performed for outcomes of patients who developed serious complications. RESULTS: There were 3,054 complex GI cancer resections performed at 42 top-ranked hospitals vs 3,608 resections performed at 198 non-ranked hospitals. The mean annual case volume was 73 cases at top-ranked hospitals compared to 18 cases at non-ranked hospitals. Compared with non-ranked hospitals, top-ranked hospitals had lower in-hospital mortality (0.96% vs 2.26%, respectively, p < 0.001) and lower mortality index (0.71 vs 1.53, respectively). There were no significant differences in length of stay, rate of serious complications, or direct cost between groups. In patients who developed serious morbidity, top-ranked hospitals had a lower mortality compared with non-ranked hospitals (8.2% vs 16.8%, respectively, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Within the context of complex GI cancer resection, USNWR top-ranked hospitals performed a 4-fold higher case volume and were associated with improved outcomes. Patients with complex GI-related malignancies may benefit from seeking surgical care at high-volume regional USNWR top-ranked hospitals.

Esophageal cancer surgery in Greece during the era of the financial crisis.

The aim of this study is to describe outcomes of esophageal cancer surgery in a quaternary upper gastrointestinal (GI) center in Athens during the era of the Greek financial crisis. We performed a retrospective analysis of patients that underwent esophagectomy for esophageal or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer at an upper GI unit of the University of Athens, during the period January 2004-June 2019. Time-to-event analyses were performed to explore trends in survival and recurrence. A total of 146 patients were identified. Nearly half of the patients (49.3%) underwent surgery during the last 4 years of the financial crisis (2015-2018). Mean age at the time of surgery was 62.3 ± 10.3 years, and patients did not present at older ages during the recession (P = 0.50). Most patients were stage III at the time of surgery both prior to the recession (35%) and during the financial crisis (39.8%, P = 0.17). Ivor-Lewis was the most commonly performed procedure (67.1%) across all eras (P = 0.06). Gastric conduit was the most common form of GI reconstruction (95.9%) following all types of surgery (P < 0.001). Pre-recession anastomoses were usually performed using a circular stapler (65%). Both during (88.1%) and following the recession (100%), the vast majority of anastomoses were hand-sewn. R0 resection was achieved in 142 (97.9%) patients. Anastomosis technique did not affect postoperative leak (P = 0.3) or morbidity rates (P = 0.1). Morbidity rates were not significantly different prior to (25%), during (46.9%), and after (62.5%) the financial crisis, P = 0.16. Utilization of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (26.9%, P = 0.90) or radiation (8.4%, P = 0.44) as well as adjuvant chemotherapy (54.8%, P = 0.85) and irradiation (13.7%, P = 0.49) was the same across all eras. Disease-free survival (DFS) and all-cause mortality rates were 41.2 and 47.3%, respectively. Median DFS and observed survival (OS) were 11.3 and 22.7 months, respectively. The financial crisis did not influence relapse (P = 0.17) and survival rates (P = 0.91). The establishment of capital controls also had no impact on recurrence (P = 0.18) and survival (P = 0.94). Austerity measures during the Greek financial crisis did not influence long-term esophageal cancer outcomes. Therefore, achieving international standards in esophagectomy may be possible in resource-limited countries when centralizing care.

Variation in value among hospitals performing complex cancer operations.

BACKGROUND: While variation in outcomes has driven centralization of complex cancer surgery, variation in cost and value remains unexplored. We evaluated outcomes relative to cost among hospitals performing esophageal and pancreatic resection for cancer. METHODS: Using 100% Medicare claims data, we identified fee-for-service Medicare patients undergoing elective esophagectomy and pancreatectomy for cancer from 2014 to 2016. Risk- and reliability-adjusted, price-standardized payments for the surgical episode from admission through 30 days post discharge, as well as risk- and reliability-adjusted complication rates for each hospital, were calculated. Hospitals were separated into quintiles relative to payments and outcomes. Highest-value hospitals were defined as hospitals in the top 2 quartiles for both cost and outcomes. RESULTS: Among 11,586 Medicare beneficiaries who underwent a complex oncologic operation between 2014 and 2016, 66% had a pancreatic neoplasm, while 33% had an esophageal neoplasm. Overall, 31.1% patients underwent an operation at a high-value hospital. Among patients who underwent pancreatectomy, the risk-adjusted postoperative complication rate was 31.4% at the lowest-value hospitals vs 22.7% at highest-value hospitals (odds ratio: 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.47-0.70). The esophagectomy, risk-adjusted postoperative complication rate was 48.3% at lowest-value hospitals versus 29.8% at highest-value hospitals (odds ratio: 0.36, 95% confidence interval 0.27-0.47). The average difference in episode cost of care for an esophagectomy at lowest- versus highest-value hospitals was $5,617; the difference for pancreatectomy was $2,748. CONCLUSION: There was wide variation in complication rates and average costs among lowest- versus highest-value hospitals performing esophagectomy and pancreatectomy for cancer. Even among highest quality hospitals, wide variation in average episode costs was noted. Surgeons should seek to better understand practice variation to standardize care and decrease variation in outcomes, utilization, and costs.

Cost-effectiveness of chemoradiation followed by esophagectomy versus chemoradiation alone in squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus.

BACKGROUND: Standard treatment for locally advanced esophageal cancer usually includes a combination of chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery. In squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), recent studies have indicated that esophagectomy after chemoradiation does not significantly improve survival but may reduce recurrence at the cost of treatment-related mortality. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of chemoradiation with and without esophagectomy. METHODS: We developed a decision tree and Markov model to compare chemoradiation therapy alone (CRT) versus chemoradiation plus surgery (CRT+S) in a cohort of 57-year-old male patients with esophageal SCC, over 25 years. We used information on survival, cancer recurrence, and side effects from a Cochrane meta-analysis of two randomized trials. Societal utility values and costs of cancer care (2017, USD) were from medical literature. To test robustness, we conducted deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA). RESULTS: In our base scenario, CRT resulted in less cost for more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared to CRT+S ($154 082 for 1.32 QALYs/patient versus $165 035 for 1.30 QALYs/patient, respectively). In DSA, changes resulted in scenarios where CRT+S is cost-effective at thresholds between $100 000-$150 000/QALY. In PSA, CRT+S was dominant 17.9% and cost-effective at willingness-to-pay of $150 000/QALY 38.9% of the time, and CRT was dominant 30.6% and cost-effective 61.1% of the time. This indicates that while CRT would be preferred most of the time, variation in parameters may change cost-effectiveness outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that more data is needed regarding the clinical benefits of CRT+S for treatment of localized esophageal SCC, although CRT should be cautiously preferred.

Laparoscopically assisted versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer-the Randomised Oesophagectomy: Minimally Invasive or Open (ROMIO) study: protocol for a randomised controlled trial (RCT).

INTRODUCTION: Surgery (oesophagectomy), with neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy, is the main curative treatment for patients with oesophageal cancer. Several surgical approaches can be used to remove an oesophageal tumour. The Ivor Lewis (two-phase procedure) is usually used in the UK. This can be performed as an open oesophagectomy (OO), a laparoscopically assisted oesophagectomy (LAO) or a totally minimally invasive oesophagectomy (TMIO). All three are performed in the National Health Service, with LAO and OO the most common. However, there is limited evidence about which surgical approach is best for patients in terms of survival and postoperative health-related quality of life. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will undertake a UK multicentre randomised controlled trial to compare LAO with OO in adult patients with oesophageal cancer. The primary outcome is patient-reported physical function at 3 and 6 weeks postoperatively and 3 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include: postoperative complications, survival, disease recurrence, other measures of quality of life, spirometry, success of patient blinding and quality assurance measures. A cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed comparing LAO with OO. We will embed a randomised substudy to evaluate the safety and evolution of the TMIO procedure and a qualitative recruitment intervention to optimise patient recruitment. We will analyse the primary outcome using a multi-level regression model. Patients will be monitored for up to 3 years after their surgery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study received ethical approval from the South-West Franchay Research Ethics Committee. We will submit the results for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10386621.

The economic burden of endoscopic treatment for anastomotic leaks following oncological Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: Complications after surgery for esophageal cancer are associated with significant resource utilization. The aim of this study was to analyze the economic burden of two frequently used endoscopic treatments for anastomotic leak management after esophageal surgery: Treatment with a Self-expanding Metal Stent (SEMS) and Endoscopic Vacuum Therapy (EVT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 2012 and December 2016, we identified 60 German-Diagnosis Related Group (G-DRG) cases of patients who received a SEMS and / or EVT for esophageal anastomotic leaks. Direct costs per case were analyzed according to the Institute for Remuneration System in Hospitals (InEK) cost-accounting approach by comparing DRG payments on the case level, including all extra fees per DRG catalogue. RESULTS: In total, 60 DRG cases were identified. Of these, 15 patients were excluded because they received a combination of SEMS and EVT. Another 6 cases could not be included due to incomplete DRG data. Finally, N = 39 DRG cases were analyzed from a profit-center perspective. A further analysis of the most frequent DRG code -G03- including InEK cost accounting, revealed almost twice the deficit for the EVT group (N = 13 cases, € - 9.282 per average case) compared to that for the SEMS group (N = 9 cases, € - 5.156 per average case). CONCLUSION: Endoscopic treatments with SEMS and EVT for anastomotic leaks following oncological Ivor Lewis esophagectomies are not cost-efficient for German hospitals. Due to longer hospitalization and insufficient reimbursements, EVT is twice as costly as SEMS treatment. An adequate DRG cost compensation is needed for SEMS and EVT.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery versus surgery alone for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma based on the NEOCRTEC5010 trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The phase 3 NEOCRTEC5010 trial demonstrated that neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) plus surgery for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) had significantly greater efficacy than surgery alone did, but at the same time, the addition of NCRT places an economic burden on patients. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of NCRT followed by surgery based on the NEOCRTEC5010 trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A three-state Markov model (disease-free survival, relapse and death) based on data from the NEOCRTEC5010 trial was used to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of NCRT plus surgery versus surgery alone for ESCC. The model evaluates the outcomes from the perspective of Chinese society. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the ICER in terms of 2019 US$ per QALY gained, were calculated. Model robustness was evaluated with one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Compared with surgery alone, NCRT plus surgery increased costs by $14933.57, while gaining 3.08 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $4848.56 per QALY. The ICER was far below the commonly accepted willingness-to-pay threshold ($26,157 per QALY). The duration of disease-free survival (DFS) for the group that received NCRT was the crucial factor in determining the ICER. CONCLUSION: Compared with surgery alone, NCRT followed by surgery for locally advanced ESCC can be cost-effective because of significant clinical benefits.

Effects of preoperative oral management by dentists on postoperative outcomes following esophagectomy: Multilevel propensity score matching and weighting analyses using the Japanese inpatient database.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of preoperative oral management (POM) by dentists on the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs), length of hospital stay, medical costs, and days of antibiotics administration following both open and thoracoscopic esophagectomy.Dental plaque is an established risk factor for postoperative pneumonia, which could be reduced by POM. However, few clinical guidelines for cancer treatment, including those for esophageal cancer, recommend POM as routine perioperative care.We extracted data of esophagectomy cases from the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination database. We subsequently conducted propensity score (PS) analyses for multilevel data, including matching, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), and standardized mortality ratio weighting (SMRW), to estimate the effect of POM by dentists on the outcomes of esophagectomy.We analyzed 3412 esophagectomy cases of which 812 were open, and 2600 were thoracoscopic surgery. In IPTW analysis to estimate the average treatment effect, the risk difference of postoperative aspiration pneumonia ranged from -2.49% to -2.02% between the POM and control groups of both open and thoracoscopic esophagectomy cases. IPTW analyses indicated that the total medical costs of thoracoscopic esophagectomy were reduced by 221,200 to 253,100 Japanese Yen (equivalent to about $2000-$2200). In PS matching and SMRW analyses to estimate average treatment effect on treated, there was no difference in outcomes between the POM and control groups.Our results suggested that in patients undergoing open or thoracoscopic esophagectomy, POM by dentists prevented the occurrence of postoperative aspiration pneumonia. It could also reduce the total medical costs of thoracoscopic esophagectomy. Thus, POM by dentists can be considered as a routine perioperative care for all patients undergoing esophagectomy, regardless of the expected risk for PPC.

Endoscopic therapy and surveillance versus esophagectomy for early esophageal adenocarcinoma: A review of early outcomes and cost analysis.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic therapy is considered to be comparable to esophagectomy with respect to oncologic outcomes in early (cT1) esophageal adenocarcinoma (EC). The current study aims to compare early outcomes and financial costs, associated with endoscopic versus surgical therapy for early esophageal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: Retrospective review of patients undergoing either endoscopic or surgical therapy for cT1 EC between 2010 and 2015. RESULTS: Age, BMI, and Charlson Comorbidity Scores were similar in patients undergoing endoscopic therapy (N = 20) and esophagectomy (N = 23). For patients undergoing endoscopic therapy a median of 6 endoscopic interventions, were performed per patient (range 2-18). Esophagectomy was associated with a median hospital stay of 9 (8-13) days and greater procedure specific morbidity compared to endoscopic therapy. Costs related to endoscopic therapy were significantly lower compared to esophagectomy ($22,640 vs. $53,849, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic treatment is associated with decreased morbidity and financial costs when compared to esophagectomy.

Relative Incremental Cost of Postoperative Complications of Esophagectomy.

The purpose of this study was to quantify the cost impact of complications of esophagectomy and identify opportunities for reducing costs while optimizing outcomes. Patients undergoing esophagectomy at a single institution between 2002 and 2017 were included. Complications were tabulated from clinical data. Direct hospital costs were determined for all encounters between the day of surgery and postoperative day 90. Risk factors were assessed using logistic regression. The relative incremental cost of complications was assessed using multivariable linear regression. A total of 761 patients were included in this study. 428 patients (56%) experienced at least 1 complication. Factors associated with increased likelihood of complications included age (P < 0.001), female sex (P = 0.005), pack-years (P = 0.006), cerebrovascular disease (P = 0.021), and diabetes (P = 0.052). The most common complications were atrial arrhythmia (18%), transfusion (15%), and atelectasis requiring bronchoscopy (8%). The complications incurring the greatest incremental cost per event were anastomotic complications requiring surgical treatment (200%, P < 0.001) or those treated nonoperatively (96%, P < 0.001), and renal failure (178%, P < 0.001). Pneumonia increased costs by 40% (P < 0.001) and other major pulmonary complications increased costs by 75% (P < 0.001). Though the cost of complications was unaffected by surgical approach (minimally invasive esophagectomy vs open), MIE was associated with decreased cost vis-à-vis a lower complication rate (41% vs 60%, P < 0.001). Complications accounted for 28% of the aggregate 90-day direct hospital cost for all patients. Pulmonary complications accounted for 35% of all complication-attributable costs, while anastomotic complications accounted for 17%. Anastomotic and pulmonary complications after esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction represent high-yield targets for cost reduction and quality improvement.

The cost burden of clinically significant esophageal anastomotic leaks-a steep price to pay.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to evaluate resource consumption of clinically significant esophageal anastomotic leaks. METHODS: Between September 1, 2008, to December 31, 2014, a prospectively maintained database was queried to identify patients with grade III to IV anastomotic leaks after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Inflation-adjusted standardized costs were applied to billed services related to leak diagnosis and treatment, from time of leak detection to resumption of oral diet. A matched analysis was used to compare average expenditures in patients without vs. those with an anastomotic leak. RESULTS: Of 448 patients undergoing esophagectomy after neoadjuvant treatment, 399 patients met inclusion criteria. Twenty-four grade III to IV anastomotic leaks were identified (6% leak rate). Five transhiatal esophagectomies accounted for 20.8% of cases, whereas 9 Ivor Lewis and 10 McKeown esophagectomies accounted for 37.5% and 41.7%, respectively. The median time required to treat an anastomotic leak was 73 days (range 14-701). The additional median standardized cost per leak was $68,296 (mean $119,822). Matched analysis demonstrated that mean treatment costs were 2.6 times greater for patients with an anastomotic leak. This was primarily attributed to prolonged hospitalization, with post-leak detection length of stay ranging from 7 to 73 days. The largest contributors to cost for all patients were intensive care stay (30%), hospital room (17%), pharmacy (16%), and surgical intervention (13%). CONCLUSIONS: Grade III to IV esophageal anastomotic leaks more than double the cost of an esophagectomy and have a significant cost burden. Focus should be placed on preventative measures to avoid leaks at the time of the index operation.

Implications of Hospital Volume on Costs Following Esophagectomy in the United States.

BACKGROUND: With increasing focus on health care quality and cost containment, volume-based referral strategies have been proposed to improve value in high-cost procedures, such as esophagectomy. While the effect of hospital volume on outcomes has been demonstrated, our goal was to evaluate the economic consequences of volume-based referral practices for esophagectomy. METHODS: The nationwide inpatient sample (NIS) was queried for the years 2004-2013 for all patients undergoing esophagectomy. Patients were stratified by hospital volume quartile and substratified by preoperative risk and age. Clustered multivariable hierarchical logistic regression analysis was used to assess adjusted costs and mortality. RESULTS: In total, 9270 patients were clustered based on annual hospital volume quartiles of < 7, 7 to 22, 23 to 87, and > 87 esophagectomies. After stratification by patient variables, high-volume centers performed esophagectomies in high-risk patients at the same cost as low-volume centers without significant difference in resource utilization. Overall, mortality decreased across volume quartiles (lowest 8.9 versus highest 3.6%, p < 0.0001). The greatest volume-mortality differences were observed among patients aged between 70 and 80 years (lowest 12.2 versus highest 6.2%, p = 0.009). Patients with high preoperative risk also derived mortality benefits with increasing hospital volume (lowest 17.5 versus highest 11.8%, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the mortality improvements for high-risk patients undergoing esophagectomy at high-volume centers do not come at increased costs. These results suggest that health systems should consider selectively referring high-risk patients to high-volume centers within their region.

Excess Cost and Predictive Factors of Esophagectomy Complications in the SEER-Medicare Database.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative complications result in significantly increased health care expenditures. The objective of this study was to examine 90-day excess costs associated with inpatient complications after esophagectomy and their predictive factors, by using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. METHODS: The study examined patients older than 65 years of age with a diagnosis from 2002 to 2009 and who were undergoing esophagectomy for cancer in the SEER-Medicare database. Quantile regression models were fit at 5% intervals for excess 90-day cost associated with perioperative complications while controlling for baseline characteristics. Excess cost was defined as the difference in total cost for patients with versus without the complication. Analyses were stratified by patients' characteristics to identify factors predictive of excess cost. RESULTS: A total of 1,462 patients were identified in the cohort; 51% had at least one complication. Significant excess cost was associated with pulmonary and mechanical wound complications across all quantiles (p < 0.05). Infectious (0.35 to 0.75 quantiles), intraoperative (0.05 to 0.85 quantiles), and systemic (0.30 to 0.85 quantiles) complications were associated with higher costs. Further, excess costs were significantly elevated in the higher quantiles. At the 0.50 quantile (median) of total cost distribution, excess cost in patients with any complication were significantly higher in patients with the following characteristics: transthoracic esophagectomy, emergency esophagectomy, Charlson Comorbidity Index >0, living in a nonmetropolitan area or poorer community, or treated in larger hospitals; no such difference was identified in patients without complications. CONCLUSIONS: Complications after esophagectomy result in significant excess 90-day cost. Efforts at cost reduction and quality improvement will need to focus on reducing complications, in particular pulmonary and infectious, as well as risk factors for higher complication costs.

Postoperative outcomes of esophagectomy for cancer in elderly patients.

BACKGROUND: The number of elderly patients with esophageal cancer is expected to increase. We aimed to determine the postoperative outcomes of esophagectomy for esophageal cancer in elderly patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective, population-based analysis was performed using the National inpatient sample for the period 2000-2014. Adult patients ≥18 years old (yo) diagnosed with esophageal cancer who underwent esophagectomy during their inpatient hospitalization were included. Patients were categorized into <70 yo and ≥70 yo. Multivariable linear and logistic regressions were used to assess the potential effect of age on postoperative complications, inpatient mortality, and hospital charges. RESULTS: Overall, 5243 patients were included, with 3699 (70.6%) <70 yo and 1544 (29.5%) ≥70 yo. The yearly rate of esophagectomies among patients ≥70 yo did not significantly changed during the study period (28.4% in 2000 and 26.3% in 2014, P = 0.76). Elderly patients were significantly more likely to have postoperative cardiac failure (odds ratio 1.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.21, 2.09, P = 0.0009) and inpatient mortality (odds ratio 1.84, 95% CI 1.39, 2.45, P < 0.0001). Among the elderly patients, hospital charges were, on average, $16,320 greater (95% CI $3110, $29,530) than patients <70 yo (P = 0.02). The predicted probability of mortality increased consistently across age (1.5% in 40 yo, 2.5% in 50 yo, 3.6% in 60 yo, 5.4% in 70 yo, and 7.0% in 80 yo). CONCLUSIONS: Elderly patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer have a significantly higher risk of postoperative mortality and pose a higher financial burden on the health care system. Elderly patients with esophageal cancer should be carefully selected for surgery.

Treatment selection for esophageal cancer: evaluation from a nationwide database.

BACKGROUND: Most elderly patients poorly tolerate the standard treatment for esophageal cancer; however, little information is available regarding the appropriateness of non-standard esophageal cancer treatments for those patients. This study aims to analyze the treatment costs and completion rates of patients undergoing a real-world treatment for esophageal cancer to elucidate the treatment selection and its quality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed treatment costs and completion rates for patients with esophageal cancer and analyzed these data relative to patient age and center volumes. Patients with esophageal cancer [UICC, TMN, Clinical stage II/III (excluding T4)] who were diagnosed in 2013 were analyzed. Patients were classified into five groups defined as follows: surgical therapy, chemotherapy, concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT), modified concurrent chemoradiotherapy (mCRT), and radiotherapy (RT). RESULTS: Mean and median age of patients who received surgery and CCRT were comparable; however, patients who underwent mCRT and RT tended to be older. Medical costs associated with surgery were higher than costs associated with other non-surgical treatments. Cost and completion rate of chemoradiotherapy did not differ between CCRT and mCRT; however, both had higher completion rates compared to that of RT. Surgical expenses tended to be the highest in low-volume centers and the lowest in high-volume centers. CONCLUSION: Treatment of esophageal cancer at high-volume centers seems well balanced compared with medium- to low-volume centers. mCRT was widely performed and comparable in medical cost to CCRT, although additional clinical impacts were unclear.

Short-term outcomes after transition from Sweet to thoracoscopic esophagectomy: Our experience and cost analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Thoracoscopic esophagectomy (TSE), as a minimally invasive technique, has obtained wide acceptance for treating esophageal cancer. In this study, we report our experience of the transfer from open sweet esophagectomy (OSE) to TSE and compare cost associated with the two approaches for esophageal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were taken through a retrospective review of operative outcomes, complications and cost of 91 patients who underwent OSE or TSE for esophageal cancer from January 2012 to June 2014. RESULTS: Among 91 patients, 48 patients underwent TSE, and 43 patients underwent OSE. Patients dealt with TSE had significantly less blood loss (152 ml vs. 204 ml, P = 0.004), shorter chest drainage time (3.3 days vs. 4.5 days, P < 0.001), less patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit after surgery (6.3% vs. 30.2%, P = 0.003), and lower incidence of respiratory complications (16.7% vs. 37.2%, P = 0.026). However, the operative time was statistically longer in TSE group (276.0 min vs. 207.4 min, P < 0.001). The total cost (¥61,817 vs. ¥48,712, P < 0.001) and the day of surgery cost (¥29,701 vs. ¥19,446, P < 0.001) were significantly higher in the TSE group. CONCLUSION: This study shows that TSE is a safe and acceptable alternative to OSE. TSE will be more competitive if its cost can be reduced.

[Profit center analysis of esophagectomy : Economical analysis of transthoracic esophagectomy depending on postoperative complications]. / Profit-Center-Analyse der Ösophagektomie : Ökonomische Analyse der transthorakalen Ösophagektomie in Abhängigkeit von postoperativen Komplikationen.

Due to increasing medical costs and yet limited financial resources, medical treatment and economic analyses can no longer be separated; therefore, direct costing and cost unit accounting become more and more relevant as controlling tools in hospital management. Transthoracic esophagectomy is an integral part of the current treatment concept in patients with esophageal carcinoma. The question of the present study was whether the present diagnosis-related groups (DRG) system is a cost-effective tool to represent transthoracic esophagectomy. In this retrospective study at a high-volume center, 161 consecutive patients with esophageal carcinoma were included. All patients were surgically treated according to the current S3 guidelines by a transthoracic esophagectomy. Detailed and standardized documentation of the postoperative complications was made according to the classification of Clavien-Dindo and the guidelines of the Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG). For each individual patient, the respective actual costs were analyzed according to the Institute for the Remuneration System in Hospitals (InEK) cost accounting approach comparing DRG payments (DRG G03A) on a case level including all extra fees per DRG catalogue. The mean costs per case of all included 161 patients were 24,338 € (median: 19,210 €, range: 12,149-127,376 €), while mean payments per case of 22,591 € were recorded. For the entire study population, the profit margin was -281,330 € (mean: -1747 €). Only patients with an uncomplicated course (Clavien-Dindo 0) yielded a slightly positive profit margin of 2514 €. With increasing complication score the profit margin became increasingly negative (Clavien-Dindo I: -2878 €, Clavien-Dindo IVb: -58,543 €). Within the analysis of the InEK target cost matrix, main cost drivers can be identified as medical services (22.3%) and non-medical infrastructure (18.7%). Surgical treatment according to the existing guidelines of patients with esophageal carcinoma is not cost-covering in high-volume centers and cannot be solely financed by existing DRG revenues.

Cost-Effectiveness of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: The cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) versus open esophagectomy (OE) for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) has not been established. Recent cost studies have shown that MIE is associated with a higher surgical expense, which is not consistently offset by savings through expedited post-operative recovery, therefore suggesting a questionable benefit of MIE over OE from an economic point of view. In the current study, we compared the cost-effectiveness of MIE versus OE for ESCC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between April 2000 and December 2013, a total of 251 consecutive patients undergoing MIE or OE for ESCC were enrolled. After propensity score (PS)-matching the MIE group with the OE group for clinical characteristics, 95 patients from each group were enrolled to compare the peri-operative outcomes, long-term survival, and cost. RESULTS: After PS-matching, the baseline characteristics were not significantly different between groups. Perioperative outcomes were similar in both groups. MIE was superior to OE with respect to a shorter intensive care unit (ICU) stay, while the complication rate (except for hoarseness) and survival were similar. Post-operative cost was significantly less in the MIE group due to a shorter ICU stay; however, reduced post-operative cost failed to offset the higher surgical expense of MIE. CONCLUSIONS: MIE for ESCC failed to show cost-effectiveness regarding overall expense in our study, but costs less in the postoperative care, especially for ICU care. More cost studies on MIE in other health care systems are warranted to verify the cost-effectiveness of MIE.