Heterogeneity in Radiotherapeutic Parameter Assumptions in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses in Prostate Cancer: A Call for Uniformity.

OBJECTIVES: Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) may provide useful data to inform management decisions depending on the robustness of a model's input parameters. We sought to determine the level of heterogeneity in health state utility values, transition probabilities, and cost estimates across published CEAs assessing primarily radiotherapeutic management strategies in prostate cancer. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of prostate cancer CEAs indexed in MEDLINE between 2000 and 2018 comparing accepted treatment modalities across all cancer stages. Search terms included "cost effectiveness prostate," "prostate cancer cost model," "cost utility prostate," and "Markov AND prostate AND (cancer OR adenocarcinoma)." Included studies were agreed upon. A Markov model was designed using the parameter estimates from the systematic review to evaluate the effect of estimate heterogeneity on strategy cost acceptability. RESULTS: Of 199 abstracts identified, 47 publications were reviewed and 37 were included; 508 model estimates were compared. Estimates varied widely across variables, including gastrointestinal toxicity risk (0%-49.5%), utility of metastatic disease (0.25-0.855), intensity-modulated radiotherapy cost ($21 193-$61 996), and recurrence after external-beam radiotherapy (1.5%-59%). Multiple studies assumed that different radiotherapy modalities delivering the same dose yielded varying cancer control rates. When using base estimates for similar parameters from included studies, the designed model resulted in 3 separate acceptability determinations. CONCLUSIONS: Significant heterogeneity exists across parameter estimates used to perform CEAs evaluating treatment for prostate cancer. Heterogeneity across model inputs yields variable conclusions with respect to the favorability and cost-effectiveness of treatment options. Decision makers are cautioned to review estimates in CEAs to ensure they are up to date and relevant to setting and population.

Cost-Effectiveness of Nab-Paclitaxel and Gemcitabine Versus Gemcitabine Monotherapy for Patients with Unresectable Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer in Japan.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine (GnP) compared with gemcitabine monotherapy (G) for patients with unresectable metastatic pancreatic cancer in Japan from the perspective of healthcare payer. METHODS: A partitioned survival analysis model was developed to predict costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for GnP and G. The time horizon of the model was set at 20 years. An annual discount rate of 2% for both costs and QALYs was applied. Data on overall survival and progression-free survival were derived from the Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Clinical Trial. Cost parameters were estimated from a Japanese medical claims database. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of GnP compared with G was estimated. One-way sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the uncertainty in the parameter settings. In addition, scenario and probability sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The incremental cost and QALY of GnP compared with G were US$25 089 and 0.13 QALY, respectively. The ICER of GnP was estimated to be US$192 992 per QALY gained. Although the ICER was influenced by utility parameters and the survival curves, the ICERs remained higher than the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of US$68 000 (JPY 7.5 million). The probability that GnP becomes cost-effective compared with G was estimated to be 29.2%. CONCLUSIONS: Applying the WTP threshold of US$68 000 per QALY, GnP was not cost-effective for patients with unresectable metastatic pancreatic cancer in Japan from the perspective of healthcare payer. Further research is needed to obtain utility data from Japanese patients with pancreatic cancer.

Impact of assumptions on future costs, disutility and mortality in cost-effectiveness analysis; a model exploration.

INTRODUCTION: In cost-effectiveness analyses, the future costs, disutility and mortality from alternative causes of morbidity are often not completely taken into account. We explored the impact of different assumed values for each of these factors on the cost-effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). METHODS: Twenty different CRC screening strategies and two EAC screening strategies were evaluated using microsimulation. Average health-related expenses, disutility and mortality by age for the U.S. general population were estimated using surveys and lifetables. First, we evaluated strategies under default assumptions, with average mortality, and no accounting for health-related costs and disutility. Then, we varied costs, disutility and mortality between 100% and 150% of the estimated population averages, with 125% as the best estimate. Primary outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained among efficient strategies. RESULTS: The set of efficient strategies was robust to assumptions on future costs, disutility and mortality from other causes of morbidity. However, the incremental cost per QALY gained increased with higher assumed values. For example, for CRC, the ratio for the recommended strategy increased from $15,600 with default assumptions, to $32,600 with average assumption levels, $61,100 with 25% increased levels, and $111,100 with 50% increased levels. Similarly, for EAC, the incremental costs per QALY gained for the recommended EAC screening strategy increased from $106,300 with default assumptions to $198,300 with 50% increased assumptions. In sensitivity analyses without discounting or including only above-average expenses, the impact of assumptions was relatively smaller, but best estimates of the cost per QALY gained remained substantially higher than default estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Assumptions on future costs, utility and mortality from other causes of morbidity substantially impact cost-effectiveness outcomes of cancer screening. More empiric evidence and consensus are needed to guide assumptions in future analyses.

The Optimal Age to Stop Endoscopic Surveillance of Patients With Barrett's Esophagus Based on Sex and Comorbidity: A Comparative Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Current guidelines recommend surveillance for patients with nondysplastic Barrett's esophagus (NDBE) but do not include a recommended age for discontinuing surveillance. This study aimed to determine the optimal age for last surveillance of NDBE patients stratified by sex and level of comorbidity. METHODS: We used 3 independently developed models to simulate patients diagnosed with NDBE, varying in age, sex, and comorbidity level (no, mild, moderate, and severe). All patients had received regular surveillance until their current age. We calculated incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained from 1 additional endoscopic surveillance at the current age versus not performing surveillance at that age. We determined the optimal age to end surveillance as the age at which incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 1 more surveillance was just less than the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. RESULTS: The benefit of having 1 more surveillance endoscopy strongly depended on age, sex, and comorbidity. For men with NDBE and severe comorbidity, 1 additional surveillance at age 80 years provided 4 more QALYs per 1000 patients with BE at an additional cost of $1.2 million, whereas for women with severe comorbidity the benefit at that age was 7 QALYs at a cost of $1.3 million. For men with no, mild, moderate, and severe comorbidity, the optimal ages of last surveillance were 81, 80, 77, and 73 years, respectively. For women, these ages were younger: 75, 73, 73, and 69 years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our comparative modeling analysis illustrates the importance of considering comorbidity status and sex when deciding on the age to discontinue surveillance in patients with NDBE.

The impact of socioeconomic status on stage at presentation, receipt of diagnostic imaging, receipt of treatment and overall survival in colorectal cancer patients.

Socioeconomic factors influence patterns of care in colorectal cancer. Our study investigates the impact of socioeconomic status (SES) on stage at presentation, receipt of diagnostic imaging, receipt of treatment and overall survival (OS) in a universal healthcare system. The Ontario Cancer Registry (OCR) was accessed to identify a cohort of patients diagnosed with colorectal adenocarcinoma from 2007 to 2016 in Ontario, Canada. SES was measured using median neighborhood income divided into quintiles (Q1-Q5; Q1 = lowest income). Logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate stage, imaging and treatment. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate OS. All endpoints were adjusted for demographics and comorbidities with OS models also adjusting for stage, imaging and treatment. In total, 39 802 colon and 13 164 rectal patients were identified. Lower SES was associated with advanced stage at presentation in both cohorts (Q1 vs Q5: Colon odds ratio [OR] = 1.08, P = .046, rectal OR = 1.25, P < .0001). Lower SES colon patients were less likely to receive adjuvant oxaliplatin (Q1 vs Q5: OR = 0.78, P < .001) and all palliative chemotherapies studied including oxaliplatin (Q1 vs Q5: OR = 0.60, P < 0.0001), irinotecan (Q1 vs Q5: OR = 0.65, P < .0001), bevacizumab (Q1 vs Q5: OR = 0.70, P < .001), cetuximab (Q1 vs Q5: OR = 0.40, P = .0053) and panitumumab (Q1 vs Q5: OR = 0.54, P = .0036). In rectal patients, lower SES was associated with decreased receipt of rectal cancer resection for stages I-III (Q1 vs Q5: OR = 0.78, P < .001), adjuvant oxaliplatin (Q1 vs Q5: OR = 0.72, P = .0020) and palliative chemotherapies including oxaliplatin (Q1 vs Q5: OR = 0.59, P < .001), irinotecan (Q1 vs Q5: OR = 0.53, P < .001) and bevacizumab (Q1 vs Q5: OR = 0.71, P = .046). All survival models identified poorer OS for lower SES patients (total colorectal; Q1 vs Q5: Hazard ratio [HR] = 1.25, P < .0001). These findings suggest disparities persist even within universal healthcare.

Patient Factors Limit Colon Cancer Survival at Safety-Net Hospitals: A National Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Safety-net hospitals serve a vital role in society by providing care for vulnerable populations. Existing data regarding oncologic outcomes of patients with colon cancer treated at safety-net hospitals are limited and variable. The objective of this study was to delineate disparities in treatment and outcomes for patients with colon cancer treated at safety-net hospitals. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study identified 802,304 adult patients with colon adenocarcinoma from the National Cancer Database between 2004-2016. Patients were stratified according to safety-net burden of the treating hospital as previously described. Patient, tumor, facility, and treatment characteristics were compared between groups as were operative and short-term outcomes. Cox proportional hazards regression was utilized to compare overall survival between patients treated at high, medium, and low burden hospitals. RESULTS: Patients treated at safety-net hospitals were demographically distinct and presented with more advanced disease. They were also less likely to receive surgery, adjuvant chemotherapy, negative resection margins, adequate lymphadenectomy, or a minimally invasive operative approach. On multivariate analysis adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics, survival was inferior for patients at safety-net hospitals, even for those with stage 0 (in situ) disease. CONCLUSION: This analysis revealed inferior survival for patients with colon cancer treated at safety-net hospitals, including those without invasive cancer. These findings suggest that unmeasured population differences may confound analyses and affect survival more than provider or treatment disparities.

Is Improved Survival in Early-Stage Pancreatic Cancer Worth the Extra Cost at High-Volume Centers?

BACKGROUND: Volume of operative cases may be an important factor associated with improved survival for early-stage pancreatic cancer. Most high-volume pancreatic centers are also academic institutions, which have been associated with additional healthcare costs. We hypothesized that at high-volume centers, the value of the extra survival outweighs the extra cost. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective cohort study used data from the California Cancer Registry linked to the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development database from January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2012. Stage I-II pancreatic cancer patients who underwent resection were included. Multivariable analyses estimated overall survival and 30-day costs at low- vs high-volume pancreatic surgery centers. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental net benefit (INB) were estimated, and statistical uncertainty was characterized using net benefit regression. RESULTS: Of 2,786 patients, 46.5% were treated at high-volume centers and 53.5% at low-volume centers. There was a 0.45-year (5.4 months) survival benefit (95% CI 0.21-0.69) and a $7,884 extra cost associated with receiving surgery at high-volume centers (95% CI $4,074-$11,694). The ICER was $17,529 for an additional year of survival (95% CI $7,997-$40,616). For decision-makers willing to pay more than $20,000 for an additional year of life, high-volume centers appear cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Although healthcare costs were greater at high-volume centers, patients undergoing pancreatic surgery at high-volume centers experienced a survival benefit (5.4 months). The extra cost of $17,529 per additional year is quite modest for improved survival and is economically attractive by many oncology standards.

Robotic-assisted right colectomy versus laparoscopic approach: case-matched study and cost-effectiveness analysis.

AIM: The aim of this study is to compare clinical and oncological outcomes of robot-assisted right colectomy with those of conventional laparoscopy-assisted right colectomy, reporting for the first time in literature, a cost-effectiveness analysis. METHODS: This is a case-matched prospective non-randomized study conducted from October 2013 to October 2017 at Sanchinarro University Hospital, Madrid. Patients with right-sided colonic adenocarcinoma or adenoma, not suitable endoscopic resection were treated with robot-assisted right colectomy and a propensity score-matched (1:1) was used to balance preoperative characteristics of a laparoscopic control group. Perioperative, postoperative, long-term oncological results and costs were analysed, and quality-adjusted life years (QALY), and the cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. The primary end point was to compare the cost-effectiveness differences between both groups. A willingness-to-pay of 20,000 and 30,000 per QALY was used as a threshold to recognize which treatment was most cost effective. RESULTS: Thirty-five robot-assisted right colectomies were included and a group of 35 laparoscopy-assisted right colectomy was selected. Compared with the laparoscopic group, the robotic group was associated with longer operation times (243 min vs. 179 min, p < 0.001). No significant difference was observed in terms of total costs between the robotic and laparoscopic groups (9455.14 vs 8227.50 respectively, p = 0.21). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 20,000 and 30,000, there was a 78.78-95.04% probability that the robotic group was cost effective relative to laparoscopic group. CONCLUSION: Robot-assisted right colectomy is a safe and feasible technique and is a cost-effective procedure.

Cost-Effectiveness of Screening, Surveillance, and Endoscopic Eradication Therapies for Managing the Burden of Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.

The authors conducted a review of the literature of cost-effectiveness analyses regarding management of Barrett's esophagus, including screening, surveillance, and treatment strategies. Because of the presence of multiple systematic reviews on this topic, they chose to focus on more recent economic analyses, with an emphasis on comparative modeling because these analyses have been demonstrated to achieve greater validity and impact when there are multiple competing strategies that are clinically reasonable to pursue. The authors identified areas of consensus across studies regarding management strategies and also areas that require additional empirical data.

Laparoscopic versus open subtotal gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma: cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy (LSG) for cancer is associated with good perioperative outcomes and superior quality of life compared with the open approach, albeit at higher cost. An economic evaluation was conducted to compare the two approaches. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis between LSG and open subtotal gastrectomy (OSG) for gastric cancer was performed using a decision-tree cohort model with a healthcare system perspective and a 12-month time horizon. Model inputs were informed by a meta-analysis of relevant literature, with costs represented in 2016 Canadian dollars (CAD) and outcomes measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). A secondary analysis was conducted using inputs extracted solely from European and North American studies. Deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic (PSA) sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In the base-case model, costs of LSG were $935 (€565) greater than those of OSG, with an incremental gain of 0·050 QALYs, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $18 846 (€11 398) per additional QALY gained from LSG. In the DSA, results were most sensitive to changes in postoperative utility, operating theatre and equipment costs, as well as duration of surgery and hospital stay. PSA showed that the likelihood of LSG being cost-effective at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50 000 (€30 240) per QALY and $100 000 (€60 480) per QALY was 64 and 68 per cent respectively. Secondary analysis using European and North American clinical inputs resulted in LSG being dominant (cheaper and more effective) over OSG, largely due to reduced length of stay after LSG. CONCLUSION: In this decision analysis model, LSG was cost-effective compared with OSG for gastric cancer.

ANTECEDENTES: Pese a su mayor coste, la gastrectomía subtotal laparoscópica se asocia con buenos resultados perioperatorios y una mejor calidad de vida en comparación con la cirugía abierta en el tratamiento del cáncer. Se realizó una evaluación económica comparando los dos abordajes. MÉTODOS: Se efectuó un análisis de coste-efectividad de la gastrectomía subtotal laparoscópica (laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy, LSG) o de la gastrectomía subtotal abierta (open subtotal gastrectomy, OSG) en el cáncer gástrico utilizando un modelo de cohortes con árbol de decisión desde la perspectiva del sistema de salud y con un horizonte temporal de 12 meses. Los gastos del modelo fueron evaluados tras un metaanálisis de literatura relevante y expresados en dólares canadienses (Canadian dollars, CAD) del 2016. Los resultados se midieron en años de vida ajustados por su calidad (quality-adjusted life years, QALYs). Se realizó un análisis secundario utilizando los datos extraídos únicamente de estudios europeos y norteamericanos. Además, se realizaron análisis de sensibilidad determinístico y probabilístico (deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, DSA y PSA). RESULTADOS: En el modelo del caso base, los costes de la LSG fueron de 934,78$ (565€) más que en la OSG, con una ganancia incremental de 0,050 QALYs, que supuso una relación coste-efectividad incremental (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, ICER) de 18.846,12$ (11.398€) por QALY adicional en la LSG. En el DSA, los resultados fueron más sensibles a cambios en el postoperatorio, quirófano y coste de los equipos, así como en la duración de la intervención y la hospitalización. El PSA demostró que la probabilidad de que la LSG fuera rentable en términos de disposición de pago (willingness-to-pay, WTP) para dos umbrales, de 50.000$ (30.240€) y 100.000$ (60.480€) por QALY fue del 64% y del 68%, respectivamente. En el análisis secundario utilizando los datos europeos y norteamericanos se demostró que la LSG era claramente dominante (más barata y más efectiva) que la OSG, en gran parte debido a la reducción de la estancia hospitalaria de la LSG. CONCLUSIÓN: En este modelo de análisis de decisión, la LSG fue coste-efectiva en comparación con la OSG para el cáncer gástrico.

What is the relevance of an ambulatory quick diagnosis unit or inpatient admission for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer? A retrospective study of 1004 patients.

Quick diagnosis units (QDU) have become an alternative hospital-based ambulatory medicine strategy to inpatient hospitalization for potentially serious illnesses in Spain. Whether diagnosis of pancreatic cancer is better accomplished by an ambulatory or inpatient approach is unknown. The main objective of this retrospective study was to examine and compare the diagnostic effectiveness of a QDU or inpatient setting in patients with pancreatic cancer.Patients with a diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma who had been referred to a university, tertiary hospital-based QDU or hospitalized between 2005 and 2018 were eligible. Presenting symptoms and signs, risk and prognostic factors, and time to diagnosis were compared. The costs incurred during the diagnostic assessment were analyzed with a microcosting method.A total of 1004 patients (508 QDU patients and 496 inpatients) were eligible. Admitted patients were more likely than QDU patients to have weight loss, asthenia, anorexia, abdominal pain, jaundice, and palpable hepatomegaly. Time to diagnosis of inpatients was similar to that of QDU patients (4.1 [0.8 vs 4.3 [0.6] days; P = .163). Inpatients were more likely than QDU patients to have a tumor on the head of the pancreas, a tumor size >2 cm, a more advanced nodal stage, and a poorer histological differentiation. No differences were observed in the proportion of metastatic and locally advanced disease and surgical resections. Microcosting revealed a cost of &OV0556;347.76 (48.69) per QDU patient and &OV0556;634.36 (80.56) per inpatient (P < .001).Diagnosis of pancreatic cancer is similarly achieved by an inpatient or QDU clinical approach, but the latter seems to be cost-effective. Because the high costs of hospitalization, an ambulatory diagnostic assessment may be preferable in these patients.

Cost-effectiveness Evaluation of Targeted Surgical and Endoscopic Therapies for Early Colorectal Adenocarcinoma Based on Biomarker Profiles.

Importance: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States. The prognosis for patients with CRC varies widely, but new prognostic biomarkers provide the opportunity to implement a more individualized approach to treatment selection. Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of 3 therapeutic strategies, namely, endoscopic therapy (ET), laparoscopic colectomy (LC), and open colectomy (OC), for patients with T1 CRC with biomarker profiles that prognosticate varying levels of tumor progression in the US payer perspective. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this economic evaluation study, a Markov model was developed for the cost-effectiveness analysis. Risks of all-cause mortality and recurrent cancer after ET, LC, or OC were estimated with a 35-year time horizon. Quality of life was based on EuroQoL 5 Dimensions scores reported in the published literature. Hospital and treatment costs reflected Medicare reimbursement rates. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Data from patients with T1 CRC and 6 biomarker profiles that included adenomatous polyposis coli (APC), TP53 and/or KRAS, or BRAFV600E were used as inputs for the model. Data analyses were conducted from February 27, 2019, to May 13, 2019. Exposures: Endoscopic therapy, LC, and OC. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were unadjusted life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between competing treatment strategies. Results: Endoscopic therapy had the highest QALYs and the lowest cost and was the dominant treatment strategy for T1 CRC with the following biomarker profiles: BRAFV600E, APC(1)/KRAS/TP53, APC(2) or APC(2)/KRAS or APC(2)/TP53, or APC(1) or APC(1)/KRAS or APC(1)/TP53. The QALYs gained ranged from 16.97 to 17.22, with costs between $68 902.75 and $77 784.53 in these subgroups. For the 2 more aggressive biomarker profiles with worse prognoses (APC(2)/KRAS/TP53 and APCwt [wild type]), LC was the most effective strategy (with 16.45 and 16.61 QALYs gained, respectively) but was not cost-effective. Laparoscopic colectomy cost $65 234.87 for APC(2)/KRAS/TP53 and $71 250.56 for APCwt, resulting in ICERs of $113 290 per QALY and $178 765 per QALY, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: This modeling analysis found that ET was the most effective strategy for patients with T1 CRC with less aggressive biomarker profiles. For patients with more aggressive profiles, LC was more effective but was costly, rendering ET the cost-effective option. This study highlights the potential utility of prognostic biomarkers in T1 CRC treatment selection.

Cost-Effectiveness and Quality-Adjusted Survival of Watch and Wait After Complete Response to Chemoradiotherapy for Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by total mesorectal excision (TME) is the standard treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer. There is interest in deescalating local therapy after a clinical complete response to CRT. We hypothesized that a watch-and-wait (WW) strategy offers comparable cancer-specific survival, superior quality-adjusted survival, and reduced cost compared with upfront TME. METHODS: We developed a decision-analytic model to compare WW, low anterior resection, and abdominoperineal resection for patients achieving a clinical complete response to CRT. Rates of local regrowth, pelvic recurrence, and distant metastasis were derived from series comparing WW with TME after pathologic complete response. Lifetime incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) were calculated between strategies, and sensitivity analyses were performed to study model uncertainty. RESULTS: The base case 5-year cancer-specific survival was 93.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 91.5% to 94.9%) on a WW program compared with 95.9% (95% CI = 93.6% to 97.4%) after upfront TME. WW was dominant relative to low anterior resection, with cost savings of $28 500 (95% CI = $22 200 to $39 000) and incremental QALY of 0.527 (95% CI = 0.138 to 1.125). WW was also dominant relative to abdominoperineal resection, with a cost savings of $32 100 (95% CI = $21 800 to $49 200) and incremental QALY of 0.601 (95% CI = 0.213 to 1.208). WW remained dominant in sensitivity analysis unless the rate of surgical salvage fell to 73.0%. CONCLUSIONS: Using current multi-institutional recurrence estimates, we observed comparable cancer-specific survival, superior quality-adjusted survival, and decreased costs with WW compared with upfront TME. Upfront TME was preferred when surgical salvage rates were low.

Insurance status is related to overall survival in patients with small intestine adenocarcinoma: A population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Our goal was to investigate the effect of insurance status on the overall survival (OS) in cases of small intestine adenocarcinoma. METHODS: The SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) database was used to identify 3822 patients who were diagnosed with small intestine adenocarcinoma between 2007 and 2015. The proportional hazard ASSUMPTION was evaluated by proportional-hazards assumption test and Schoenfeld residual test. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis were performed to evaluate the association between insurance status and OS. RESULTS: We found that the insurance status at the time of diagnosis affected OS at the population level, both in those aged <65 and ≥65 years. Cox multivariate analysis of patients aged <65 years revealed that the hazard of death was greater in the Medicaid group (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.641, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.299-2.073, P < 0.001] and uninsured group (HR = 1.472, 95% CI = 1.095-1.979, P = 0.010) compared with the insured group, while the OS did not differ significantly between the Medicaid and uninsured groups. Similarly, the hazard of death among patients aged ≥65 years was higher in the Medicaid than the insured group (HR = 1.403, 95% CI = 1.136-1.733, P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that patients with small intestine adenocarcinoma with insurance coverage have a significantly better OS than patients who have Medicaid or are uninsured, while the OS does not differ between Medicaid and uninsured patients.

[Evolution of the costs and management of lung cancer between 2004 and 2014]. / Évolution des coûts et de la prise en charge du cancer pulmonaire entre 2004 et 2014.

BACKGROUND: Given its morbidity and mortality, lung cancer is a major public health issue. In recent years, it has benefited from several therapeutic innovations. The objective of this study was to compare, over two distinct periods of ten years, the impact on survival and the costs of lung cancer management. METHODS: The monocentric study assessed survival and the direct costs of lung cancer management of patients diagnosed in Brest University hospital in 2004 and in 2014. RESULTS: The analysis included 142 patients in 2004 and 156 in 2014. Most patients were smokers (72%), metastatic at diagnosis (60%) both in 2004 and in 2014. Median survival was not significantly improved between the 2 periods (9.7 versus 10.9 months), but there was a significant increase in the average cost of care per patient (€ 17,063 vs. € 29,264, P=<0.0001) between 2004 and 2014. CONCLUSION: The significant increase in treatment costs did not translate into an improvement in the survival of patients with lung cancer between 2004 and 2014.

Surveillance Intensity Comparison by Risk for T1NX Locally Excised Rectal Adenocarcinoma: a Cost-Effective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists regarding the optimal surveillance strategy following local excision of T1NX rectal adenocarcinoma. This study aims to determine the cost-effectiveness of surveillance strategies for locally excised T1NX rectal adenocarcinoma based on histopathologic and local staging risk factors. METHODS: A Markov model with 10-year follow-up was developed for cost-effectiveness analysis of high-, medium-, and low-intensity surveillance strategies after local excision of T1NX rectal adenocarcinoma. Literature review and expert consensus were utilized to populate state/transition probabilities and rewards. Based on this data, 87% of T1NX patients undergoing local excision were low risk. Healthcare utilization costs were based on Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data. The primary outcomes were costs in 2018 US dollars and effectiveness in life-years presented as net monetary benefit and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Net monetary benefit for low-, medium-, and high-intensity surveillance strategies ($393,117.00, $397,978.80, and $397,290.00) shows medium-intensity surveillance to be optimal. One-way sensitivity analysis shows medium-intensity surveillance to be optimal when the cohort is 73-94% low risk. High-intensity surveillance is preferred when less than 73% of the cohort is low risk. Low-intensity surveillance is preferred when greater than 94% is low risk. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis of the base-case shows medium-intensity surveillance is the optimal strategy for 51.5% of the iterations performed. CONCLUSIONS: Medium-intensity surveillance is the most cost-effective surveillance strategy for locally excised T1NX rectal adenocarcinoma in a clinically representative population model.

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.

Economic Analysis of Adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy Compared with Chemotherapy in Resected Pancreas Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Population-based survival and costs of pancreas adenocarcinoma patients receiving adjuvant chemoradiation and chemotherapy following pancreaticoduodenectomy are poorly understood. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used linked administrative and pathological datasets to identify all patients diagnosed with pancreas adenocarcinoma and undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy in Ontario between April 2004 and March 2014, who received postoperative chemoradiation or chemotherapy. Stage and margin status were defined by using pathology reports. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression survival analyses were used to determine associations between adjuvant treatment approach and survival, while stratifying by margin status. Median overall health system costs were calculated at 1 and 3 years for chemoradiation and chemotherapy, and differences were tested using the Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: Among 709 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreas cancer during the study period, the median survival was 21 months. Median survival was 19 months for chemoradiation and 22 months for chemotherapy. Patients receiving chemoradiation were more likely to have positive margins: 47.7% compared with 19.2% in chemotherapy. After stratifying by margin status and controlling for confounders, adjusted hazard ratio of death were not statistically different between chemotherapy and chemoradiation [margin positive, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.88-1.27; margin negative, HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91-1.18]. Overall 1-year health system costs were significantly higher for chemoradiation (USD $70,047) than chemotherapy (USD $54,005) (p ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Chemotherapy and chemoradiation yielded similar survival, but chemoradiation resulted in higher costs. To create more sustainable healthcare systems, both the efficacy and costs of therapies should be considered.

Defining Value for Pancreatic Surgery in Early-Stage Pancreatic Cancer.

Importance: Value-based care is increasingly important, with rising health care costs and advances in cancer treatment leading to greater survival for patients with cancer. Regionalization of surgical care for pancreatic cancer has been extensively studied as a strategy to improve perioperative outcomes, but investigation of long-term outcomes relative to health care costs (ie, value) is lacking. Objective: To identify patient and hospital characteristics associated with improved overall survival, decreased costs, and greater value among patients with pancreatic cancer undergoing curative resection. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study identified 2786 patients with stages I to II pancreatic cancer who underwent pancreatic resection at 157 hospitals from January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2012. The study used the California Cancer Registry, which collects data from all California residents newly diagnosed with cancer, linked to the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development database, which collects administrative data from all California licensed hospitals. Data were analyzed from November 11, 2017, through September 4, 2018. Exposures: Pancreatic resection at high-volume and/or National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were overall survival, surgical hospitalization costs, and value. High value was defined as the fourth quintile or higher for survival and the second quintile or less for costs. Costs were calculated from charges using cost-charge ratios and adjusted for geographic variation and inflation. Multivariable regression models were used to determine factors associated with overall survival, costs, and high value. Results: Among the 2786 patients included (1394 [50.0%] male; mean [SD] age, 67.0 [10.7] years), postoperative chemotherapy (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.71; 95% CI, 0.64-0.79; P < .001) and high-volume centers (aHR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.61-0.99; P = .04) were associated with greater overall survival. Higher Elixhauser comorbidity index scores (estimate, 0.006; 95% CI, 0.003-0.008), complications (estimate, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.17-0.27), readmissions (estimate, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.29-0.39), and longer lengths of stay (estimate, 0.03; 95% CI, 0.03-0.04) were associated with higher costs (P < .001), whereas postoperative chemotherapy was associated with lower costs (estimate, -0.06; 95% CI, -0.11 to -0.02; P = .006). National Cancer Institute-designated and high-volume centers were not associated with costs. Although grades III and IV tumors (odds ratio [OR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.39-0.91; P = .001), T3 category disease (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.46-0.95; P = .005), complications (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49-0.86; P < .001), readmissions (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.44-0.84; P < .001), and length of stay (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.78-0.85; P < .001) were inversely associated with high-value care, NCI designation (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.66-1.49; P = .74) and high-volume centers (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.54-1.61; P = .07) were not. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, high-value care was associated with important patient characteristics and postoperative outcomes. However, NCI-designated and high-volume centers were not associated with greater value. These data suggest that targeted measures to enhance value may be needed in these centers.

Disparities in Care: Impact of Socioeconomic Factors on Pancreatic Surgery: Exploring the National Cancer Database.

Studies have shown high-volume institutions have decreased mortality and increased survival for pancreatectomy. However, not all patients can travel to high-volume centers. Socioeconomic factors may influence treatment decisions. The goal of this study is to examine socioeconomic factors that determine where a patient is treated and how that location affects outcome. This is a retrospective study of the National Cancer Database of patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer from 2004 to 2014. The primary outcome was to examine socioeconomic factors that predicted where a patient underwent their pancreatectomy. Patients treated at academic programs (APs) had to travel a mean distance of 80.9 miles, whereas patients treated at community programs (CPs) had to travel 31.7 miles (P < 0.0001). Spanish and Hispanic patients were less likely to travel to an AP (69% had surgery at an AP versus 76% of non-Hispanic patients, P < 0.001). Patients with higher comorbidities were also more likely to have care at CPs. Patients who had pancreatic cancer surgery at CPs were more likely to be Hispanic or with higher medical comorbidities. Those who had surgery at AP traveled further distances but had better perioperative outcomes and had an improvement in overall survival.