Comparing treatment patterns of hepatocellular carcinoma at academic centers and non-academic centers within the Mountain Region

The Impact of Medicaid Expansion on Early-Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma Care

INTRODUCTION

The impact of Medicaid expansion (ME) on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains controversial, and heterogeneous effects on care processes may relate to sociodemographic factors. We sought to evaluate the association between ME and receipt of surgery in early-stage HCC.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with early-stage HCC between 40 and 64 years of age were identified from the National Cancer Database and divided into pre- (2004-2012) and post- (2015-2017) expansion cohorts. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of surgical treatment. Difference-in-difference (DID) analysis assessed changes in surgical treatment between patients living in ME and non-ME states.

RESULTS

Among 19,745 patients, 12,220 (61.9%) were diagnosed before ME and 7525 (38.1%) after. Although overall utilization of surgery decreased after expansion (ME, pre-expansion: 62.2% versus post-expansion: 51.6%; non-ME, pre-expansion: 62.1% versus post-expansion: 50.8%, p < 0.001), this trend varied relative to insurance status. Notably, receipt of surgery increased among uninsured/Medicaid patients living in ME states after expansion (pre-expansion: 48.1%, post-expansion: 52.3%, p < 0.001). Moreover, treatment at academic or high-volume facilities increased the likelihood of undergoing surgery before expansion. After expansion, treatment at an academic facility and living in an ME state (OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.07-1.54, p < 0.01) were predictors of surgical treatment. DID analysis demonstrated increased utilization of surgery for uninsured/Medicaid patients living in ME states relative to non-ME states (uninsured/Medicaid: 6.4%, p < 0.05), although no differences were noted among patients with other insurance statuses (overall: 0.7%, private: -2.0%, other: 0.3%, all p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of ME heterogeneously impacted utilization of care in early-stage HCC. Notably, uninsured/Medicaid patients residing in ME states demonstrated increased utilization of surgical treatment after expansion.

Perioperative and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma: a propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has now been established as a safe and minimally invasive technique that is deemed feasible for treating hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). However, the role of LLR in treating combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CC) patients has been rarely reported. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of LLR when compared with open liver resection (OLR) procedure for patients with cHCC-CC.

METHODS

A total of 229 cHCC-CC patients who underwent hepatic resection (34 LLR and 195 OLR patients) from January 2014 to December 2018 in Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University were enrolled and underwent a 1:2 propensity score matching (PSM) analysis between the LLR and OLR groups to compare perioperative and oncologic outcomes. Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) parameters were assessed by the log-rank test and the sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 34 LLR and 68 OLR patients were included after PSM analysis. The LLR group displayed a shorter postoperative hospital stay (6.61 vs. 8.26 days; p value < 0.001) when compared with the OLR group. No significant differences were observed in the postoperative complications' incidence or a negative surgical margin rate between the two groups (p value = 0.409 and p value = 1.000, respectively). The aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and inflammatory indicators in the LLR group were significantly lower than those in the OLR group on the first and third postoperative days. Additionally, OS and RFS were comparable in both the LLR and OLR groups (p value = 0.700 and p value = 0.780, respectively), and similar results were obtained by conducting a sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSION

LLR can impart less liver function damage, better inflammatory response attenuation contributing to a faster recovery, and parallel oncologic outcomes when compared with OLR. Therefore, LLR can be recommended as a safe and effective therapeutic modality for treating selected cHCC-CC patients, especially for those with small tumors in favorable location.

Adoption of single agent anticancer therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and impact of facility type, insurance status, and income on survival: Analysis of the national cancer database 2004-2014

Background

This study analyzes the pattern of use of single agent anticancer therapy (SAACT) in the treatment and survival of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) before and after sorafenib was FDA approved in 2007.

Methods

Adult patients diagnosed with HCC and treated with only ACT from 2004 – 2014 were identified in NCDB database. Patients were analyzed during three time frames: 2004–2006 (pre‐sorafenib (PS)), 2007–2010 (early sorafenib (ES)) and 2011–2014 (late sorafenib (LS)). Cox proportional hazards models and Kaplan‐Meier method were used for analyses.

Results

The NCDB contained 31,107 patients with HCC diagnosed from 2004–2014 and treated with ACT alone. Patients were generally men (78.0%), >50 years of age (92.5%). A significant increase in the rate of adaption of SAACT was observed over time: 6.2% PS, 15.2% ES, and 22.2% LS (p < 0.0001). During this later period, the highest proportion of SAACT is among academic and integrated network facilities (23.3%) as compared to community facilities (17.0%, p < 0.0001). The median overall survival of patients with aHCC treated only with SAACT improved significantly over time from 8.0 months (m) (95% CI: 7.4–8.8) to 10.7 m (10.4–11.2) to 15.6 m (15.2–16.0, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis indicates worse outcomes for patients treated at community cancer programs (HR 1.28, (5% CI: 1.23–1.32), patients without insurance (HR 1.11, 1.06–1.16) and estimated household income of <$63,000 (HR 1.09, 1.05–1.13).

Conclusion

aHCC patients treated only with ACT have experienced an overall improvement in survival, but significant differences exist between facility type, insurance status, and income.