Interventional Oncology: 2024 Update

Interventional Oncology (IO) stands at the forefront of transformative cancer care, leveraging advanced imaging technologies and innovative interventions. This narrative review explores recent developments within IO, highlighting its potential impact facilitated by artificial intelligence (AI), personalized medicine and imaging innovations. The integration of AI in IO holds promise for accelerating tumour detection and characterization, guiding treatment strategies and refining predictive models. Imaging modalities, including functional MRI, PET and cone beam CT are reshaping imaging and precision. Navigation, fusion imaging, augmented reality and robotics have the potential to revolutionize procedural guidance and offer unparalleled accuracy. New developments are observed in embolization and ablative therapies. The pivotal role of genomics in treatment planning, targeted therapies and biomarkers for treatment response prediction underscore the personalization of IO. Quality of life assessment, minimizing side effects and long-term survivorship care emphasize patient-centred outcomes after IO treatment. The evolving landscape of IO training programs, simulation technologies and workforce competence ensures the field's adaptability. Despite barriers to adoption, synergy between interventional radiologists' proficiency and technological advancements hold promise in cancer care.

Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing in Interventional Oncology: Cost Measurement and Cost Variability for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Therapies

PURPOSE

To use time-drive activity-based costing (TDABC) to characterize and compare costs of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), transarterial radioembolization (TARE), and ablation.

METHODS

This three-part study involved (1) prospective observation to record resources used during TACE, TARE, and ablation and statistical evaluation of interobserver and interprocedure variability; (2) Bland-Altman analysis of prospective measurements and medical record time stamps to establish practicality of using retrospective data in place of direct observation; (3) retrospective time stamp assessment for 117 ablations, 61 TACE procedures, and 61 TARE procedures to reveal variability drivers.

RESULTS

Ablation costs were lowest ($3,744), which were 74% of TACE costs ($5,089) and 18% of TARE costs ($20,818). Consumables were the greatest cost contributor, accounting for 65% of ablation, 58% of TACE, and 90% of TARE costs. A single consumable contributed to most of the overall costs: the ablation probe (42%), ethiodized oil for TACE (30%), and yttrium-90 microspheres for TARE (80%). Bland-Altman analysis showed agreement between retrospective time stamps and prospective measurements. Ablation costs increased from $3,288 to $4,245 to $4,461 for one, two, or three tumors treated. TACE cost increased from $5,051 to $5,296 for lobar versus selective approaches.

CONCLUSION

A bottom-up costing approach using TDABC is feasible to assess true costs of hepatocellular carcinoma treatments and demonstrates ablation costs are significantly less than those of TACE and TARE. Replication of these methods at other institutions can facilitate development of a bundled payment model to promote utilization of locoregional therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma.

Discharge Destination After Revision Total Joint Arthroplasty: An Analysis of Postdischarge Outcomes and Placement Risk Factors

BACKGROUND

Given the rising incidence of revision total joint arthroplasty (RJR), bundled payments will likely be applied to RJR in the near future. This study aimed to compare postdischarge adverse events by discharge destination, identify risk factors for discharge placement, and stratify RJR patients based on these risk factors to identify the most appropriate discharge destination.

METHODS

Patients that underwent revision total hip or knee arthroplasty from 2011 to 2013 were identified in the American College of Surgeon's National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Analysis of risk factors was assessed using preoperative and intraoperative variables.

RESULTS

A total of 9973 RJR patients from 2011 to 2013 were included for analysis. The most common discharge destination included home (66%), skilled nursing facility (SNF; 23%), and inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF; 11%). Bivariate analysis revealed higher rate of postdischarge 30-day severe adverse events (6.1% vs 4.1%, P < .001) and unplanned readmissions (9.3% vs 6.1%, P < .001) in nonhome vs home patients. In multivariate analysis, SNF and IRF patients were 1.30 and 1.51 times more likely to suffer an unplanned 30-day readmission relative to home patients (P ≤ .01), respectively. After stratifying patients by number of significant risk factors and discharge destination, IRF patients consistently had significantly higher rates of unplanned 30-day readmission than home patients (P ≤ .05).

CONCLUSION

RJR patients who are discharged to SNF or IRF have significantly increased risk for unplanned readmissions as compared with patients discharged home. Across risk levels, home discharge destination (when feasible) is the optimal strategy compared with IRF, although the distinction between SNF and home is less clear.