Drivers of Cost for Pancreatic Surgery: It's Not About Hospital Volume

Study of Risk Factors for Readmission After Pancreatectomy for Cancer: Analysis of Nationwide Cohort

OBJECTIVE

To identify the factors associated with readmission after pancreatectomy for cancer and to assess their impact on the 1-year mortality in a French multicentric population.

BACKGROUND

Pancreatectomy is a complex procedure with high morbidity that increases the length of hospital stay and jeopardizes survival. Hospital readmissions lead to increased health system costs, making this a topic of great interest.

METHODS

Data collected from patients who underwent pancreatectomy for cancer between 2011 and 2019 were extracted from a French national medico-administrative database. A descriptive analysis was conducted to evaluate the association of baseline variables, including age, sex, liver-related comorbidities, Charlson Comorbidity Index, tumor localization, and use of neoadjuvant therapy, along with hospital type and volume, with readmission status. Centers were divided into low and high volumes according to the cutoff of 26 cases/year. Logistic regression models were developed to determine whether the identified bivariate associations persisted after adjusting for the patient characteristics. The mortality rates during readmission and at 1 year postoperatively were also determined.

RESULTS

Of 22,935 patients who underwent pancreatectomy, 9129 (39.3%) were readmitted within 6 months. Readmission rates by year did not vary over the study period, and mean readmissions occurred within 20 days after discharge. Multivariate analysis showed that male sex [odds ratio (OR) = 1.12], age >70 years (OR = 1.16), comorbidities (OR = 1.21), distal pancreatectomy (OR = 1.11), and major postoperative complications (OR = 1.37) were predictors of readmission. Interestingly, readmission and surgery in low-volume centers increased the risk of death at 1 year by a factor of 2.15 [(2.01-2.31), P < 0.001] and 1.31 [(1.17-1.47), P < 0.001], respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Readmission after pancreatectomy for cancer is high with an increased rate of 1-year mortality.

Methods in regression analysis in surgical oncology research-best practice guidelines

BACKGROUND

Using real working examples, we provide strategies and address challenges in linear and logistic regression to demonstrate best practice guidelines and pitfalls of regression modeling in surgical oncology research.

METHODS

To demonstrate our best practices, we reviewed patients who underwent tissue expander breast reconstruction between 2019 and 2021. We assessed predictive factors that affect BREAST-Q Physical Well-Being of the Chest (PWB-C) scores at 2 weeks with linear regression modeling and overall complications and malrotation with logistic regression modeling. Model fit and performance were assessed.

RESULTS

The 1986 patients were included in the analysis. In linear regression, age [β = 0.18 (95% CI: 0.09, 0.28); p < 0.001], single marital status [β = 2.6 (0.31, 5.0); p = 0.026], and prepectoral pocket dissection [β = 4.6 (2.7, 6.5); p < 0.001] were significantly associated with PWB-C at 2 weeks. For logistic regression, BMI [OR = 1.06 (95% CI: 1.04, 1.08); p < 0.001], age [OR = 1.02 (1.01, 1.03); p = 0.002], bilateral reconstruction [OR = 1.39 (1.09, 1.79); p = 0.009], and prepectoral dissection [OR = 1.53 (1.21, 1.94); p < 0.001] were associated with increased likelihood of a complication.

CONCLUSION

We provide focused directives for successful application of regression techniques in surgical oncology research. We encourage researchers to select variables with clinical judgment, confirm appropriate model fitting, and consider clinical plausibility for interpretation when utilizing regression models in their research.

Are the screening guidelines for branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms cost-effective in an Australian setting?

BACKGROUNDS

Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN) are cystic neoplasms of the pancreatic ductal system. These incidental cystic lesions are increasingly found on radiological imaging and screened for malignant transformation. The Fukuoka consensus guidelines recommend screening with computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging or endoscopic ultrasound. Branch duct IPMN (BD-IPMN) have significantly lower malignancy and mortality rates compared to main duct IPMN. Our aim was to assess the cost-effectiveness of guideline's recommendations for BD-IPMN screening of cysts between 2 and 3 cm in an Australian context.

METHODS

Markov model decision analysis was used to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of screening. The ICER was compared to a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $50 000. We performed scenario analysis to examine the effect of cyst size and non-linearity of malignancy rate on ICER. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed on our input parameters.

RESULTS

Screening resulted in 586 quality adjusted life years gained and a net present value of $20 379 939, resulting in a base-case ICER of $34 758. After scenario analysis for non-linearity of malignancy rate the ICER increases to $64 555, which is above the WTP threshold. PSA indicates that ICER is most susceptible to the pre-test malignancy rate.

CONCLUSION

This cost analysis demonstrates that screening of 2-3 cm BD-IPMN according to current guidelines is unlikely to be cost-effective in an Australian context. To determine the true ICER, a cost analysis on real-world data is required.

A Comparison of Clinical and Cost Outcomes After Pancreatectomies at a Safety-net Hospital using a National Registry

BACKGROUND

Our institution (UFHJ) meets the criteria of both a large, specialized medical center (LSCMC) and a safety-net hospital (AEH). Our aim is to compare pancreatectomy outcomes at UFHJ against other LSCMCs, AEHs, and against institutions that meet criteria for both LSCMC and AEH. In addition, we sought to evaluate differences between LSCMCs and AEHs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Pancreatectomies for pancreatic cancer were queried from the Vizient Clinical Data Base (2018 to 2020). Clinical and cost outcomes were compared between UFHJ and LSCMCs, AEHs, and a combined group, respectively. Indices >1 indicated the observed value was greater than the expected national benchmark value.

RESULTS

The mean number of pancreatectomy cases performed per institution in the LSCMC group was 12.15, 11.73, and 14.31 in 2018, 2019, and 2020, respectively. At AEHs, 25.33, 24.56, and 26.37 mean cases per institution per year, respectively. In the combined group of both LSCMCs and AEHs, 8.10, 7.60, and 7.22 mean cases, respectively. At UFHJ, 17, 34, and 39 cases were performed each year, respectively. Length of stay index decreased below national benchmarks at UFHJ (1.08 to 0.82), LSCMCs (0.91 to 0.85), and AEHs (0.94 to 0.93), with an increasing case mix index at UFHJ (3.33 to 4.20) from 2018 to 2020. In contrast, length of stay index increased in the combined group (1.14 to 1.18) and overall was the lowest at LSCMCs (0.89). Mortality index declined at UFHJ (5.07 to 0.00) below national benchmarks compared with LSCMCs (1.23 to 1.29), AEHs (1.19 to 1.45), and the combined group (1.92 to 1.99), and was significantly different between all groups ( P <0.001). Thirty-day re-admissions were lower at UFHJ (6.25% to 10.26%) compared with LSCMCs (17.62% to 16.83%) and AEHs (18.93% to 15.51%), and significantly lower at AEHs compared with LSCMCs ( P <0.001). Notably, 30-day re-admissions were lower at AEHs compared with LSCMCs ( P <0.001) and declined over time and were the lowest in the combined group in 2020 (17.72% to 9.52%). Direct cost index at UFHJ declined (1.00 to 0.67) below the benchmark compared with LSCMCs (0.90 to 0.93), AEHs (1.02 to 1.04), and the combined group (1.02 to 1.10). When comparing LSCMCs and AEHs, there were no significant differences between direct cost percentages ( P =0.56); however, the direct cost index was significantly lower at LSCMCs.

CONCLUSION

Pancreatectomy outcomes at our institution have improved over time exceeding national benchmarks and often were significant to LSCMCs, AEHs, and a combined comparator group. In addition, AEHs were able to maintain good quality care when compared with LSCMCs. This study highlights the role that safety-net hospitals can provide high-quality care to a medically vulnerable patient population in the presence of high-case volume.

Patient volume and clinical outcome after pancreatic cancer resection: A contemporary systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cancer remains a highly fatal disease with a 5-year overall survival of less than 10%. In seeking to improve clinical outcomes, there is ongoing debate about the weight that should be given to patient volume in centralization models. The aim of this systematic review is to examine the relationship between patient volume and clinical outcome after pancreatic resection for cancer in the contemporary literature.

METHODS

The Google Scholar, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched from February 2015 until June 2021 for articles reporting patient volume and outcomes after pancreatic cancer resection.

RESULTS

There were 46 eligible studies over a 6-year period comprising 526,344 patients. The median defined annual patient volume thresholds varied: low-volume 0 (range 0-9), medium-volume 9 (range 3-29), high-volume 19 (range 9-97), and very-high-volume 28 (range 17-60) patients. The latter 2 were associated with a significantly lower 30-day mortality (P < .001), 90-day mortality (P < .001), overall postoperative morbidity (P = .005), failure to rescue rate (P = .006), and R0 resection rate (P = .008) compared with very-low/low-volume hospitals. Centralization was associated with lower 30-day mortality in 3 out of 5 studies, while postoperative morbidity was similar in 4 out of 4 studies. Median survival was longer in patients traveling greater distance for pancreatic resection in 2 out of 3 studies. Median and 5-year survival did not differ between urban and rural settings.

CONCLUSION

The contemporary literature confirms a strong relationship between patient volume and clinical outcome for pancreatic cancer resection despite expected bias toward more complex surgery in high-volume centers. These outcomes include lower mortality, morbidity, failure-to-rescue, and positive resection margin rates.

Centralisation of surgery for complex cancer diseases: A scoping review of the evidence base on pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Centralisation of cancer surgery is a commonly applied healthcare strategy worldwide. This study aimed to detail the design of centralisation policies, to shed light on the implications of such policies in real practice and to describe the different perspectives taken to deal with difficulties that emerged, taking pancreatic cancer as an example of a complex cancer disease requiring surgery.

METHODOLOGY

A scoping review was conducted using the MEDLINE database. We systematically searched for eligible studies published between January 2000 and December 2018.

RESULTS

In the 33 included studies, centralisation of pancreatic cancer surgery was implemented through three different models: designated hospitals, definition of minimum volumes per provider, and/or recommendations included in protocols and national guidelines. The presence of highly advanced technology and infrastructures, the availability of extensive service coverage and advanced care processes based on expert multidisciplinary teams, and higher caseloads were identified as key components of centralisation policy.

CONCLUSIONS

Centralisation models for pancreatic cancer surgery showed that having expert centres where the care process is comprehensively guided is a foundational policy approach. External quality assessment and the accreditation of centres and professionals performing complex surgical procedures are levers that may positively impact the effectiveness of the measure. POLICY SUMMARY: while we found different experiences and three models of centralisation, all of them were guided by the will to positively impact on pancreatic cancer patients' access to expert care. Clinical research might be able to make progress in the coming years and perhaps contribute to reversing a critical situation of high mortality and growing incidence. However, policymakers must optimise health system responses considering current resources, as suggested by the recommendations proposed in the framework of the EU initiative Bratislava Statement for pancreatic cancer care.

Data Resources for Evaluating the Economic and Financial Consequences of Surgical Care in the United States

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

V.

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.

The faith of non-surveilled pancreatic cysts: a bicentric retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Incidental discovery of pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCLs) is a common and steadily increasing occurrence. The aim of this study was to investigate a cohort of patients presenting with incidentally detected PCLs which were not included in a surveillance protocol, and to compare their risk of malignant evolution with that of systematically surveilled lesions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A population of PCLs which did not receive surveillance over a period >10 years (population A) was selected at the Medical University of Vienna. A group of "low risk" branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm ≤15 mm in size upon diagnosis undergoing a regular follow-up of at least 5 years at the University of Verona was selected as control (population B). The incidence of pancreatic cancer (PC), cumulative risk of PC and disease-specific survival were compared.

RESULTS

Overall, 376 patients with non-surveilled PCLs were included in study group A and compared to 299 patients in group B. This comparison resulted in similar incidence rates of PC (1.6% vs 1.7%, p = 0.938), a strong similarity in terms of disease-specific mortality rates (1.3% vs 0.3%, p = 0.171) and the 5- and 10-year cumulative risk of PC (≅ 1% and 2%, p = 0.589) and DSS (≅ 100% and 98%, p = 0.050).

CONCLUSION

The "price to pay" for a negligence-based policy in the population of non-surveilled PCLs was reasonable, and the incidence of PC was comparable to that reported for a population of low-risk cysts enrolled to a standardized surveillance protocol.

Risk factors and socio-economic burden in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma operation: a machine learning based analysis

BACKGROUND

Surgical resection is the major way to cure pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). However, this operation is complex, and the peri-operative risk is high, making patients more likely to be admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Therefore, establishing a risk model that predicts admission to ICU is meaningful in preventing patients from post-operation deterioration and potentially reducing socio-economic burden.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected 120 clinical features from 1242 PDAC patients, including demographic data, pre-operative and intra-operative blood tests, in-hospital duration, and ICU status. Machine learning pipelines, including Supporting Vector Machine (SVM), Logistic Regression, and Lasso Regression, were employed to choose an optimal model in predicting ICU admission. Ordinary least-squares regression (OLS) and Lasso Regression were adopted in the correlation analysis of post-operative bleeding, total in-hospital duration, and discharge costs.

RESULTS

SVM model achieved higher performance than the other two models, resulted in an AU-ROC of 0.80. The features, such as age, duration of operation, monocyte count, and intra-operative partial arterial pressure of oxygen (PaO2), are risk factors in the ICU admission. The protective factors include RBC count, analgesic pump dexmedetomidine (DEX), and intra-operative maintenance of DEX. Basophil percentage, duration of the operation, and total infusion volume were risk variables for staying in ICU. The bilirubin, CA125, and pre-operative albumin were associated with the post-operative bleeding volume. The operation duration was the most important factor for discharge costs, while pre-lymphocyte percentage and the absolute count are responsible for less cost.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed that several new indicators such as DEX, monocyte count, basophil percentage, and intra-operative PaO2 showed a good predictive effect on the possibility of admission to ICU and duration of stay in ICU. This work provided an essential reference for indication in advance to PDAC operation.

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.

Centralization of Pancreatic Surgery Improves Results: Review

Background and Aims:

The effect of operation volume on the outcomes of pancreatic surgery has been a subject of research since the 1990s. In several countries around the world, this has led to the centralization of pancreatic surgery. However, controversy persists as to the benefits of centralization and what the optimal operation volume for pancreatic surgery actually is. This review summarizes the data on the effect of centralization on mortality, complications, hospital facilities used, and costs regarding pancreatic surgery.

Materials and Methods:

A systematic librarian-assisted search was performed in PubMed covering the years from August 1999 to August 2019. All studies comparing results of open pancreatic resections from high- and low-volume centers were included. In total 44, published articles were analyzed.

Results:

Studies used a variety of different criteria for high-volume and low-volume centers, which hampers the evaluating of the effect of operation volume. However, mortality in high-volume centers is consistently reported to be lower than in low-volume centers. In addition, failure to rescue critically ill patients is more common in low-volume centers. Cost-effectiveness has also been evaluated in the literature. Length of hospital stay in particular has been reported to be shorter in high-volume centers than in low-volume centers.

Conclusion:

The effect of centralization on the outcomes of pancreatic surgery has been under active research and the beneficial effect of it is associated especially with better short-term prognosis after surgery.

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.