Search

Background: We compared the relative benefits, harms and cost-effectiveness of hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery ± systemic chemotherapy versus cytoreductive surgery ± systemic chemotherapy or systemic chemotherapy alone in people with peritoneal metastases from colorectal, gastric or ovarian cancers by a systematic review, meta-analysis and model-based cost-utility analysis., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and the Science Citation Index, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP trial registers until 14 April 2022. We included only randomised controlled trials addressing the research objectives. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool version 2 to assess the risk of bias in randomised controlled trials. We used the random-effects model for data synthesis when applicable. For the cost-effectiveness analysis, we performed a model-based cost-utility analysis using methods recommended by The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence., Results: The systematic review included a total of eight randomised controlled trials (seven randomised controlled trials, 955 participants included in the quantitative analysis). All comparisons other than those for stage III or greater epithelial ovarian cancer contained only one trial, indicating the paucity of randomised controlled trials that provided data. For colorectal cancer, hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy probably results in little to no difference in all-cause mortality (60.6% vs. 60.6%; hazard ratio 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 1.58) and may increase the serious adverse event proportions compared to cytoreductive surgery ± systemic chemotherapy (25.6% vs. 15.2%; risk ratio 1.69, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 2.77). Hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy probably decreases all-cause mortality compared to fluorouracil-based systemic chemotherapy alone (40.8% vs. 60.8%; hazard ratio 0.55, 95% confidence interval 0.32 to 0.95). For gastric cancer, there is high uncertainty about the effects of hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy versus cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy or systemic chemotherapy alone on all-cause mortality. For stage III or greater epithelial ovarian cancer undergoing interval cytoreductive surgery, hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy probably decreases all-cause mortality compared to cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy (46.3% vs. 57.4%; hazard ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.93). Hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy may not be cost-effective versus cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy for colorectal cancer but may be cost-effective for the remaining comparisons., Limitations: We were unable to obtain individual participant data as planned. The limited number of randomised controlled trials for each comparison and the paucity of data on health-related quality of life mean that the recommendations may change as new evidence (from trials with a low risk of bias) emerges., Conclusions: In people with peritoneal metastases from colorectal cancer with limited peritoneal metastases and who are likely to withstand major surgery, hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy should not be used in routine clinical practice ( strong recommendation ). There is considerable uncertainty as to whether hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy or cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy should be offered to patients with gastric cancer and peritoneal metastases (no recommendation) . Hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy should be offered routinely to women with stage III or greater epithelial ovarian cancer and metastases confined to the abdomen requiring and likely to withstand interval cytoreductive surgery after chemotherapy ( strong recommendation )., Future Work: More randomised controlled trials are necessary., Study Registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019130504., Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/135/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 28, No. 51. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Background: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have been shown to reduce length of stay (LOS) and complications. The impact of ERAS protocols on the cost of cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) has not been studied., Patients and Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of patients undergoing CRS-HIPEC from 2016-2022 at a single quaternary center. Propensity score matching was used to create pre-and post-ERAS cohorts. Cost, overall and serious complications, and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS) between the two cohorts were compared using the Mann-Whitney U-test for continuous variables and χ2 test for categorical variables., Results: Our final matched cohort consisted of 100 patients, with 50 patients in both the pre- and post-ERAS groups. After adjusting for patient complexity and inflation, the median total cost [$75,932 ($67,166-102,645) versus $92,992 ($80,720-116,710), p = 0.02] and operating room cost [$26,817 ($23,378-33,121) versus $34,434 ($28,085-$41,379), p < 0.001] were significantly higher in the post-ERAS cohort. Overall morbidity (n = 22, 44% versus n = 17, 34%, p = 0.40) and ICU length of stay [2 days (IQR 1-3) versus 2 days (IQR 1-4), p = 0.70] were similar between the two cohorts. A total cost increase of $22,393 [SE $13,047, 95% CI (-$3178 to $47,965), p = 0.086] was estimated after implementation of ERAS, with operating room cost significantly contributing to this increase [$8419, SE $1628, 95% CI ($5228-11,609), p < 0.001]., Conclusions: CRS-HIPEC ERAS protocols were associated with higher total costs due to increased operating room costs at a single institution. There was no significant difference in ICU LOS and complications after the implementation of the ERAS protocol., (© 2024. Society of Surgical Oncology.)

Purpose: To identify patient and hospital characteristics associated with extended surgical cytoreduction in the treatment of ovarian cancer., Methods: A retrospective analysis using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database identified women hospitalized for surgery to remove an ovarian malignancy between 2013 and 2017. Extended cytoreduction (ECR) was defined as surgery involving the bowel, liver, diaphragm, bladder, stomach, or spleen. Chi-square and logistic regression were used to analyze patient and hospital demographics related to ECR, and trends were assessed using the Cochran-Armitage test., Results: Of the estimated 79,400 patients undergoing ovarian cancer surgery, 22% received ECR. Decreased adjusted odds of ECR were found in patients with lower Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (ECI) scores (OR 0.61, p<0.001 for ECI 2, versus ECI≥3) or residence outside the top income quartile (OR 0.71, p<0.001 for Q1, versus Q4), and increased odds were seen at hospitals with high ovarian cancer surgical volume (OR 1.25, p<0.001, versus low volume). From 2013 to 2017, there was a decrease in the proportion of cases with extended procedures (19% to 15%, p<0.001). There were significant decreases in the proportion of cases with small bowel, colon, and rectosigmoid resections (p<0.001). Patients who underwent ECR were more likely treated at a high surgical volume hospital (37% vs 31%, p<0.001) over the study period. For their hospital admission, patients who underwent ECR had increased mortality (1.6% vs. 0.5%, p<0.001), length of stay (9.6 days vs. 5.2 days, p<0.001), and mean cost ($32,132 vs. $17,363, p<0.001)., Conclusions: Likelihood of ECR was associated with increased medical comorbidity complexity, higher income, and undergoing the procedure at high surgical volume hospitals. The proportion of ovarian cancer cases with ECR has decreased from 2013-17, with more cases performed at high surgical volume hospitals., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Objective: To determine if laparoscopy is a cost-effective way to assess disease resectability in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer., Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis from a health care payer perspective was performed comparing two strategies: (1) a standard evaluation strategy, where a conventional approach to treatment planning was used to assign patients to either primary cytoreduction (PCS) or neoadjuvant chemotherapy with interval cytoreduction (NACT), and (2) a laparoscopy strategy, where patients considered candidates for PCS would undergo laparoscopy to triage between PCS or NACT based on the laparoscopy-predicted likelihood of complete gross resection. A microsimulation model was developed that included diagnostic work-up, surgical and adjuvant treatment, perioperative complications, and progression-free survival (PFS). Model parameters were derived from the literature and our published data. Effectiveness was defined in quality-adjusted PFS years. Results were tested with deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set at $50,000 per year of quality-adjusted PFS., Results: The laparoscopy strategy led to additional costs (average additional cost $7034) but was also more effective (average 4.1 months of additional quality-adjusted PFS). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of laparoscopy was $20,376 per additional year of quality-adjusted PFS. The laparoscopy strategy remained cost-effective even as the cost added by laparoscopy increased. The benefit of laparoscopy was influenced by mitigation of serious complications and their associated costs. The laparoscopy strategy was cost-effective across a range of WTP thresholds., Conclusions: Performing laparoscopy is a cost-effective way to improve primary treatment planning for patients with untreated advanced ovarian cancer., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cost-effective cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for treatment of patients with peritoneal malignancy remains an ongoing financial challenge for healthcare systems, hospitals and patients. This study aims to describe the detailed in-hospital costs of CRS and HIPEC compared with an Australian Activity Based Funding (ABF) system, and to evaluate how the learning curve, disease entities and surgical outcomes influence in-hospital costs., Methods: A retrospective descriptive costing review of all CRS and HIPEC cases undertaken at a large public tertiary referral hospital in Sydney, Australia from April 2017 to June 2019. In-hospital cost variables included staff, critical care, diagnosis, operating theatre, and other costs. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to investigate the differences between actual cost and the provision of funding, and potential factors associated with these costs., Results: Of the 118 CRS and HIPEC procedures included in the analyses, the median total cost was AU$130,804 (IQR: 105,744 to 153,972). Provision of funding via the ABF system was approximately one-third of the total CRS and HIPEC costs (p < 0.001). Surgical staff proficiency seems to reduce the total CRS and HIPEC costs. Surgical time, length of intensive care unit and hospital stay are the main predictors of total CRS and HIPEC costs., Conclusion: Delivery of CRS and HIPEC is expensive with high variability. A standard ABF system grossly underestimates the specific CRS and HIPEC funding required with supplementation essential to sustaining this complex highly specialised service., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Crown Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The effect of the Dependent Coverage Expansion (DCE) under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on receipt of colorectal cancer treatment has yet to be determined. We identified newly diagnosed DCE-eligible (aged 19-25 years, n = 1924) and DCE-ineligible (aged 27-34 years, n = 8313) colorectal cancer patients from the National Cancer Database from 2007 to 2013. All statistical tests were two-sided. Post-ACA, there was a statistically significant increase in early-stage diagnosis among DCE-eligible (15 percentage point increase, confidence interval = 9.8, 20.2; P < .001), but not DCE-ineligible (P = .09), patients. DCE-eligible patients resected for IIB-IIIC colorectal cancer were more likely to receive timely adjuvant chemotherapy (hazard ratio = 1.34, 95% confidence interval = 1.05 to 1.71; 7.0 days' decrease in restricted mean time from surgery to chemotherapy, P = .01), with no differences in DCE-ineligible patients (hazard ratio = 1.10, 95% confidence interval = 0.98 to 1.24; 2.1 days' decrease, P = .41) post-ACA. Our findings highlight the role of the ACA in improving access to potentially lifesaving cancer care, including a shift to early-stage diagnosis and more timely receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Introduction: This study aimed to evaluate the costs of CRS and HIPEC and treatment of the related postoperative complications in the public healthcare system. We also aimed to identify the risk factors that increase the cost of CRS and HIPEC., Materials and Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 80 patients who underwent CRS and HIPEC between February 2016 and November 2018 in the Department of Surgery, University Hospital of Olomouc, Czech Republic. Intraoperative factors and postoperative complications were assessed. The treatment cost included the surgery, hospital stay, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, pharmaceutical charges including medication, hospital supplies, pathology, imaging, and allied healthcare services., Results: The postoperative morbidity rate was 50%, and the mortality rate was 2.5%. The mean length of hospitalisation and ICU admission was 15.44 ± 8.43 and 6.15 ± 4.12 for all 80 patients and 10.73 ± 2.93 and 3.73 ± 1.32, respectively, for 40 patients without complications, and 20.15 ± 13.93 and 8.58 ± 6.92, respectively, for 40 patients with complications. The total treatment cost reached €606,358, but the total reimbursement was €262,931; thus, the CRS and HIPEC profit margin was €-343,427. Multivariate analysis showed that blood loss ≥1.000 ml (p = 0.03) and grade I-V Clavien-Dindo complications (p < 0.001) were independently associated with increased costs., Conclusion: The Czech public health insurance system does not fully compensate for the costs of CRS and HIPEC. Hospital losses remain the main limiting factor for further improving these procedures. Furthermore, treatment costs increase with increasing severity of postoperative complications., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interests., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objective: Financial hardship occurring as a result of cancer treatment has been termed financial toxicity and is an established side effect of the cancer treatment. We investigated the risk of financial toxicity among patients undergoing surgery for gastrointestinal cancers., Methods: All uninsured and privately insured patients who underwent surgery for a gastrointestinal cancer were identified from the National Inpatient Sample. Publicly available government data were used estimate income, food expenditure, and average maximum out-of-pocket expenditure. Risk of financial toxicity was defined as health expenditure ≥ 40% of postsubsistence income., Results: Among the 78 545 patients in the analytic cohort, 73 305 individuals had private insurance while 5240 patients were uninsured. Overall median hospital charges were $58 651 (IQR: $37 912-$95 379). Approximately 90% of uninsured and 10% of privately insured patients were at risk of financial toxicity. At the subpopulation level, patients in the lowest income quartile, undergoing emergency surgery, black or hispanic individuals, and those undergoing surgery for esophageal or colon cancer were more likely to experience catastrophic costs following surgery (P < .001)., Conclusion: Approximately 9 in 10 uninsured and 1 in 10 privately insured patients with cancer were at risk of financial toxicity after the surgery. Targeted interventions are needed to provide financial protection to patients undergoing the cancer treatment., (© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Purpose: In the randomized open-label phase III OVHIPEC trial, the addition of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) to interval cytoreductive surgery (CRS) improved recurrence-free and overall survival in patients with stage III ovarian cancer. We studied the cost effectiveness of the addition of HIPEC to interval CRS in patients with ovarian cancer., Patients and Methods: We constructed a Markov health-state transition model to measure costs and clinical outcomes. Transition probabilities were derived from the OVHIPEC trial by fitting survival distributions. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as euros per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), was calculated from a Dutch societal perspective, with a time horizon of 10 years. Univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the decision uncertainty., Results: Total health care costs were €70,046 (95% credibility interval [CrI], €64,016 to €76,661) for interval CRS compared with €85,791 (95% CrI, €78,766 to €93,935) for interval CRS plus HIPEC. The mean QALY in the interval CRS group was 2.12 (95% CrI, 1.66 to 2.64 QALYs) and 2.68 (95% CrI, 2.11 to 3.28 QALYs) in the interval CRS plus HIPEC group. The ICER amounted to €28,299/QALY. In univariable sensitivity analysis, the utility of recurrence-free survival and the number of days in the hospital affected the calculated ICER most., Conclusion: On the basis of the trial data, treatment with interval CRS and HIPEC in patients with stage III ovarian cancer was accompanied by a substantial gain in QALYs. The ICER is below the willingness-to-pay threshold in the Netherlands, indicating interval CRS and HIPEC is cost effective for this patient population. These results lend additional support for reimbursing the costs of treating these patients with interval CRS and HIPEC in countries with comparable health care systems.

Background: Communicating healthcare costs to patients is an important component of delivering high-quality value-based care, yet cost data are lacking. This is especially relevant for ovarian cancer, where no clinical consensus on optimal first-line treatment exists., Objective: The objective of this study was to generate cost estimates of different primary management strategies in ovarian cancer., Study Design: All women who underwent treatment for ovarian cancer from 2006-2015 were identified from the MarketScan database (n=12,761) in this observational cohort study. Total and out-of-pocket costs were calculated with the use of all claims within 8 months from initial treatment and normalized to 2017 US dollars. The generalized linear model method was used to assess cost by strategy., Results: Among patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and those who underwent primary debulking, mean adjusted total costs were $113,660 and $107,153 (P<.001) and mean out-of-pocket costs were $2519 and $2977 (P<.001), respectively. Total costs for patients who had intravenous standard, intravenous dose-dense, and intraperitoneal/intravenous chemotherapy were $105,047, $115,099, and $121,761 (P<.001); and out-of-pocket costs were $2838, $3405, and $2888 (P<.001), respectively. Total costs for regimens that included bevacizumab were higher than those without it ($171,468 vs $104,482; P<.001); out-of-pocket costs were $3127 vs $2898 (P<.001). Among patients who did not receive bevacizumab, 25% paid ≥$3875, and 10% paid ≥$6265. For patients who received bevacizumab, 25% paid ≥$4480, and 10% paid ≥$6635. Among patients enrolled in high-deductible health plans, median out-of-pocket costs were $4196, with 25% paying ≥$6680 and 10% paying ≥$9751., Conclusion: Costs vary across different treatment strategies, and patients bear a significant out-of-pocket burden, especially those enrolled in high-deductible health plans., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: At present, palliative systemic chemotherapy is the standard treatment in the Netherlands for gastric cancer patients with peritoneal dissemination. In contrast to lymphatic and haematogenous dissemination, peritoneal dissemination may be regarded as locoregional spread of disease. Administering cytotoxic drugs directly into the peritoneal cavity has an advantage over systemic chemotherapy since high concentrations can be delivered directly into the peritoneal cavity with limited systemic toxicity. The combination of a radical gastrectomy with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has shown promising results in patients with gastric cancer in Asia. However, the results obtained in Asian patients cannot be extrapolated to Western patients. The aim of this study is to compare the overall survival between patients with gastric cancer with limited peritoneal dissemination and/or tumour positive peritoneal cytology treated with palliative systemic chemotherapy, and those treated with gastrectomy, CRS and HIPEC after neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy., Methods: In this multicentre randomised controlled two-armed phase III trial, 106 patients will be randomised (1:1) between palliative systemic chemotherapy only (standard treatment) and gastrectomy, CRS and HIPEC (experimental treatment) after 3-4 cycles of systemic chemotherapy.Patients with gastric cancer are eligible for inclusion if (1) the primary cT3-cT4 gastric tumour including regional lymph nodes is considered to be resectable, (2) limited peritoneal dissemination (Peritoneal Cancer Index < 7) and/or tumour positive peritoneal cytology are confirmed by laparoscopy or laparotomy, and (3) systemic chemotherapy was given (prior to inclusion) without disease progression., Discussion: The PERISCOPE II study will determine whether gastric cancer patients with limited peritoneal dissemination and/or tumour positive peritoneal cytology treated with systemic chemotherapy, gastrectomy, CRS and HIPEC have a survival benefit over patients treated with palliative systemic chemotherapy only., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov NCT03348150 ; registration date November 2017; first enrolment November 2017; expected end date December 2022; trial status: Ongoing.

Objectives: A recent randomized controlled trial demonstrated an overall survival benefit to the addition of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) for stage III epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). The objective of the current study was to quantify the cost-effectiveness of HIPEC in this setting., Methods: A decision analytic cost-effectiveness model was designed from a payer perspective to compare 2 surgical management strategies for EOC: (1) interval cytoreductive surgery (ICS); (2) ICS + HIPEC. Overall survival and ostomy rates with HIPEC were modeled from published studies. We assumed that 25% of each arm would later undergo secondary cytoreductive surgery, with the ICS arm eligible for HIPEC at that time. Costs were obtained from Medicare data, published studies, and the financial department of an academic hospital. Quality of life was not different between the arms; we assigned utilities based on a prior time-trade off study of ovarian cancer treatment. A Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed in the base case; primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed in 2017 US Dollars/quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)., Results: ICS was the least costly strategy at $78,849, compared to ICS + HIPEC at $79,954. ICS + HIPEC was more effective than ICS (2.9 QALYs versus 2.45 QALYs for ICS). ICS + HIPEC was highly cost-effective, with an ICER of $2436/QALY compared to ICS. In one-way sensitivity analyses, probability of ostomy reversal and use of HIPEC at secondary cytoreduction did not substantially impact the cost-effectiveness of ICS + HIPEC., Conclusion: ICS + HIPEC constitutes cost-effective management of stage III EOC when NACT is performed., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cost-effectiveness evaluations of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for the treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) from metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in the United States are lacking., Methods: The authors developed a Markov model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of CRS/HIPEC compared with systemic chemotherapy for isolated PC from mCRC from a societal perspective in the United States. The systemic treatment regimens consisted of FOLFOX, FOLFIRI, bevacizumab, cetuximab, and pantitumumab. The model inputs including costs, probabilities, survival, progression, and utilities were taken from the literature. The cycle length for the model was 2 weeks, and the time horizon was 7 years. A discount rate of 3% was applied. The model was tested for internal and external validation, and robustness was established with univariate sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA). The primary outcomes were total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years (LYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). A willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 per QALY was assumed., Results: The ICER for treatment with CRS/HIPEC compared with systemic chemotherapy was $91,034 per QALY gained ($74,098 per LY gained). The univariate sensitivity analysis showed that the total costs for treatment with CRS/HIPEC had the largest effect on the calculated ICER. The CRS/HIPEC treatment was a cost-effective strategy during the majority of simulations in the PSA. The average ICER for 100,000 simulations in the PSA was $70,807 per QALY gained. The likelihood of CRS/HIPEC being a cost-effective strategy at the WTP threshold was 87%., Conclusions: The CRS/HIPEC procedure is a cost-effective treatment for isolated PC from mCRC in the United States.

Background: The most important goal for survival benefit of advanced stage ovarian cancer is to surgically remove all visible tumour, because complete cytoreductive surgery (CCS) has been shown to be associated with prolonged survival. In a remarkable number of women, CCS is very challenging. Especially in women with many small metastases on the peritoneum and intestinal surface, conventional CCS with electrosurgery is not able to be "complete" in removing safely all visible tumour. In this randomized controlled trail (RCT) we investigate whether the use of the PlasmaJet Surgical Device increases the rate of CCS, and whether this indeed leads to a longer progression free and overall survival. The main research question is: does the use of the PlasmaJet Surgical Device in surgery for advanced stage ovarian cancer result in an increased number of complete cytoreductive surgeries when compared with conventional surgical techniques. Secondary study objectives are: 30-day morbidity, duration of surgery, blood loss, length of hospitalisation, Quality of Life, disease-free survival, overall survival, percentage colostomy, cost-effectiveness., Methods: The study design is a multicentre single-blinded superiority RCT in two university and nine non-university hospitals in The Netherlands. Three hundred and thirty women undergoing cytoreductive surgery for advanced stage ovarian carcinoma (FIGO Stage IIIB-IV) will be randomized into two arms: use of the PlasmaJet (intervention group) versus the use of standard surgical instruments combined with electrocoagulation (control group). The primary outcome is the rate of complete cytoreductive surgery in both groups. Secondary study objectives are: 30-day morbidity, duration of surgery, blood loss, length of hospitalisation, Quality of Life, disease-free survival, overall survival, percentage colostomy, cost-effectiveness. Quality of life will be evaluated using validated questionnaires at baseline, at 1 and 6 months after surgery and at 1, 2, 3 and 4 years after surgery., Discussion: We hypothesize the additional value of the use of the PlasmaJet in CCS for advanced stage epithelial ovarian cancer. More knowledge about efficacy, side effects, recurrence rates, cost effectiveness and pathology findings after using the PlasmaJet Device is advocated. This RCT may aid in this void., Trial Registration: Dutch Trial Register NTR6624 . Registered 18 August 2017. Medical Ethical Committee approval number: NL62035.078.17 (Medical Ethical Committee Erasmus Medical Centre Rotterdam).

Objective: Enhanced recovery pathways have been shown to reduce length of stay without increasing readmission or complications in numerous areas of surgery. Uptake of gynecologic oncology ERAS guidelines has been limited. We describe the effect of ERAS guideline implementation in gynecologic oncology on length of stay, patient outcomes, and economic impact for a province-wide single-payer system., Methods: We compared pre- and post-guideline implementation outcomes in consecutive staging and debulking patients at two centers that provide the majority of surgical gynecologic oncology care in Alberta, Canada between March 2016 and April 2017. Clinical outcomes and compliance were obtained using the ERAS Interactive Audit System. Patients were followed until 30 days after discharge. Negative binomial regression was employed to adjust for patient characteristics., Results: We assessed 152 pre-ERAS and 367 post-ERAS implementation patients. Mean compliance with ERAS care elements increased from 56% to 77.0% after implementation (p < 0.0001). Median length of stay for all surgeries decreased from 4.0 days to 3.0 days post-ERAS (p < 0.0001), which translated to an adjusted LOS decrease of 31.4% (95% CI = [21.7% - 39.9%], p < 0.0001). In medium/high complexity surgery median LOS was reduced by 2.0 days (p = 0.0005). Complications prior to discharge decreased from 53.3% to 36.2% post-ERAS (p = 0.0003). There was no significant difference in readmission (p = 0.6159), complications up to 30 days (p = 0.6274), or mortality (p = 0.3618) between the cohorts. The net cost savings per patient was $956 (95%CI: $162 to $1636)., Conclusions: Systematic implementation of ERAS gynecologic oncology guidelines across a healthcare system improves patient outcomes and saves resources., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Peritoneal carcinomatosis from colorectal cancer is a stage 4 disease for which palliative chemotherapy has traditionally been considered the mainstay of treatment. Since the development of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) by Sugarbaker, this combined method treatment has resulted in improved survival outcomes with acceptable morbidity for selected patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis. This study examined the cost effectiveness of CRS and HIPEC compared with palliative chemotherapy for patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis from colorectal cancer within the context of the Singaporean health care system., Methods: A retrospective review of patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis from histologically proven colorectal cancer treated at the National Cancer Centre Singapore (NCCS) was conducted., Results: The average cost of CRS and HIPEC per patient was S$83,680.26, and the median overall survival period was 47 months. The calculated cost per life year attained for a patient who underwent CRS and HIPEC was S$21,365.19 per life year. In comparison, the average cost of palliative chemotherapy was S$44,478.87, with a median overall survival of 9 months, and the calculated cost per life year attained for a patient in this treatment group was S$59,305.16 per life year., Conclusion: The findings show that CRS and HIPEC results in prolonged survival for selected patients with colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis and a lower cost per life year attained than for the traditionally used palliative chemotherapy. It should logically be the preferred treatment of choice for selected patients with colorectal peritoneal metastasis.

Background: The aim was to compare health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) and cost-effectiveness between cytoreductive surgery with intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS + IPC) and systemic chemotherapy for patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases., Methods: Patients included in the Swedish Peritoneal Trial comparing CRS + IPC and systemic chemotherapy completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 and SF-36 questionnaires at baseline, 2, 4, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. HRQOL at 24 months was the primary endpoint. EORTC sum score, SF-36 physical and mental component scores at 24 months were calculated and compared for each arm and then referenced against general population values. Two quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) indices were applied (EORTC-8D and SF-6D) and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY gained was calculated. A projected life-time ICER per QALY gained was calculated using predicted survival according to Swedish population statistics., Results: No statistical differences in HRQOL between the arms were noted at 24 months. Descriptively, survivors in the surgery arm had higher summary scores than the general population at 24 months, whereas survivors in the chemotherapy arm had lower scores. The projected life-time QALY benefit was 3.8 QALYs in favor of the surgery arm (p=0.06) with an ICER per QALY gained at 310,000 SEK (EORTC-8D) or 362,000 SEK (SF-6D) corresponding to 26,700-31,200 GBP., Conclusion: The HRQOL in patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases undergoing CRS + IPC appear similar to those receiving systemic chemotherapy. Two-year survivors in the CRS + IPC arm have comparable HRQOL to a general population reference. The treatment is cost-effective according to NICE guidelines., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd, BASO ~ The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) versus primary debulking surgery (PDS) for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC) remains controversial in the United States. Generalizability of existing trial results has been criticized because of less aggressive debulking procedures than commonly used in the United States. As a result, economic evaluations using input data from these trials may not accurately reflect costs and outcomes associated with more aggressive primary surgery. Using data from an ongoing trial performing aggressive debulking, we investigated the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of NACT versus PDS for AEOC., Methods: A decision tree model was constructed to estimate differences in short-term outcomes and costs for a hypothetical cohort of 15,000 AEOC patients (US annual incidence of AEOC) treated with NACT versus PDS over a 1-year time horizon from a Medicare payer perspective. Outcomes included costs per cancer-related death averted, life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Base-case probabilities, costs, and utilities were based on the Surgical Complications Related to Primary or Interval Debulking in Ovarian Neoplasms trial. Base-case analyses assumed equivalent survival; threshold analysis estimated the maximum survival difference that would result in NACT being cost-effective at $50,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY willingness-to-pay thresholds. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to characterize model uncertainty., Results: Compared with PDS, NACT was associated with $142 million in cost savings, 1098 fewer cancer-related deaths, and 1355 life-years and 1715 QALYs gained, making it the dominant treatment strategy for all outcomes. In sensitivity analysis, NACT remained dominant in 99.3% of simulations. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy remained cost-effective at $50,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY willingness-to-pay thresholds if survival differences were less than 2.7 and 1.4 months, respectively., Conclusions: In the short term, NACT is cost-saving with improved outcomes. However, if PDS provides a longer-term survival advantage, it may be cost-effective. Research is needed on the role of patient preferences in tradeoffs between survival and quality of life.

Complications after cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) result in impaired short- and long-term outcomes. However, financial consequences of complications after CRS and HIPEC in a European health care setting are unknown. This study aims to assess the consequences of complications on hospital costs after CRS and HIPEC.In this prospective observational cohort study, patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases treated with CRS and HIPEC were included. Financial information was collected according to the Dutch manual for costs analyses. Costs were compared between patients without complications (NC), minor complications (MC), or severe complications (SC), according to the Clavien-Dindo classification.One hundred and sixty-one patients were included, of whom 42% experienced NC, 27% MC and 31% SC. Mean hospital costs were &OV0556;9.406 ± 2.235 in NC patients, &OV0556;12.471 ± 3.893 in MC patients, and &OV0556;29.409 ± 22.340 in SC patients. The 31% of patients with severe complications accounted for 56% of all hospital costs. Hospital admission costs in SC patients were 320% higher compared to NC patients. Costs of complications were estimated to be 43% of all admission costs.Severe postoperative complications have major influence on costs after CRS and HIPEC and result in a threefold increase of hospital costs in affected patients. This finding stresses the need for adequate risk assessment of developing severe complications after CRS and HIPEC.

Objective: Advanced stage epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC) can be treated with either neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) or primary cytoreductive surgery (PCS). Although randomized controlled trials show that NACT is non-inferior in overall survival compared to PCS, there may be improvement in short-term morbidity. We sought to investigate the cost-effectiveness of NACT relative to PCS for AEOC from the US Medicare perspective., Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model with a 7-month time horizon comparing (1) 3cycles of NACT with carboplatin and paclitaxel (CT), followed by interval cytoreductive surgery, then 3 additional cycles of CT, or (2) PCS followed by 6cycles of CT. Input parameters included probability of chemotherapy complications, surgical complications, treatment completion, treatment costs, and utilities. Model outcomes included costs, life-years gained, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), in terms of cost per life-year gained and cost per QALY gained. We accounted for differences in surgical complexity by incorporating the cost of additional procedures and the probability of undergoing those procedures. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed via Monte Carlo simulations., Results: NACT resulted in a savings of $7034 per patient with a 0.035 QALY increase compared to PCS; therefore, NACT dominated PCS in the base case analysis. With PSA, NACT was the dominant strategy more than 99% of the time., Conclusions: In the short-term, NACT is a cost-effective alternative compared to PCS in women with AEOC. These results may translate to longer term cost-effectiveness; however, data from randomized control trials continues to mature., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Ovarian cancer is gynecologic tumor with particularly high mortality because it is usually diagnosed in advanced stages. In Latin America and the Caribbean, it is the eighth most common malignancy in women, with an estimated 18,000 new cases and 11,500 deaths annually. Standard of care for women diagnosed with advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) is primary cytoreductive surgery followed by systemic chemotherapy using a combination of paclitaxel plus carboplatin. To pursue upfront surgery, highly specialized and well-trained gynecologic oncologists are required, in addition with well-equipped hospitals. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) has been gaining greater acceptance in the past decade for patients with AOC. Two phase III randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that NACT is noninferior to primary cytoreductive surgery for women with stages III and IV epithelial ovarian cancer, and since publication of these results, NACT is more commonly used. Apart from medical reasons of inoperability and unresectability, there may be nonmedical barriers to upfront debulking surgery in clinical practice. These barriers include inadequate expertise of the surgeon, inadequate resources, and/or barriers to access. The aim of this article was to discuss patterns of care and barriers to upfront ovarian debulking surgery, as well as a possible shift toward overuse of NACT as the primary approach for patients with AOC (stages III and IV) in Latin America.

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a diagnostic laparoscopy prior to primary cytoreductive surgery to prevent futile primary cytoreductive surgery (i.e. leaving >1cm residual disease) in patients suspected of advanced stage ovarian cancer., Methods: An economic analysis was conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial in which patients suspected of advanced stage ovarian cancer who qualified for primary cytoreductive surgery were randomized to either laparoscopy or primary cytoreductive surgery. Direct medical costs from a health care perspective over a 6-month time horizon were analyzed. Health outcomes were expressed in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and utility was based on patient's response to the EQ-5D questionnaires. We primarily focused on direct medical costs based on Dutch standard prices., Results: We studied 201 patients, of whom 102 were randomized to laparoscopy and 99 to primary cytoreductive surgery. No significant difference in QALYs (utility=0.01; 95% CI 0.006 to 0.02) was observed. Laparoscopy reduced the number of futile laparotomies from 39% to 10%, while its costs were € 1400 per intervention, making the overall costs of both strategies comparable (difference € -80 per patient (95% CI -470 to 300)). Findings were consistent across various sensitivity analyses., Conclusion: In patients with suspected advanced stage ovarian cancer, a diagnostic laparoscopy reduced the number of futile laparotomies, without increasing total direct medical health care costs, or adversely affecting complications or quality of life., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The combination of Cytoreductive Surgery (CRS) plus Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) has been gaining a considerable interest by surgeons throughout the United States due to the significant survival improvement it provides for peritoneal surface malignancies and the ability to reproduce comparable clinical results in numerous health care centers. However, CRS plus HIPEC has not been sufficiently investigated from the economic standpoint in the United States where a wide variety of health care insurers exists. This study was conducted to analyze hospital/surgeon cost and reimbursement data at a community hospital offering a new peritoneal surface malignancy program, and expand the discussion to analyze future healthcare implementation on this procedure in the United States., Methods: This is a retrospective economic analysis of an initial CRS plus HIPEC experience at a community non-teaching medical center. This study was conducted using hospital/surgeon cost and reimbursement based on the Office of Finance data at Edward Hospital Cancer Center (Naperville, IL). All patients who underwent CRS and HIPEC between June 2013 and August 2014 were included in this analysis. We aimed to assess CRS plus HIPEC purely from the financial perspective on the initial admission regardless of the patients' advancement of the disease or postoperative adverse events., Results: Twenty-five patients underwent 26 CRS plus HIPEC procedures. Twelve patients had private insurance plans (PRV) whereas 13 were covered by public insurers (PUB). Median overall length of stay (LOS) was 10 days (PRV 10 days vs. PUB 11 days; P = 0.76.) Average hospital cost was $38,369 (PRV $37,093 vs. PUB $39,463; P = 0.67), and average reimbursement for our patient population was $45,243 (PRV $48,954 vs. PUB $42,062; P = 0.53). It was noted that CRS plus HIPEC generated more net profit in patients with private insurance than in those with public plans, however, not statistically significant ($11,861 vs. $2,599 per patient, respectively; P = 0.38). Evaluating surgeon's data, average surgeon's charge was $29,139 (PRV $28,440 vs. PUB $29,737; P = 0.80), and average patients' payment was $8,126 (PRV 9,234 vs. PUB 7,176; P = 0.47)., Conclusion: CRS plus HIPEC is profitable in the community setting for both the hospital and surgeon. Both private and public insurers reimbursed profitably, though with a greater profit margin from private insurers. As CRS plus HIPEC is becoming more widely recognized as a standard of care for patients with peritoneal surface malignancy, it is increasingly important to understand and report its associated costs and variability in insurance coverage, especially in light of the current healthcare structure changes in the United States. It is strongly encouraged to report and present a wider scope of CRS plus HIPEC economic experiences in a variety of hospital settings to provide further evidence for future healthcare implementations in the United States. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;113:544-547. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., (© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objective: Treatment for advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC) includes primary debulking surgery (PDS) or neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). A randomized controlled trial comparing these treatments resulted in comparable overall survival (OS). Studies report more complications and lower chemotherapy completion rates in patients 65 years old or older receiving PDS. We sought to evaluate the cost implications of NACT relative to PDS in AEOC patients 65 years old or older., Study Design: A 5 year Markov model was created. Arm 1 modeled PDS followed by 6 cycles of carboplatin and paclitaxel (CT). Arm 2 modeled 3 cycles of CT, followed by interval debulking surgery and then 3 additional cycles of CT. Parameters included OS, surgical complications, probability of treatment initiation, treatment cost, and quality of life (QOL). OS was assumed to be equal based on the findings of the international randomized control trial. Differences in surgical complexity were accounted for in base surgical cost plus add-on procedure costs weighted by occurrence rates. Hospital cost was a weighted average of diagnosis-related group costs weighted by composite estimates of complication rates. Sensitivity analyses were performed., Results: Assuming equal survival, NACT produces a cost savings of $5616. If PDS improved median OS by 1.5 months or longer, PDS would be cost effective (CE) at a $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year threshold. If PDS improved OS by 3.2 months or longer, it would be CE at a $50,000 threshold. The model was robust to variation in costs and complication rates. Moderate decreases in the QOL with NACT would result in PDS being CE., Conclusion: A model based on the RCT comparing NACT and PDS showed NACT is a cost-saving treatment compared with PDS for AEOC in patients 65 years old or older. Small increases in OS with PDS or moderate declines in QOL with NACT would result in PDS being CE at the $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year threshold. Our results support further evaluation of the effects of PDS on OS, QOL and complications in AEOC patients 65 years old or older., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite increasing implementation of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), there are little data on its financial implications. We analyzed hospital cost and reimbursement data within the context of insurance provider type and postoperative complications., Methods: Clinicopathologic variables, hospital costs, and reimbursement for all patients undergoing CRS/HIPEC at a single institution from 2009 to 2013 were analyzed., Results: A total of 64 patients underwent CRS/HIPEC. Median PCI score was 19, and average operative time was 550 min. Tumor histology included appendiceal (n = 40; 62 %), colorectal (n = 16; 25 %), goblet cell (n = 5; 8 %), and mesothelioma (n = 3; 5 %). Median length-of-stay was 13 days. Complications occurred in 42 patients (66 %), including 13 (20 %) with major (Clavien grade III-IV) complications. Payer mix included 42 private insurance and 22 Medicare/Medicaid. Financial data was available for 56 patients: average total hospital cost was $49,248 and reimbursement was $63,771, for a hospital profit of $14,523/patient. Despite similar costs between Medicare/Medicaid and private-insurance patients, Medicare/Medicaid reimbursed much less ($30,713 vs $80,747; p < 0.001), resulting in a net loss of $17,342 per patient. For private-insured patients, major complications were associated with increased cost and increased reimbursement, resulting in a net profit of $36,285, compared with a net loss of $54,274 in Medicare/Medicaid patients., Conclusions: CRS/HIPEC is profitable in privately insured patients, even for those with major complications, but loses money in patients with Medicare/Medicaid. Under a future bundled-reimbursement system, complications will be negatively associated with profit. With these impending changes, hospitals must place emphasis on value, recalculate the reimbursement necessary for financial viability, and focus on decreasing costs and minimizing complications.

Background: As tumor burden increases in colorectal cancer, treatment complexity progresses from colectomy to hepatectomy and lastly to cytoreductive surgery with heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC). The aim of this study was to evaluate whether disparities exist in the access to progressively more complex surgical treatment options., Methods: Patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer were grouped by treatment type: group 1 (n = 224) underwent colectomy for nonmetastatic disease, group 2 (n = 112) underwent hepatectomy for liver metastasis, and group 3 (n = 112) underwent CRS-HIPEC for carcinomatosis., Results: Whites were predominant in the HIPEC group (71.4 %) compared to the hepatectomy (67.9 %) and colectomy (57.6 %) groups (p = 0.025). The majority of the privately insured patients were in the HIPEC group (70.5 %) compared to the hepatectomy (56.2 %) and colectomy (30.4 %) groups (p < 0.0001). Distance traveled to the hospital was farthest on average in the HIPEC group (104.6 ± 258.3 km) compared to the hepatectomy (29.0 ± 28.0 km) or colectomy (26.4  ± 66.2 km) group (p < 0.0001). Mean household income also varied between the three groups, with HIPEC patients earning $56,957 (±24,124), hepatectomy patients earning $56,999 (±28,588), and colectomy patients earning ($51,518 ± 24,201) (p = 0.0503) on average per year. The HIPEC cohort contained a higher proportion of English speakers (90.2 %) than the other groups (hepatectomy 87.9 %, colectomy 85.3 %); however, this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.43)., Conclusions: CRS-HIPEC is not accessed equally across all socioeconomic groups. Patients undergoing HIPEC were most often white, English speaking, and privately insured; had a higher mean income; and had traveled the greatest distances on average to access surgical care.

Background: Malignancies of the peritoneum remain a challenge in any hospital that accepts to manage them, due not only to difficulties associated with the complexity of the procedures involved but also the costs, which - in Italy and other countries that use a diagnosis-related group (DRG) system - are not adequately reimbursed., Material and Methods: We analyzed data relative to 24 patients operated on between September 2010 and May 2013 with special regard to operating room expenditure, ICU stay, duration of hospitalization, and DRG reimbursement. The total costs per patient included clinical, operating room, procedure, pathology, imaging, ward care, allied healthcare, pharmaceutical, and ICU costs., Results: Postoperative hospital stay, drugs and materials, and operating room occupancy were the main factors affecting the expenditure for cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. We had a median hospitalization of 14 days, median ICU stay of 2.4 days, and median operating room occupancy of 585 min. The median expenditure for each case was € 21,744; the median reimbursement by the national health system € 8,375., Conclusions: In a DRG reimbursement system, the economic effort in the management of patients undergoing peritonectomy procedures may not be counterbalanced by adequate reimbursement. Joint efforts between medical and administration parties are mandatory to develop appropriate treatment protocols and keep down the costs., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Value is defined as desirable health outcomes achieved per monetary unit spent. Comparative effectiveness research and cost-effectiveness research are methods that have been developed to quantify effectiveness and value to inform management decisions. In this article we review the comparative and cost-effectiveness literature in the field of ovarian cancer treatment. Studies have shown that improved ovarian cancer survival is associated with complete primary surgical cytoreduction, with treatment at high volume facilities by subspecialist providers (gynecologic oncologists) and with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline-adherent care in both surgical staging and chemotherapy regimens. Intraperitoneal/intravenous chemotherapy (compared with intravenous alone) has been associated with improved survival and cost-effectiveness. Bevacizumab for primary and maintenance therapy has been found to not be cost-effective (even in selective subsets) despite a small progression-free survival (PFS) advantage. For platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer, secondary cytoreduction and platinum-based combinations are associated with improved overall survival (OS); several platinum-based combinations have also been found cost-effective. For platinum-resistant recurrence, single agent therapy and supportive care are cost-effective compared with combination therapies. Although little prospective clinical research has been done around end-of-life care, one study reported that for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer, palliative intervention would potentially reduce costs and increase quality adjusted life years compared with usual care (based on improvement in quality of life [QOL]). Overall, cost comparisons of individual chemotherapy regimens are highly dependent on market prices of novel therapeutic agents.