Cost-analysis of cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in patients with peritoneal malignancy: An Australian perspective with global application. Issue 4 (April 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: McBride, Kate E.; Steffens, Daniel; Solomon, Michael J.; Koh, Cherry; Ansari, Nabila; Young, Christopher J.; Moran, Brendan
• Is Part Of: European journal of surgical oncology. Volume 47:Issue 4(2021)
• Page Start: 828
• Page End: 833
• Publication Date: 2021-04
• Subjects: Cytoreductive surgery -- Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy -- Funding -- Cost; Oncology -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Medical Oncology -- Periodicals; Neoplasms -- surgery -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Chirurgie -- Périodiques; Cancérologie -- Périodiques; Oncologie; Chirurgie (geneeskunde); Electronic journals; Electronic journals -- Sciences; Electronic journals -- Medicine; Electronic journals; 616.994059005
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2020.09.010
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0748-7983

Abstract

Abstract: 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.