scholarly journals Simulated Costs of the ASCO Patient-Centered Oncology Payment Model in Medicare Beneficiaries With Newly Diagnosed Advanced Ovarian Cancer

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (12) ◽  
pp. e1018-e1027 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haley A. Moss ◽  
Laura J. Havrilesky ◽  
Frances F. Wang ◽  
Mihaela V. Georgieva ◽  
Laura H. Hendrix ◽  
...  

PURPOSE: Efforts to curb the rising costs of cancer care while improving quality include alternative payment models (APMs), which offer incentives to reduce avoidable spending and provide high-quality and cost-efficient care. The impact of proposed APMs has not been quantified in real-world practice. In this study, we evaluated ASCO’s Patient-Centered Oncology Payment (PCOP) model in existing fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare beneficiaries to understand the magnitude of potential cost savings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: SEER-Medicare data were used to identify women with advanced ovarian cancer diagnosed between 2000 and 2012 who either (1) underwent primary debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy or (2) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery. Medicare payments in each cohort were used to compare FFS and PCOP and to estimate the potential for cost savings across health care services received, including outpatient emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and imaging. RESULTS: Three thousand seven hundred seventy-seven primary debulking surgery and 866 neoadjuvant chemotherapy patients were included in the study, with mean total costs of $75,433 and $95,138 in 2016 US$, respectively Most costs were related to chemotherapy or hospitalization. Additional PCOP-related payments would be offset if hospitalizations could be reduced by 11.6% or imaging claims by 88%. CONCLUSION: APMs have the potential to reduce costs of current FFS reimbursement via either a large reduction in imaging or a modest reduction in hospitalizations during treatment of ovarian cancer. PCOP is a reasonable payment structure for oncologists if the additional payments can provide the necessary resources to invest in improved coordination of care.

Author(s):  
Renee Cowan ◽  
Dennis Chi ◽  
Sean Kehoe ◽  
Matthew Nankivell ◽  
Alexandra Leary

Primary debulking surgery (PDS) followed by platinum-based chemotherapy has been the cornerstone of treatment for advanced ovarian cancer for decades. Primary debulking surgery has been repeatedly identified as one of the key factors in improving survival in patients with advanced ovarian cancer, especially when minimal or no residual disease is left behind. Achieving these results sometimes requires extensive abdominal and pelvic surgical procedures and consultation with other surgical teams. Some clinicians who propose a primary chemotherapy approach reported an increased likelihood of leaving no macroscopic disease after surgery and improved patient-reported outcomes and quality-of-life (QOL) measures. Given the ongoing debate regarding the relative benefit of PDS versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT), tumor biology may aid in patient selection for each approach. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy offers the opportunity for in vivo chemosensitivity testing. Studies are needed to determine the best way to evaluate the impact of NACT in each individual patient with advanced ovarian cancer. Indeed, the biggest utility of NACT may be in research, where this approach provides the opportunity for the investigation of predictive markers, mechanisms of resistance, and a forum to test novel therapies.


2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5540-5540
Author(s):  
Vanessa Costa Miranda ◽  
Angelo Bezerra de Sousa Fede ◽  
Carlos Henrique Dos Anjos ◽  
Juliana Ribeiro da Silva ◽  
Fernando Barbosa Sanchez ◽  
...  

5540 Background: Primary debulking surgery (PDS) has been considered the standard of treatment in advanced ovarian cancer, while neoadjuvant chemotherapy, three cycles followed by interval debulking (ID) surgery, is a valid treatment alternative for patients with non-resectable disease. This study aimed to show the efficacy and safety of six cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (N-CT) followed by cytoreduction, a single institution experience. Methods: Aretrospective analysis was performed of all patients (pts) with advanced ovarian cancer treated with platinum based N-CT, between January/2004 and February/2012. Results: 97 pts underwent N-CT in our institution; 78.1% and 18.8% the patients had extensive stage IIIC or IV disease at diagnosis, respectively. Median age 60 years (36 – 82). Histologic types: serous 84.5%, adenocarcinoma not specified 11.3%, endometrioide 1.0%. A median of six cycles of chemotherapy were performed. Patients did not received chemotherapy after debulking surgery. During the treatment 31.4% had grade 3/4 toxicity, the most commonly observed toxicities were hematologic toxicities and nausea, four (4.1%) patients died during chemotherapy due to disease progression. After N-CT 24.7% achieved clinical complete response, 57.7% partial response and 12.4% disease progression. From this cohort 63.1% underwent a complete resection of all macroscopic and microscopic disease (R0). Median length of hospital stay and postoperative ICU stay was 5 and 0.8 days respectively, surgical complications were not common however five (7.1%) patients needed second surgery due to operatory complications and 19 pts (27.1%) needed blood transfusion after debulking. With a median follow up of 21.8 months (0.5-139.7), median overall survival and chemotherapy-free interval were 57,7 and 9,5 months, respectively. Conclusions: Six cycles of neoadjuvant carboplatin and paclitaxel is safe, effective and does not increase perioperative and postoperative complications for patients with stage IIIC-IV not candidates for optimal/R0 PDS. The overall survival of this cohort is higher than those treated with interval debulking surgery.


2013 ◽  
Vol 63 (6) ◽  
pp. 405-409 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manizheh Sayyah-Melli ◽  
Gita Kashi Zonoozi ◽  
Shahryar Hashemzadeh ◽  
Ali Esfahani ◽  
Elaheh Ouladehsahebmadarek ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 379-386
Author(s):  
Shin Nishio ◽  
Kimio Ushijima

Abstract Primary debulking surgery followed by platinum-based chemotherapy remains the standard treatment of patients with stage III–IV epithelial ovarian cancer. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is an alternative treatment regimen that can be considered in selected patients. Complete cytoreduction, both through primary debulking surgery and interval debulking surgery, has a major positive effect on survival and should be the goal, even if this requires extensive surgery. When thorough assessment of tumor spread and performance status of the patient indicates that complete primary cytoreduction is not feasible without unacceptable morbidity, then alternative therapeutic strategies, such as neoadjuvant chemotherapy, must be considered. Such patients can be offered the option of interval debulking surgery after checking their response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and resolution of the initial obstacles for primary debulking surgery (i.e. complete response of irresectable disease and improvement of the performance status). Current evidence suggests that a selected group of patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage III–IV ovarian cancer will benefit from NAC-IDS. Research is ongoing to identify patients who might derive the greatest benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery, instead of primary debulking surgery, on the basis of radiological, genetic, pathological, and immunological variables. In this review, we discuss current knowledge about the clinical significance of primary debulking surgery and neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced ovarian cancer and discuss unanswered questions in the field.


Author(s):  
Dino Rinaldy ◽  
Andrijono Andrijono ◽  
Bambang Sutrisna

Objective: To compare the outcomes and survival rate of primary debulking surgery with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Method: We selected advanced ovarian cancer patients from medical records. Subjects were allocated into groups of primary debulking surgery and neoajuvant chemotherapy by considering the inclusion and exclusion criteria. We analyzed the data using T test, Fisher’s exact, and chi-square. The survival rate was presented in Kaplan Meier curve, whereas the significance was tested with Logrank. We managed the data using STRATA software version 12. Result: We obtained 32 cases of primary debulking surgery group and 20 cases of the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group. Most of the subjects (44.2%) were 40-49 years old and 80.8% had delivered more than twice. The mean value of Ca-125 at admission was 3,594.8 u/ml (range 66.6 to 73,000 u/ml). Total of 31 subjects showed the serous histologic type (59.6%). There was no association between primary debulking surgery and neoadjuvant chemotherapy for the parameter of operative time, blood loss, organs injury, ICU stay, and hospital stay (p>0.05). Primary debulking surgery had a survival rate similar to neoadjuvant chemotherapy group (p=0.95). Conclusion: The perioperative outcomes of advanced ovarian cancer patients has similar result between primary debulking surgery and neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Primary debulking surgery has a survival rate similar to neoadjuvant chemotherapy group. [Indones J Obstet Gynecol 2016; 4-2: 111-115] Keywords: advanced ovarian cancer, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, primary debulking surgery


2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15567-e15567
Author(s):  
Abdel Karim Dip Borunda ◽  
Eucario Leon Rodriguez ◽  
Alejandra Armengol Alonso

e15567 Background: Primary debulking surgery is considered the standard of treatment in advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) while neoadjuvant chemotherapy is used in non resectable stages. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 68 AOC cases from January 2000 to December 2011. 35 received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) while 33 were resected primarily and received adjuvant chemotherapy (AC). To compare both groups we used T standard test and 2 sided chi -squared. Non parametric variables were analyzed with U Mann – Whitney. Overall survival(OS) was analyzed using Kaplan Meier method with log rank test. We considered statistically significant p<0.05. (SPSS v 17). Results: The median age was 60 (NAC) vs 53(AC) years respectively. The NAC group had more advanced stage disease (FIGO IIIC/IV stage; 71/29% vs 91/9%; p=0.04). The most frequent histologic subtype in both groups was serous - papillary and histologic grade was poorly differentiated in 71 vs 72% (p=0.41). At diagnosis the median levels of ca-125 were 1,896 U/ml for NAC group vs 768 U/ml for AC group (p=0.025). After the primary treatment received the median levels of ca – 125 were 29 U/ml vs 84 U/ml (p=0.76). Platin based chemotherapy was used in 95% vs 70% respectively. Complete resection of macroscopic disease was observed in 68% of NAC vs 63% in AC respectively. No statistical differences were observed in surgical time (median 192 min vs 204 min; p=0.55) and surgical bleeding (468 vs 510ml; p=0.79). Median survival time was 23 +/-26 months for neoadjuvant and 27+/- 35 months for primary surgery (p=0.56). In a subgroup analysis of patients who received 6 neoadjuvant cycles vs perioperatory chemotherapy (3 pre and 3 postoperatory) we observed a significant survival difference, with a median of 62 months (95% CI 12-38) vs 12 months (95% CI 54 – 178) respectively (p=0.010). Conclusions: Non inferior survival or differences in surgical outcomes were observed with neoadjuvant therapy. Significant survival increase was observed in patients who received complete chemotherapy schedule before surgery, this evidence allowed to design a prospective trial in our Institution.


2008 ◽  
Vol 18 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 11-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. Vergote ◽  
T. Van Gorp ◽  
F. Amant ◽  
K. Leunen ◽  
P. Neven ◽  
...  

It is clear that primary debulking remains the standard of care within the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer (FIGO stage III and IV). This debulking surgery should be performed by a gynecological oncologist without any residual tumor load, or so-called “optimal debulking.” Over the last decades, interest in the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy together with an interval debulking has increased. Neoadjuvant therapy can be used for patients who are primarily suboptimally debulked due to an extensive tumor load. In this situation, based on the randomized European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer–Gynaecological Cancer Group trial, interval debulking by an experienced surgeon improves survival in some patients who did not undergo optimal primary debulking surgery. Based on the GOG 152 data, interval debulking surgery does not seem to be indicated in patients who underwent primarily a maximal surgical effort by a gynecological oncologist. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy can also be used as an alternative to primary debulking. In retrospective analyses, neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery does not seem to worsen prognosis compared to primary debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy. However, we will have to wait for the results of future randomized trials to know whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery is a good alternative to primary debulking surgery in stage IIIc and IV patients. Open laparoscopy is probably the most valuable tool for evaluating the operability primarily or at the time of interval debulking surgery


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document