Clinical Characteristics, Treatment Patterns, and Healthcare Costs and Utilization for Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) Patients Treated at a Large Referral Center in Washington State 2007-2018

Is surgical treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma at high-volume centers worth the additional cost?

BACKGROUND

Case volume has been associated with improved outcomes for patients undergoing treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma, often with higher hospital expenditures. We sought to define the cost-effectiveness of hepatocellular carcinoma treatment at high-volume centers.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma from 2013 to 2017 were identified from Medicare Standard Analytic Files. High-volume centers were defined as the top decile of facilities performing hepatectomies in a year. A multivariable generalized linear model with gamma distribution and a restricted mean survival time model were used to estimate costs and survival differences relative to high-volume center status. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was used to define the additional cost incurred for a 1-year incremental gain in survival.

RESULTS

Among 13,666 patients, 8,467 (62.0%) were treated at high-volume centers. Median expenditure was higher ($19,148, interquartile range $15,280-$29,128) among patients treated at high-volume centers versus low-volume centers ($18,209, interquartile range $14,959-$29,752). Despite similar median length-of-stay (6 days, interquartile range 4-9), a slightly higher proportion of patients were discharged to home from high-volume centers (n = 4,903, 57.9%) versus low-volume centers (n = 2,868, 55.2%) (P = .002). A 0.14-year (95% confidence interval 0.06-0.22) (1 month and 3 weeks) survival benefit was associated with an incremental cost of $1,070 (95% confidence interval $749-$1,392) among patients undergoing surgery at high-volume centers. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for treatment at a high-volume center was $7,951 (95% confidence interval $4,236-$21,217) for an additional year of survival, which was below the cost-effective threshold of $21,217.

CONCLUSION

Surgical care at high-volume centers offers the potential to deliver cancer care in a more cost-effective and value-based manner.

Area-Level Socioeconomic Disadvantage and Health Care Spending: A Systematic Review

Importance

Publicly available, US Census-based composite measures of socioeconomic disadvantage are increasingly being used in a wide range of clinical outcomes and health services research. Area Deprivation Index (ADI) and Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) are 2 of the most commonly used measures. There is also early interest in incorporating area-level measures to create more equitable alternative payment models.

Objective

To review the evidence on the association of ADI and SVI with health care spending, including claims-based spending and patient-reported barriers to care due to cost.

Evidence Review

A systematic search for English-language articles and abstracts was performed in the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases (from inception to March 1, 2023). Peer-reviewed articles and abstracts using a cross-sectional, case-control, or cohort study design and based in the US were identified. Data analysis was performed in March 2023.

Findings

This review included 24 articles and abstracts that used a cross-sectional, case-control, or cohort study design. In 20 of 24 studies (83%), ADI and SVI were associated with increased health care spending. No association was observed in the 4 remaining studies, mostly with smaller sample sizes from single centers. In adjusted models, the increase in spending associated with higher ADI or SVI residence was $574 to $1811 for index surgical hospitalizations, $3003 to $24 075 for 30- and 90-day episodes of care, and $3519 for total annual spending for Medicare beneficiaries. In the studies that explored mechanisms, postoperative complications, readmission risk, and poor primary care access emerged as health care system-related drivers of increased spending.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this systematic review suggest that both ADI and SVI can play important roles in efforts to understand drivers of health care spending and in the design of payment and care delivery programs that capture aspects of social risk. At the health care system level, higher health care spending and poor care access associated with ADI or SVI may represent opportunities to codesign interventions with patients from high ADI or SVI areas to improve access to high-value health care and health promotion more broadly.

Demographic, clinical and aetiological characteristics of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma followed between 2012 and 2017 at University Hospital Joseph Raseta Befelatanana, Antananarivo, Madagascar

Purpose

The aim of this study was to describe the demographic, clinical and aetiological characteristics of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in a Malagasy population sample in view to defining an appropriate control program.

Methods

This was a retrospective, descriptive study conducted in the Gastroenterology Department, Joseph Raseta Befelatanana University Hospital, Antananarivo, over a period of 6 years (January 2012 to December 2017).

Results

A total of 42 patients were selected, 29 of whom were men (69.05%) and 13 women (30.95%) (sex ratio: 2.2). The mean age was 56.6 years with extremes of 21 and 82 years. Subjects aged 60-69 years were most affected (35.71%). Abdominal pain was the main revealing symptom (38.10%). The main aetiological factors were: hepatitis B virus (HBV) (42.86%), hepatitis C virus (19.05%) and chronic alcoholism (23.81%). All patients were cirrhotic, of which 23 patients (54.76%) had Child-Pugh B class and 15 (35.71%) Child-Pugh C. Twenty-six patients (61.90%) had α-foetoprotein level plus 500 ng/mL. Six patients (14.29%) had portal thrombosis at diagnosis. Twenty patients (47.62%) had advanced HCC (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer C (BCLC C)) and 21 (50%) had end-stage HCC (BCLC D). Management was palliative in 41/42 patients. The in-hospital death rate was 23.81%.

Conclusion

HCC are diagnosed at advanced stage in this study. The prognosis is poor for most patients. HBV infection is the main risk factor. An effort should be made for early diagnosis and prevention.

Experimental drug treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma: Clinical trial failures 2015 to 2021

INTRODUCTION

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a major health problem worldwide with limited systemic therapy options. Since the approval of sorafenib in 2008, no systemic therapy has provided a sustained/robust/survival benefit for patients with advanced HCC until recently. Many initially promising therapies have been trialed, but survival outcomes remained stagnant. As such, knowledge concerning previous treatment failures may help guide further areas of study, as well inform future therapeutic approaches.

AREA COVERED

This article reviews recent advances in the treatment of HCC. Despite some recent success, many systemic and locoregional therapies have failed to produce significant improvements in outcome. These treatment failures are examined and insight into pathways for future success are discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

Combination atezolizumab and bevacizumab has changed the landscape of systemic treatment for patients with HCC when it became the first therapy after demonstrating improve outcomes over sorafenib. Clinical trials in patients with advanced HCC have inherent difficulty with challenges to determine if a patient's declining liver function is secondary to disease progression, worsening cirrhosis, or drug toxicity, which may skew results. As we gain more knowledge of underlying genetic alterations behind the pathophysiology of the development of HCC, molecular markers may be identified to assist in predicting which patients would respond to a specific therapy.