Impact of 18FFDG-PET/CT and Laparoscopy in Staging of Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Cost Analysis in the Prospective Multicenter PLASTIC-Study

BACKGROUND

Unnecessary D2-gastrectomy and associated costs can be prevented after detecting non-curable gastric cancer, but impact of staging on treatment costs is unclear. This study determined the cost impact of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18FFDG-PET/CT) and staging laparoscopy (SL) in gastric cancer staging.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this cost analysis, four staging strategies were modeled in a decision tree: (1) 18FFDG-PET/CT first, then SL, (2) SL only, (3) 18FFDG-PET/CT only, and (4) neither SL nor 18FFDG-PET/CT. Costs were assessed on the basis of the prospective PLASTIC-study, which evaluated adding 18FFDG-PET/CT and SL to staging advanced gastric cancer (cT3-4 and/or cN+) in 18 Dutch hospitals. The Dutch Healthcare Authority provided 18FFDG-PET/CT unit costs. SL unit costs were calculated bottom-up. Gastrectomy-associated costs were collected with hospital claim data until 30 days postoperatively. Uncertainty was assessed in a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (1000 iterations).

RESULTS

18FFDG-PET/CT costs were €1104 including biopsy/cytology. Bottom-up calculations totaled €1537 per SL. D2-gastrectomy costs were €19,308. Total costs per patient were €18,137 for strategy 1, €17,079 for strategy 2, and €19,805 for strategy 3. If all patients undergo gastrectomy, total costs were €18,959 per patient (strategy 4). Performing SL only reduced costs by €1880 per patient. Adding 18FFDG-PET/CT to SL increased costs by €1058 per patient; IQR €870-1253 in the sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

For advanced gastric cancer, performing SL resulted in substantial cost savings by reducing unnecessary gastrectomies. In contrast, routine 18FFDG-PET/CT increased costs without substantially reducing unnecessary gastrectomies, and is not recommended due to limited impact with major costs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03208621. This trial was registered prospectively on 30-06-2017.

Gastrointestinal Symptoms After Resection of Esophagogastric Cancer: A Longitudinal Study on Their Incidence and Impact on Patient-Reported Outcomes

BACKGROUND

This study assesses the incidence of gastrointestinal symptoms in the first year after resection of esophageal or gastric cancer and its association with health-related quality of life (HRQoL), functioning, work productivity, and daily activities.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients diagnosed with esophageal or gastric cancer between 2015 and 2021, who underwent a resection, and completed ≥ 2 questionnaires from the time intervals prior to resection and 0-3, 3-6, 6-9, and 9-12 months after resection were included. Multivariable generalized linear mixed models were used to assess changes in gastrointestinal symptoms over time and the impact of the number of gastrointestinal symptoms on HRQoL, functioning, work productivity, and daily activities for patients who underwent an esophagectomy or gastrectomy separately.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 961 (78.8%) and 259 (21.2%) patients who underwent an esophagectomy and gastrectomy, respectively. For both groups, the majority of gastrointestinal symptoms changed significantly over time. Most clinically relevant differences were observed 0-3 after resection compared with prior to resection and included increased diarrhea, appetite loss, and eating restrictions, and specifically after esophagectomy dry mouth, trouble with coughing, and trouble talking. At 9-12 after resection one or more severe gastrointestinal symptoms were reported by 38.9% after esophagectomy and 33.7% after gastrectomy. A higher number of gastrointestinal symptoms was associated with poorer functioning, lower HRQoL, higher impairment in daily activities, and lower work productivity.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that gastrointestinal symptoms are frequently observed and burdensome after esophagectomy or gastrectomy, highlighting the importance to address these sequelae for high quality survivorship.

Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy versus fluticasone/salmeterol fixed-dose treatment in patients with COPD

BACKGROUND

Maintenance and reliever therapy (MART) with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/formoterol effectively reduces exacerbations in asthma. We aimed to investigate its efficacy compared with fixed-dose fluticasone/salmeterol in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODS

Patients with COPD and ≥1 exacerbation in the previous 2 years were randomly assigned to open-label MART (Spiromax budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 µg 2 inhalations twice daily+1 prn) or fixed-dose therapy (Diskus fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination (FSC) 500/50 µg 1 inhalation twice daily+salbutamol 100 µg prn) for 1 year. The primary outcome was rate of moderate/severe exacerbations, defined by treatment with oral prednisolone and/or antibiotics.

RESULTS

In total, 195 patients were randomised (MART Bud/Form n=103; fixed-dose FSC n=92). No significant difference was seen between MART and FSC therapy in exacerbation rates (1.32 vs 1.32 /year, respectively, rate ratio 1.05 (95% CI 0.79 to 1.39); p=0.741). No differences in lung function parameters or health status were observed. Total ICS dose was significantly lower with MART than FSC therapy (budesonide-equivalent 928 µg/day vs 1747 µg/day, respectively, p<0.05). Similar proportions of patients reported adverse events (MART Bud/Form: 73% vs fixed-dose FSC: 68%, p=0.408) and pneumonias (MART: 5% vs FSC: 1%, p=0.216).

CONCLUSIONS

This first study of MART in COPD found that budesonide/formoterol MART might be similarly effective to fluticasone/salmeterol fixed-dose therapy in moderate to severe patients with COPD, at a lower daily ICS dosage. Further evidence is needed about long-term safety.

Is In-Hospital Mortality Higher in Patients With Metastatic Lung Cancer Who Received Treatment in the Last Month of Life? A Retrospective Cohort Study

CONTEXT

Metastatic lung cancer is an incurable disease that results in a high burden of symptoms, a poor quality of life, and an expected prognosis of less than one year after diagnosis. Treatment shortly before death may result in potential burdensome and inappropriate hospital admissions and hospital deaths. Dying at home is, at a population level, considered a quality for good end-of-life care.

OBJECTIVES

We examined what percentage of patients with metastatic lung cancer died inside the hospital and if hospital death, or other characteristics of the patient, oncologist or health care, were associated with treatment in the last month of life.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study evaluated the medical records of 1322 patients with metastatic lung cancer who received care at one of 10 hospitals across The Netherlands and died between 1/6/2013 and 31/7/2015. Demographic and clinical characteristics were obtained from the medical records.

RESULTS

In total, 18% of the patients died during a hospital admission. This percentage was higher for patients who received chemotherapy (42%) or targeted therapy with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (25%) in the last month of life. Patients younger than 60 years of age, patients who received chemotherapy in the last month of life, and patients in whom tyrosine kinase inhibitors were started in the last month of life were more likely to die inside the hospital.

CONCLUSION

In The Netherlands, fewer than one in five patients with metastatic lung cancer died in the hospital and in-hospital death was associated with the relatively late use of chemotherapy or targeted therapy. Careful selection of patients for disease-modifying therapy might enhance the opportunity for patients to die at their preferred place.