Search

Background: Insurance status has been shown to impact survival outcomes. We sought to determine whether insurance affects the choice of treatment modality among patients with advanced (T4) oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma., Methods: This is a retrospective, population-based cohort study using the Survival, Epidemiology, and End Results Program database. The population included all adult (age ≥ 18) patients with advanced (T4a or T4b) oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma diagnosed from 2007 to 2016. The main outcome was the odds of receiving definitive treatment, defined as primary surgical resection. Insurance status was categorized into uninsured, any Medicaid, and insured groups. Univariable, multivariable, and subgroup analyses were performed., Results: The study population consisted of 2628 patients, of whom 1915 (72.9%) were insured, 561 (21.3%) had Medicaid, and 152 (5.8%) were uninsured. The multivariable model showed that patients who were 80 years or older, unmarried, received treatment in the pre-Affordable Care Act (ACA) period, and who were on Medicaid or uninsured were significantly less likely to receive definitive treatment. Insured patients were significantly more likely to receive definitive treatment compared to those on Medicaid or uninsured (OR = 0.59, 95% CI 0.46-0.77, p < 0.0001 [Medicaid vs. Insured]; and OR = 0.48, 95% CI 0.31-0.73 p = 0.001 [Uninsured vs. Insured]), however these differences did not persist when considering only those patients treated following the 2014 expansion of the ACA., Conclusions: Insurance status is significantly associated with treatment modality among adults with advanced stage (T4a) oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma. These findings support the premise of expanding insurance coverage in the US., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of transoral robotic surgery (TORS) compared to intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for early stage (T1-2, N0, M0) oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC)., Patients and Methods: A Markov decision tree model with a 5-year time horizon was developed. Comparative groups were: i) TORS with concurrent ipsilateral neck dissection +/- adjunctive IMRT, and ii) primary IMRT. Primary outcome was cost/quality adjusted life year (QALY). Perspective was the United States third party payer. Costs and effects were discounted at a rate of 3.5%. A threshold and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed., Results: TORS strategy cost $30,992 and provided 4.81 QALYs/patient. The IMRT strategy cost $26,033 and provided a total of 4.78 QALYs/patient. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio for TORS vs. IMRT in the reference case was $165,300/QALY. The probability that TORS is cost-effective compared to IMRT at a maximum willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY is 42%., Conclusion: An IMRT strategy for management of early stage OPSCC is more likely to be cost-effective compared to TORS. To improve the value of TORS for early stage OPSCC, consolidating TORS procedures to create high-volume centers of excellence may be a potential strategy to increase incremental effectiveness and reduce incremental costs. J. Surg. Oncol. 2015 111:155-163. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., (© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Functional outcomes assessment has become increasingly important in informing treatment decisions in the area of head and neck cancer. However, consistency of assessment methods across studies has been lacking. For the literature to inform clinical decision making, consensus regarding outcomes measurements is necessary., Objective: The Head and Neck Research Network (HNRN) was founded in January 2008 to become a conduit for high-quality research in the area of functional outcomes in patients with head and neck defects. The present study surveyed experts in functional outcomes assessment to determine what are considered the most important tools for assessing speech and swallowing and what background patient characteristics are important to capture., Design, Participants, and Measures: Respondents to the online survey included 54 participants with a background in speech-language pathology, with the majority of respondents from the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom., Results and Conclusions: The results from the survey indicated that clinicians consider both subjective and objective measures as important to use when assessing function. More advanced technical tools were often rated as less important; however, it also was noted that clinicians were most often not able to access these tools or were unfamiliar with them.

Background: The finite resources available for health care and the proliferation of managed care in the United States have forced the head and neck surgeon to critically evaluate the cost of tumor treatment., Objective: To determine whether the cost of treating patients with head and neck tumors would be reduced if the patients were to spend a portion of what would otherwise be acute care hospital days in a hospital-based skilled nursing facility (HB/SNF)., Design: Retrospective cost-benefit analysis., Setting: Tertiary referral center., Patients: Twenty-four consecutive hospital admissions for definitive surgical treatment of head and neck tumors were retrospectively reviewed. The postoperative day on which the patient theoretically could have been transferred to the HB/SNF was determined. The charges and cost of each patient's actual hospital stay were compared with the theoretical counterparts had the patient been transferred to the HB/SNF on the determined day., Main Outcome Measure: Cost savings., Results: The total hospital stay for the 24 patients was 524 days. One hundred eighty-two of those days could have been spent in the HB/SNF. The total charge and cost savings with the use of an HB/SNF were $201,045 and $84,238, respectively (15% of the total charge and cost). This represents an average charge and cost savings of $8377 and $3510, respectively, per patient. The difference was statistically significant (P<.005)., Conclusion: An HB/SNF could reduce the cost of head and neck tumor treatment without compromising patient care.