IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v1y2017i1d10.1007_s41669-016-0003-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Single-Center Cost Analysis of Treating Primary and Metastatic Brain Cancers with Either Brain Laser Interstitial Thermal Therapy (LITT) or Craniotomy

Author

Listed:
  • Eric C. Leuthardt

    (Washington University School of Medicine
    Washington University School of Medicine
    Washington University School of Medicine
    Washington University School of Medicine)

  • Jeff Voigt

    (Medical Device Consultants of Ridgewood, LLC)

  • Albert H. Kim

    (Washington University School of Medicine)

  • Pete Sylvester

    (Washington University School of Medicine)

Abstract

Background Brain laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) under magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) guidance has recently gained US clinical approval for the ablation of soft, neurological tissue. LITT is a minimally invasive alternative to craniotomy. Objective While safety and efficacy are the focus of most current LITT studies, it is unclear how acute care costs (inpatient care ± aftercare) of LITT compare to craniotomy in an academic medical center. Therefore, the purpose of this analysis is to examine these costs of using brain LITT under MRI guidance compared to craniotomy in complex anatomies. Methods Consecutive patients treated at a single US center from 1 January 2010 to 21 October 2014 were retrospectively evaluated. Patients were included if they had a primary procedure for LITT or craniotomy (International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-9-CM] procedure code 17.61 or ICD-9-CM procedure code 01.59, respectively) and were subgrouped according to their diagnosis of primary brain or metastatic brain cancer (ICD-9-CM 191.0–191.9 or ICD-9-CM 198.3, respectively). Patients were excluded if they had co-morbid conditions such as brain edema (ICD-9-CM 348.5). Patients were matched (LITT vs. craniotomy) based on diagnosis. Appropriate statistical analyses were undertaken to examine the year 2015 costs for care in all settings (acute hospital and post-hospital care, i.e., skilled nursing facility, rehabilitation, and home care) were examined. Results In patients treated for a primary brain cancer, there was no statistical difference in the acute and post-care costs of LITT and craniotomy (inverse variance, mean difference [MD], random effects model): MD = −US$1669; 95% confidence interval (CI) −$8192 to $4854; P = 0.62. When examining difficult to access primary malignancies, no difference was found: MD = −US$4719; 95% CI −$12,183 to $2745; P = 0.22. In metastatic brain cancer, LITT was found to be significantly less costly than craniotomy: MD = −US$6522; 95% CI −$11,911 to −$1133; P = 0.02. Conclusions In patients with metastatic brain cancer, LITT is less costly than craniotomy. Patients receiving LITT had a significantly shorter length of hospital stay, were significantly older, and were more likely to be discharged home. The use of LITT may be a reasonable option in bundled episodes of care for brain cancer and may fit into the Bundled Payment for Care Improvement (BPCI) program being evaluated by Medicare and providers.

Suggested Citation

  • Eric C. Leuthardt & Jeff Voigt & Albert H. Kim & Pete Sylvester, 2017. "A Single-Center Cost Analysis of Treating Primary and Metastatic Brain Cancers with Either Brain Laser Interstitial Thermal Therapy (LITT) or Craniotomy," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 53-63, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:1:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s41669-016-0003-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-016-0003-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-016-0003-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-016-0003-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:1:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s41669-016-0003-2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.