Rudy S Suidan1, Weiguo He2, Charlotte C Sun1, Hui Zhao2, Nicole D Fleming1, Pedro T Ramirez1, Pamela T Soliman1, Shannon N Westin1, Karen H Lu1, Sharon H Giordano2, Larissa A Meyer3. 1. Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, Division of Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States. 2. Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States. 3. Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, Division of Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States. Electronic address: lmeyer@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of body mass index (BMI) and operative approach on surgical morbidity and costs in patients with endometrial carcinoma (EC) and hyperplasia (EH). METHODS: All women with BMI data who underwent surgery for EC or EH from 2008 to 2014 were identified from MarketScan, a healthcare claims database. Differences in 30-day complications and costs were compared between BMI groups and stratified by surgical modality. RESULTS: Of 1112 patients, 35%, 36%, and 29% had a BMI of ≤29, 30-39, and ≥40kg/m2, respectively. Compared to patients with a BMI of 30-39 and ≤29, women with a BMI ≥40 had higher rates of venous thromboembolism (3% vs 0.2% vs 0.3%, p<0.01) and wound infection (7% vs 3% vs 3%, p=0.02). This increase was driven by the subset of patients who had laparotomy and was not seen in those undergoing minimally invasive surgery (MIS). Median total costs for women with a BMI ≥40, 30-39, and ≤29 were U.S. $17.3k, $16.8k, and $16.6k respectively (p=0.53). Costs were higher for patients who had laparotomy than those who had MIS across all BMI groups, with the cost difference being highest in morbidly obese women (≥40: $21.6k vs $14.9k, p<0.01; 30-39: $18.9k vs $16.1k, p=0.01; ≤29: $19.3k vs $15k, p<0.01). Patients who had complications had higher costs compared to those who did not, with a higher cost difference in the laparotomy group ($27.7k vs $16.4k, p<0.01) compared to the MIS group ($19.9k vs $15k, p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: MIS may increase the value of care by minimizing complications and decreasing costs. This may be most pronounced in morbidly obese women.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of body mass index (BMI) and operative approach on surgical morbidity and costs in patients with endometrial carcinoma (EC) and hyperplasia (EH). METHODS: All women with BMI data who underwent surgery for EC or EH from 2008 to 2014 were identified from MarketScan, a healthcare claims database. Differences in 30-day complications and costs were compared between BMI groups and stratified by surgical modality. RESULTS: Of 1112 patients, 35%, 36%, and 29% had a BMI of ≤29, 30-39, and ≥40kg/m2, respectively. Compared to patients with a BMI of 30-39 and ≤29, women with a BMI ≥40 had higher rates of venous thromboembolism (3% vs 0.2% vs 0.3%, p<0.01) and wound infection (7% vs 3% vs 3%, p=0.02). This increase was driven by the subset of patients who had laparotomy and was not seen in those undergoing minimally invasive surgery (MIS). Median total costs for women with a BMI ≥40, 30-39, and ≤29 were U.S. $17.3k, $16.8k, and $16.6k respectively (p=0.53). Costs were higher for patients who had laparotomy than those who had MIS across all BMI groups, with the cost difference being highest in morbidly obesewomen (≥40: $21.6k vs $14.9k, p<0.01; 30-39: $18.9k vs $16.1k, p=0.01; ≤29: $19.3k vs $15k, p<0.01). Patients who had complications had higher costs compared to those who did not, with a higher cost difference in the laparotomy group ($27.7k vs $16.4k, p<0.01) compared to the MIS group ($19.9k vs $15k, p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: MIS may increase the value of care by minimizing complications and decreasing costs. This may be most pronounced in morbidly obesewomen.
Authors: Kemi M Doll; Alison K Kalinowski; Anna C Snavely; Debra E Irwin; Jeannette T Bensen; Victoria L Bae-Jump; Kenneth H Kim; Linda Van Le; Daniel L Clarke-Pearson; Paola A Gehrig Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-09-23 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Bryce R H Robinson; Timothy A Pritts; Dennis J Hanseman; Gregory C Wilson; Daniel E Abbott Journal: Surgery Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Jason D Wright; William M Burke; Elizabeth T Wilde; Sharyn N Lewin; Abigail S Charles; Jin Hee Kim; Noah Goldman; Alfred I Neugut; Thomas J Herzog; Dawn L Hershman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-01-30 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Mario M Leitao; Vivek Malhotra; Gabriel Briscoe; Rudy Suidan; Priyal Dholakiya; Kevin Santos; Elizabeth L Jewell; Carol L Brown; Yukio Sonoda; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Richard R Barakat; Ginger J Gardner Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Craig C Earle; Deborah Schrag; Bridget A Neville; K Robin Yabroff; Marie Topor; Angela Fahey; Edward L Trimble; Diane C Bodurka; Robert E Bristow; Michael Carney; Joan L Warren Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-02-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Z M Gambacorti-Passerini; C López-De la Manzanara Cano; C Pérez Parra; M C Cespedes Casas; L Sánchez Hipólito; C Martín Francisco; J R Muñoz-Rodríguez Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Maria C Cusimano; Andrea N Simpson; Angela Han; Robin Hayeems; Marcus Q Bernardini; Deborah Robertson; Sari L Kives; Abheha Satkunaratnam; Nancy N Baxter; Sarah E Ferguson Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-06-27 Impact factor: 2.692