Primary retroperitoneal sarcoma: A comparison of survival outcomes in specialist and non-specialist sarcoma centres

Tirotta, Fabio; Bacon, Andrew; Collins, Shane; Desai, Anant; Liu, Hanhua; Paley, Lizz; Strauß, D.; Strauss, Sandra J.

doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2023.04.004

Cited by 15 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous reports on RPS showed that compared to low-volume centers, high-volume centers, de ned by resection volume > 10 per year, have fewer postoperative complications and better long-term outcomes [5][6][7][8]. Therefore, it may be better to perform surgery for RPS in high-volume centers under the guidance of a multidisciplinary team consisting of practitioners from multiple surgical departments, especially when the surgical procedure is complex and technically demanding.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Financial burden of the surgical treatment for retroperitoneal sarcoma

Yokoyama,

Sunagawa,

Kurimoto

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The surgical treatment for retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS) is challenging because of its complex clinical features. According to the Japanese National Health-Care Insurance System, the fee for the surgical treatment of RPS is nearly equal to that of open distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer (GC). The purpose of the present study is to compare the financial burdens of surgery for RPS and GC. Methods All patients who underwent surgery for GC or RPS between 2020 and 2021 at Nagoya University Hospital were included. The clinical characteristics, surgical fee per surgeon and surgical fee per hour were compared between the two groups. Results There were 35 patients in the GC group and 63 patients in the RPS group. In the latter, 37 patients (59%) underwent tumor resection combined with organ resection; the most common organ was the intestine (n = 23, 37%), followed by the kidney (n = 16, 25%). The mean operation time (248 vs. 417 min, p < 0.001) and intraoperative blood loss (423 vs. 1123 ml, p < 0.001) were significantly greater in the RPS group than in the GC group. The mean surgical fee per surgeon was 1,667 dollars in the GC group and 1,022 dollars in the RPS group (p < 0.001); that per hour was 1,388 dollars and 777 dollars, respectively (p < 0.001). Conclusions The financial burden of surgical treatment for RPS was unexpectedly higher than that for GC. Additional data are needed to determine the actual costs of RPS treatment and to justify the fee for the surgical treatment of RPS.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Financial burden of the surgical treatment for retroperitoneal sarcoma

Yokoyama,

Sunagawa,

Kurimoto

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… 39 Survival was highest in high-volume centres, with a significant difference noted in the overall survival rates compared to low-volume centres. 39 A second analysis demonstrated high discordance among retroperitoneal sarcoma multidisciplinary team meetings in Great Britain. Notably, based on the specific facility visited, 12 out of 21 patients' conditions were evaluated as either suitable or unsuitable for surgery, while another 10 out of 21 faced a crossroads between receiving curative or palliative-intent treatments.…”

Section: Challenges and Opportunities For The Diagnosis And Managemen...mentioning

confidence: 96%

“…In this sense, recent data from England highlight the importance of reference centres and tumour boards. 39 , 40 In one study, authors analyzed data from 1878 patients with sarcoma extracted from NHS Digital's National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service, focusing on their treatment centers' volume and expertise. 39 Results showed that 60% of patients underwent surgery—76% in specialized sarcoma centres, of which 51% were operated in high-volume specialist centres.…”

Section: Challenges and Opportunities For The Diagnosis And Managemen...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 39 , 40 In one study, authors analyzed data from 1878 patients with sarcoma extracted from NHS Digital's National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service, focusing on their treatment centers' volume and expertise. 39 Results showed that 60% of patients underwent surgery—76% in specialized sarcoma centres, of which 51% were operated in high-volume specialist centres. 39 Survival was highest in high-volume centres, with a significant difference noted in the overall survival rates compared to low-volume centres.…”

Section: Challenges and Opportunities For The Diagnosis And Managemen...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 39 Results showed that 60% of patients underwent surgery—76% in specialized sarcoma centres, of which 51% were operated in high-volume specialist centres. 39 Survival was highest in high-volume centres, with a significant difference noted in the overall survival rates compared to low-volume centres. 39 A second analysis demonstrated high discordance among retroperitoneal sarcoma multidisciplinary team meetings in Great Britain.…”

Section: Challenges and Opportunities For The Diagnosis And Managemen...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Challenges and opportunities for sarcoma care and research in Latin America: a position paper from the LACOG sarcoma group

Pestana,

Lopes David,

Pires de Camargo

et al. 2024

The Lancet Regional Health - Americas

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Financial burden of surgical treatment for retroperitoneal sarcoma

Yokoyama,

Sunagawa,

Kurimoto

et al. 2024

Surg Today

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe surgical treatment for retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS) is challenging because of its complex clinical features. According to the Japanese National Health-Care Insurance System, the fee for the surgical treatment of RPS is nearly equal to that of open distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer (GC). The purpose of the present study is to compare the nancial burdens of surgery for RPS and GC. MethodsAll patients who underwent surgery for GC or RPS between 2020 and 2021 at Nagoya University Hospital were included. The clinical characteristics, surgical fee per surgeon and surgical fee per hour were compared between the two groups. ResultsThere were 35 patients in the GC group and 63 patients in the RPS group. In the latter, 37 patients (59%) underwent tumor resection combined with organ resection; the most common organ was the intestine (n = 23, 37%), followed by the kidney (n = 16, 25%). The mean operation time (248 vs. 417 min, p < 0.001) and intraoperative blood loss (423 vs. 1123 ml, p < 0.001) were signi cantly greater in the RPS group than in the GC group. The mean surgical fee per surgeon was 1,667 dollars in the GC group and 1,022 dollars in the RPS group (p < 0.001); that per hour was 1,388 dollars and 777 dollars, respectively (p < 0.001). ConclusionsThe nancial burden of surgical treatment for RPS was unexpectedly higher than that for GC. Additional data are needed to determine the actual costs of RPS treatment and to justify the fee for the surgical treatment of RPS.

show abstract

Primary retroperitoneal sarcoma: A comparison of survival outcomes in specialist and non-specialist sarcoma centres

Cited by 15 publications

References 24 publications

Financial burden of the surgical treatment for retroperitoneal sarcoma

Financial burden of the surgical treatment for retroperitoneal sarcoma

Challenges and opportunities for sarcoma care and research in Latin America: a position paper from the LACOG sarcoma group

Financial burden of surgical treatment for retroperitoneal sarcoma

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About