Hospital and medical care days in pancreatic cancer

Department of Surgery, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA.
Annals of Surgical Oncology (Impact Factor: 3.93). 03/2012; 19(8):2435-42. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-012-2326-2
Source: PubMed


Little is known about resource utilization (number of days in the hospital or medical care) between diagnosis and death in patients with pancreatic cancer.
Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked data, we identified 25,476 patients with pancreatic cancer (1992-2005). Hospital and medical care days per person-month from the time of diagnosis were described, stratified by stage, treatment, and survival duration.
Hospital/medical care days vary by length of survival and treatment strategy in patients with pancreatic cancer. For all stages, patients were in the hospital a mean of 6.4 days and received medical care a total of 9.0 days in the first month after diagnosis, decreasing to 1.7 and 3.7 days per month, respectively, by the end of the first year. Hospital/medical care days per month of life were higher in patients with shorter survival but increased sharply at the end of life in all patients, regardless of duration of survival. In patients with locoregional disease, resection was associated with a higher number of hospital/medical care days during the first 4 months after diagnosis, but fewer at the end of the first year. For distant disease, hospital days were similar but days in medical care were higher for patients receiving chemotherapy, increasing especially at the end of life.
This study is the first to quantify hospital/medical care days in patients with pancreatic cancer by stage, treatment, and survival. This information will provide realistic expectations and allow for treatment decisions based on patient preferences.

Download full-text


Available from: James S Goodwin,
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Approximately 15% of patients with a diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma are candidates for potentially curative surgery. However, most patients who undergo such surgery will die from recurrent disease, most within the first few years, whereas nearly all succumb by 5 to 7 years from diagnosis. Currently, there is a lack of high-level evidence to guide consensus recommendations as to the optimal surveillance strategy after resection. There is considerable variability in clinical practice, ranging from frequent clinical follow-up, with serial Ca 19-9 measurement and routine computed tomographic imaging on a 3- to 6-monthly basis, to a practice of no routine serum or imaging follow-up after surgery. In most part, this divergence in practice reflects a lack of data to define optimal practice. The argument in favor of limited surveillance presumably stems from the relatively uniform poor outcomes after recurrence and the absence of evidence indicating that early detection of local, regional, or metastatic recurrence improves outcomes. However, recent advancements in the treatment of metastatic disease offer hope that earlier detection and initiation of treatment for recurrent disease may positively impact clinical outcomes and at least urges review of the topic. One advantage to the development of defined guidelines would be greater consistency in the setting of both routine clinical follow-up and follow-up after adjuvant therapy on trial.
    The Cancer Journal 11/2012; 18(6):609-13. DOI:10.1097/PPO.0b013e3182758e27 · 4.24 Impact Factor