Costs of care associated with non-small-cell lung cancer in a commercially insured cohort

PURPOSE

To examine the cost of incident cases of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in a commercially insured cohort.

METHODS

Claims from Virginia Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS) beneficiaries with lung cancer from 1989 to 1991 were merged with records from the Virginia Cancer Registry (VCR). Data from the VCR identified incident cases, stage, and type of cancer at diagnosis. Costs for all medical care included insurance payment, copayments, and deductibles for 2 years after diagnosis or until death.

RESULTS

Three hundred forty-nine incident NSCLC patients were evaluated. The mean 2-year cost for each patient after diagnosis or until death was $47,941 (95% confidence interval, $43,758 to $52,124). Total average costs and hospital days were significantly lower for local disease ($37,514, 21.2 days), but were similar for regional ($52,797, 30.0 days) and distant ($49,382, 33.0 days) disease. Hospital days accounted for 48% and hospital-based claims for 70% of costs. Initial treatments, which included radiation, unadjusted for stage, had the lowest survival rates and the highest costs, and were associated with the most hospital days. Initial stage, race, gender, and age were not predictors of total 2-year costs. The independent predictors of total 2-year costs were type of treatment: any radiation therapy, any surgery, or any chemotherapy (all, P < .001). Inpatient hospital days was only a modest predictor of costs after adjusting for type of treatment. Patients who survived less than 1 year spent 30.5 days in hospital and had an average cost of $47,280.

CONCLUSION

The direct health care costs of younger NSCLC patients care are substantial. These results should serve as a benchmark for future comparisons as the United States market shifts to managed care.

Overview of economic analysis of Le Chevalier Vinorelbine Study

The costs and relative cost-effectiveness of different treatments for common illnesses are an increasing concern. New treatments for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer are having an impact. However, these treatments vary markedly in their direct financial costs, toxicity, and quality-of-life profiles. Direct comparisons between most combination regimens are not yet completed. Vinorelbine (Navelbine) is the first new agent approved in the United States for the treatment of metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer in more than a decade. We previously reported results of a post-hoc economic analysis that compared the anticipated cost-effectiveness of three regimens used to treat non-small-cell lung cancer (vinorelbine alone versus vinorelbine plus cisplatin [Platinol] versus vindesine plus cisplatin, the assumed standard treatment in Europe). Results showed that vinorelbine plus cisplatin was the most effective regimen. Using vinorelbine alone as a baseline, vinorelbine plus cisplatin added 56 days of life at an additional cost of $2,700, resulting in a cost-effectiveness ratio of $17,700 per year of life gained. Similarly, vindesine plus cisplatin added 19 days of life at a cost of $1,150, or $22,100 per year of life gained. Compared to vindesine plus cisplatin, vinorelbine plus cisplatin added 37 days of life at a cost of $1,570, or $15,500 per year of life gained. We conclude that the incremental cost-effectiveness of the vinorelbine plus cisplatin regimen was less than most commonly accepted medical interventions. If vinorelbine is preferred because of its favorable toxicity profile, the additional effectiveness of cisplatin added substantial efficacy at an acceptable cost.

Cost-effectiveness of routine radiation therapy following conservative surgery for early-stage breast cancer

PURPOSE

To examine the cost-effectiveness of radiation therapy following conservative surgery for early-stage breast cancer.

METHODS

Using a Markov model, a cost-utility analysis was performed to compare a strategy of radiation therapy versus no radiation therapy in a hypothetical cohort of 60-year-old women following conservative surgery. Local recurrence, distant recurrence, and survival rates used in the model were derived from randomized trial data. Utilities for the nonmetastatic health states were collected from actual patients. Direct medical costs were estimated using data from a single institution. Transportation and time costs were also estimated. Years of life, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost/QALY over a 10-year time horizon were calculated by the model for each strategy.

RESULTS

The addition of radiation therapy results in a cost increase of $9,800 per patient, no change in life expectancy, and an increase of 0.35 QALYs per patient, which leads to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $28,000/QALY, which is well below $50,000/QALY, a commonly cited threshold for cost-effective care. Sensitivity analysis shows the ratio to be heavily influenced by the cost of radiation therapy and the quality-of-life benefit that results from decreased risk of local recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Radiation therapy following conservative surgery is cost-effective compared with other accepted medical interventions. This study illustrates the importance of considering an intervention's effect on quality of life, as well as survival in defining cost-effectiveness.

Decision analysis: MIBI imaging of nonpalpable breast abnormalities

Scintimammography using sestamibi has provided exciting preliminary results in evaluating suspicious breast lesions. A computer simulation was performed using projected test characteristics to guide future studies and to evaluate the clinical and financial consequences of the anticipated use of noninvasive breast evaluation strategies.

METHODS

A decision analysis model compared sestamibi breast imaging, stereotaxic core biopsy and surgical biopsy as breast evaluation strategies for hypothetical cohorts of 1000 women with nonpalpable breast lesions. All women with a negative original procedure would have a 6-mo follow-up. Sensitivity and specificity were estimated from the literature and from a recent multicenter assessment for sestamibi. Probabilities of 10% for both invasive cancer and in situ cancer were based on mammographic features. Costs were based on the costs incurred by patients who were evaluated at our institution and the costs of sestamibi projections.

RESULTS

Per 1000 women, core biopsy was projected to miss about seven invasive and 10 in situ cancers more than would surgery. Sestamibi imaging was projected to miss an additional 16 invasive cancers and 12 in situ cancers, compared to core biopsy. Most misses would be detected at 6-mo follow-up. Compared to immediate surgery, the cost would be reduced by 20% with the core biopsy and 39% with the sestamibi strategy. Sixty-five percent of women having sestamibi imaging would avoid any invasive biopsy. The projected cost savings of core biopsy or sestamibi imaging, compared to surgery, ranged fom $17,700 to $77,500 per delayed cancer diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

If sestamibi imaging has similar test characteristics outside the research setting, then sestamibi imaging or sterotaxic core biopsy will lead to substantial cost savings compared to surgery with a slight compromise in the rate of early cancer detection. A decision analysis simulation can aid in designing clinical trials and exploring new strategies. The adopting of nonsurgical biopsy techniques will likely depend on confirming or establishing their test characteristics in lower-risk lesions, the natural history of cancers whose diagnosis is delayed and patient preferences of the value on avoiding any form of breast biopsy.

Economic analysis of adjuvant interferon alfa-2b in high-risk melanoma based on projections from Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 1684

PURPOSE

Interferon alfa-2b (IFN) in a randomized clinical trial (E1684) prolonged relapse-free and total survival in high-risk resected melanoma. However, the costs and toxicities of IFN are barriers to its widespread use. This study was undertaken to analyze the projected costs and long-term benefits of IFN by combining prospectively collected data on IFN actual dosage, time of recurrence, and survival with secondary data on long-term melanoma recurrence risks to project the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant IFN compared with observation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Two hypothetical cohorts of 50-year-old melanoma patients whose mean IFN dosage and clinical results were directly taken from E1684 were included in the study. Melanoma recurrence risks beyond 5 years were derived from international databases. Melanoma recurrence care costs and quality-of-life adjustments, when considered, were based on expert consensus. End points were incremental costs, life-years gained, and cost per life-year gained with and without quality-of-life adjustments.

RESULTS

The IFN cohort was projected to have an increased (undiscounted) survival of 0.52 years at 7 years and 1.90 years over a lifetime. The projected incremental cost (in 1996 United States dollars) per life-year gained in the IFN cohort ranged from $13,700 after 35 years to $32,600 at 7 years, the median follow-up of E1684. Using assigned quality-of-life values for IFN and recurrence, the lifetime cost per quality adjusted life-year increased to $15,200. Even if treatment costs for recurrence were excluded, the lifetime incremental cost per life-year gained was $21,600.

CONCLUSION

The cost and toxicity of IFN must be balanced against its projected benefits in high-risk melanoma. The derived cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios for IFN were comparable to other cancer interventions for which cost-effectiveness analysis has been performed.

High-dose chemotherapy with autologous hematopoietic stem-cell support for breast cancer in North America

PURPOSE

To identify trends in high-dose therapy with autologous hematopoietic stem-cell support (autotransplants) for breast cancer (1989 to 1995).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Analysis of patients who received autotransplants and were reported to the Autologous Blood and Marrow Transplant Registry. Between January 1, 1989 and June 30, 1995, 19,291 autotransplants were reviewed; 5,886 were for breast cancer. Main outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and survival.

RESULTS

Between 1989 and 1995, autotransplants for breast cancer increased sixfold. After 1992, breast cancer was the most common indication for autotransplant. Significant trends included increasing use for locally advanced rather than metastatic disease (P < .00001) and use of blood-derived rather than marrow-derived stem cells (P < .00001). One-hundred-day mortality decreased from 22% to 5% (P < .0001). Three-year PFS probabilities were 65% (95% confidence intervals [Cls], 59 to 71) for stage 2 disease, and 60% (95% Cl, 53 to 67) for stage 3 disease. In metastatic breast cancer, 3-year probabilities of PFS were 7% (95% Cl, 4 to 10) for women with no response to conventional dose chemotherapy; 13% (95% Cl, 9 to 17) for those with partial response; and 32% (95% Cl, 27 to 37) for those with complete response. Eleven percent of women with stage 2/3 disease and less than 1% of those with stage 4 disease participated in national cooperative group randomized trials.

CONCLUSION

Autotransplants increasingly are used to treat breast cancer. One-hundred-day mortality has decreased substantially. Three-year survival is better in women with earlier stage disease and in those who respond to pretransplant chemotherapy.

Measuring standards of care for early breast cancer in an insured population

PURPOSE

To demonstrate the use of a combined data base to evaluate the care for local/regional invasive breast cancer in a large insured population of women aged less than 64 years.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We linked the procedural and hospital claims from Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) of Virginia with clinical stage data from the Virginia Cancer Registry (VCR) from 1989 to 1991. A total of 918 women were assessed with a median age of 50 years; 68% had tumors less than 2 cm, 30% had positive axillary nodes, and 68% were assessed as having local summary stage. A quality-of-care "report card" was used based on standards of care from international Consensus Conferences.

RESULTS

Eight percent had a mastectomy as the initial biopsy procedure. Sixty-nine percent of women ultimately underwent mastectomy. Of those women who underwent lumpectomy, 86% had subsequent radiation. Within 3 months of diagnosis, 43% had a bone scan and 20% a computed tomography (CT) scan. Of women with positive axillary lymph nodes, 83% aged less than 51 years and 52% aged 51 to 64 years received chemotherapy. Fifty-six percent of all women had claims from a medical oncologist. Of women having a total mastectomy, 27% had claims from a plastic surgeon. Sixty-six percent to 76% of women had a mammogram, 24% a bone scan, and 14% a CT scan in the 0-18 and 18-36 month intervals following primary treatment.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms the feasibility of linking sources of data that provide complementary information needed to develop measurements regarding standards of quality and efficiency of oncologic care. This report should serve as an initial benchmark while we await reports from other populations to define the best practice.

Economic analysis of a randomized clinical trial to compare filgrastim-mobilized peripheral-blood progenitor-cell transplantation and autologous bone marrow transplantation in patients with Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma

PURPOSE

High-dose chemotherapy (HDC) with peripheral-blood progenitor cell (PBPC) and autologous bone marrow (ABM) transplant (T) has documented survival benefits for relapsed Hodgkin's disease (HD) and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). Treatment costs associated with HDC and its supportive care have restricted its use both on and off clinical trial. In a prospective randomized clinical trial, filgrastim-mobilized PBPCT resulted in faster recovery of bone marrow function, with less hospitalization and supportive care than ABMT. This study was undertaken to analyze the costs of the two strategies using prospectively collected data from a randomized clinical trial that compared filgrastim-mobilized PBPCT versus ABMT.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Clinical results and resource utilization from a randomized clinical trial that compared filgrastim-mobilized PBPCT versus ABMT following carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, and melphalan (BEAM) HDC for HD and NHL are presented. The trial was performed in six centers in Germany, the United Kingdom, and Belgium. Resource utilization data were used to project costs and Massay Cancer Center (MCC) in the United States incurred the cost of treating the cohort. Costs were projected to the United States, because the economic implications to United States centers are significant, costs of care vary markedly among countries but resource utilization on this trial did not, and a randomized trial is unlikely to be performed in the United States.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight patients with relapsed HD or NHL underwent HDC with BEAM. The PBPCT and ABMT groups had similar short-term survival after BEAM. PBPCT patients had a shorter hospitalization (median, 17 v 23 days; P = .002), neutrophil recovery (11 v 14 days; P = .005), platelet recovery to > or = 20 x 10(9)/L (16 v 23 days; P = .02), and days of platelet transfusions (6 v 10; P < .001). Estimated costs were $8,531 for ABM harvest and $5,760 for PBPC collection, including filgrastim mobilization. The total estimated average cost was $59,314 for each ABMT patient versus $45,792 for each PBPCT patient. Cost savings of $13,521 (23%) were due to shorter hospitalizations with less supportive care.

CONCLUSION

PBPCT is as safe and more effective than ABMT for HD and NHL in the short term. PBPCT represents a significant cost savings due to lower autograft collection costs, shorter hospital stays, and less supportive care. The savings exceed the costs for filgrastim mobilization and PBPC collection. Actual savings will vary depending on local practice patterns, charges, and costs.

Use of hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors: the American Society of Clinical Oncology survey. The Health Services Research Committee of the American Society of Clinical Oncology

PURPOSE

Dissemination of use of the hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) is unprecedented in oncology, with almost all physicians having experience with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) or granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) shortly after the drugs received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 1991. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Health Services Research Committee sought to assess patterns of use of CSFs before dissemination of its first-ever publication of ASCO guidelines.

METHODS

A questionnaire describing clinical scenarios was mailed to American oncologists and hematologists who practice medical oncology. In each scenario, the physician was asked whether he would prefer to use a CSF to prevent or treat neutropenia.

RESULTS

The response rate to the mailed survey was 49% (N = 475). Most physicians preferred to use CSFs for secondary prophylaxis in patients receiving chemotherapy at rates of 44% to 85%, rather than reduce doses. Patterns of use did not differ for palliative, curative, or adjuvant chemotherapy. While the majority of CSF patterns of care were similar to those recommended in the ASCO guidelines, more than half of the physicians chose to use CSFs in the treatment of febrile neutropenia, an area not supported in the subsequent guidelines. In general, physicians at academic medical centers and in Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) practices were more likely to prefer dose-reduction strategies over addition of CSFs, while fee-for-service physicians preferred the opposite strategies.

CONCLUSION

Variations in CSF preferences for use were related to differences in clinical characteristics (history of afebrile v febrile neutropenia), drug characteristics (G-CSF or GM-CSF), and physician practice characteristics (HMO or fee-for-service setting). However, before dissemination of the guidelines, the majority of American oncologists preferred strategies that were subsequently included in the ASCO CSF guidelines. CSF guidelines would be most likely to reduce CSF use for treatment of afebrile and uncomplicated febrile neutropenia.

Cost-effective models for flutamide for prostate carcinoma patients: are they helpful to policy makers?

BACKGROUND

More than 50,000 male patients received hormonal therapy for metastatic prostate carcinoma in 1995. Nonsteroidal antiandrogens, such as flutamide, when used in conjunction with castration, are effective in prolonging the time to progression of disease and survival. Only one-third of newly diagnosed patients with metastatic prostate carcinoma receive flutamide. Physicians may be reluctant to prescribe flutamide because of quality of life, toxicity, and cost considerations.

METHODS

Physician focus groups evaluated quality of life factors for metastatic prostate cancer.

RESULTS

Using quality of life estimates with the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) 0036 clinical trial results, our revised model of flutamide use predicted that, for minimal disease, survival increased by 4.33 quality adjusted months (QAMs) at an incremental cost of $25,000 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) saved and for severe disease, survival increased by 4.11 QAM at a cost of $18,000 per QALY saved. However, if quality of life estimates are used in conjunction with the Prostate Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (PCTCG) meta-analysis estimates, survival increased by 2.1 QAM at an incremental cost of $41,000 per QALY saved for persons with severe disease and increased by 2.6 QAM at an incremental cost of $53,700 per QALY saved for persons with minimal disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Using NCI 0036 trial data, flutamide has an incremental cost-effectiveness more favorable than most therapies, while estimates based on the PCTCG found a less favorable outcome for the drug. Concerns about out-of-pocket expenditures and efficacy limit flutamide utilization; quality of life considerations are less cogent.

Estimating the cost-effectiveness of stereotaxic biopsy for nonpalpable breast abnormalities: a decision analysis model

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

We examined the clinical and economic trade-offs of shifting from surgical excisional biopsy to stereotaxic core breast biopsy for evaluating non-palpable, mammographically detected breast lesions.

METHODS

A decision analysis model compared strategies beginning with excisional or stereotaxic core biopsy for hypothetical cohorts of 1,000 women. All women with negative initial biopsies had a 6-month follow-up mammogram. Sensitivities and specificities were based on the literature and expert estimates. Pretest probabilities of invasive cancer and in situ cancer were each 10% based on mammographic features. Adjusted costs were based on an audit of patients evaluated at the Medical College of Virginia and physician relative value units.

RESULTS

Per 1,000 women, with an expected rate of 100 invasive and 100 in situ cancers, the stereotaxic core biopsy strategy would initially miss 6.7 invasive and 12.4 in situ cases. Most of these would be detected at 6-month follow-ups. Of the women having a stereotaxic core biopsy, 75.7% avoided a surgical procedure. Using stereotaxic core biopsy saved $804 per woman. Continuing to initially use surgical biopsy, total management costs were an additional $42,100 per each case of early detected invasive or in situ cancer. A speculative sensitivity analysis, in which the prognosis of invasive cancer was worse if diagnosis was delayed by 6 months, indicated that surgical biopsy had an incremental cost of $156,700 per additional life year gained.

CONCLUSION

Using conservative estimates for the false-negative rate of stereotaxic core breast biopsy, widespread use of stereotaxic biopsy is projected to have substantial cost savings with a slight compromise in the rate of early detection. Whether the decremental cost-effectiveness is acceptable is dependent on the natural history of cancers whose diagnosis is delayed.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of three regimens using vinorelbine (Navelbine) for non-small cell lung cancer

The costs and cost-effectiveness of different treatments are increasing concerns in healthcare. Vinorelbine (Navelbine; Burroughs Wellcome Co, Research Triangle Park, NC; Pierre Fabre Medicament, Paris, France), the first new agent approved for the treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in more than a decade, was recently approved in the United States. In this report the terminology of cost-effectiveness analysis is reviewed and the findings from a comparative cost-effectiveness analysis of three regimens for NSCLC are discussed. The findings are from a randomized clinical trial of vinorelbine alone versus vinorelbine plus cisplatin versus vindesine plus cisplatin in 612 European patients with NSCLC (J Clin Oncol 12:360-367, 1994) and from cost data from the Medical College of Virginia. In this study the vinorelbine plus cisplatin regimen was the most effective, with a mean survival of 49.6 weeks. Using vinorelbine alone as the baseline, vinorelbine plus cisplatin added 56 days of life at an additional cost of $2,700, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $17,700 per year of life gained. Similarly, vindesine plus cisplatin added 19 days of life at a cost of $1,150, or $22,100 per year of life gained. Compared with vindesine plus cisplatin, vinorelbine plus cisplatin added 37 days of life at a cost of $1,570, or $15,500 per year of life gained. The cost-effectiveness of the vinorelbine plus cisplatin regimen was within the accepted limits for medical interventions. If vinorelbine is preferred because of its more favorable toxicity profile, adding cisplatin to the treatment regimen substantially increases efficacy at an acceptable cost. The study demonstrated that, compared with other available medical interventions, chemotherapy for NSCLC has acceptable efficacy and cost effectiveness. Access to treatment should not be denied on the basis of clinical or economic grounds.

Economic considerations in the care of lung cancer patients

Lung cancer has been characterized as an expensive, futile, and self-induced illness. One of the most common questions pertaining to treatment is, "Is it worth it?" In the era of health care reform, attention has been directed toward common, high-cost illnesses that may benefit from closer examination of the clinical decisions that drive costs. This review explores the economic considerations of lung cancer treatment from the perspective of the patient, society, and those at risk for the costs of care. The concept of value is proposed as a frame-work to guide how lung cancer treatments should and should not be routinely used. Cost-effectiveness studies are highlighted that do not paint as dim a view of lung cancer therapy as may have been thought. However, it is clear that the 10 billion dollars spent yearly on lung cancer might be better used by limiting expenditures to the aspects of care that produce the best outcomes. This review includes comparisons of the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer care and treatments for other common cancers. It concludes with some strategies to use resources allocated to lung cancer more effectively.

Factors that determine the treatment for local and regional prostate cancer

This article assesses the significance of comorbid and nonclinical factors in type of treatment received by elderly male patients with local-regional stage prostate cancer. Multivariate analysis of data from the Virginia Cancer Registry was linked to Medicare claim files, the Area Resource File, and 1990 Census Data. The type of initial treatment received was studied in 3117 men with local-regional staged prostate cancer diagnosed from 1985 to 1989. The frequency of surgical and radiation therapy for prostate cancer rose between 1985 and 1989 (12.5% to 18.5% for surgery, P < 0.001; 25% to 32% for radiation, P < 0.001). Age was the most important predictor of therapeutic choice; no therapy was given to 26% of men 65 to 69 years old versus 63% of men 85 years or older P < 0.001). Race, residence (rural versus urban), and comorbidity were also strong factors in predicting initial therapy. Using logistic regression, three treatment alternatives were evaluated. Age (odds ratio [OR] .51; 99% confidence interval [CI] = .43, .60), comorbidity (OR .72; 99% CI .63, .82), income (OR 1.14; 99% CI 1.01, 1.28), residence (OR .65; 99% CI .48, .87), diagnosis year (OR 1.15; 99% CI 1.07, 1.23) all were associated independently with treatment versus no treatment. For surgery versus radiation, age (OR .40; 99% CI .27, .57), race (OR 2.92; 99% CI 1.65, 5.15) and education (OR 1.75; 99% CI 1.31, 2.34) were significant factors. For hormonal/orchiectomy versus surgery/radiation, age (OR 5.19; 99% CI 3.84, 7.01), comorbidity (OR 1.28; 99% CI 1.03, 1.58), distance to radiation oncologist (OR .89; 99% CI .80, .99), and diagnosis year (OR .89; 99% CI .79, 1.00) were significant. The number of men receiving surgical and radiation treatments for prostate cancer increased between 1985 and 1989. During that period, age consistently played a significant role in all therapeutic decisions. Other factors, such as comorbidity, race, socioeconomic status, and distance, also were important considerations, depending on the treatment alternative.

Economic and cost-effectiveness issues in breast cancer treatment

The need for cost-effectiveness analyses is based on the unfortunate but universal situation of limited financial resources that ideally should be used to maximal benefit. Formal cost-effectiveness analyses assume a societal utilitarian perspective with the objective of maximizing net health benefit for members of a population within a limited level of resources. This societal perspective is in stark contrast to the clinician's perspective, whose goal is to maximize his or her patient's health status (no matter what effect those decisions have on other patients or resources). This difference in perspective and objectives explains why many clinicians object to the use of cost-effectiveness analysis in setting policies. When considering the natural history of breast cancer from screening, evaluation of suspicious lesions, primary therapy, staging, adjuvant therapy, monitoring, metastatic disease, and palliative care, it is striking that most cost-effectiveness studies have been related to screening or the use of adjuvant drug therapies. In prior work our group has shown that the use of chemotherapy in node-negative breast cancer and of tamoxifen alone or in combination with chemotherapy in premenopausal women are cost-effective compared with other common medical treatments. Given the increasing pressure to contain costs in contemporary medicine, one should remember that cost effectiveness is related to value, value defined as quality/costs. Examples are discussed when the controversy focuses on increasing quality (eg, valued outcomes, such as additional years of life or years of breast preservation) and on controlling costs (eg, integrating multidisciplinary care, minimizing superfluous testing, or reducing surgical biopsy rates). Efforts should be directed at both sides of this ratio.

Variation in staging and treatment of local and regional breast cancer in the elderly

BACKGROUND

Few studies of practice variation in the management of early breast cancer for elderly women have examined the process of care in depth. This study evaluated the effects of age and other factors on surgical staging techniques and treatment.

METHODS

Virginia cancer registry data were linked with Medicare claims and 1990 census data. The sample included all newly diagnosed patients with pathologic confirmed local and regional breast cancer in 1985-1989 (n = 3,361). Analyses included descriptive univariate statistics and multiple logistic regression analysis for staging and treatment alternatives. Process of care variables included tumor size determination, axillary lymph node dissection, use of adjuvant therapy, and radiation if breast conserving surgery (BCS) was performed.

RESULTS

About 75 percent of women had tumor size and axillary node dissection. Increasing comorbidity was associated with a lower likelihood of axillary node dissection. Nine percent of local compared to 44 percent of regional disease patients received adjuvant therapy. Hormonal therapy increased from 13 percent of women in 1985-1988 to 24 percent in 1989. Hormonal therapy did not vary with patient age. One-third of the patients with positive lymph nodes compared to 8 percent of node negative women received hormonal therapy. Blacks were more likely to present with advanced disease. A logistic regression model evaluated the multiple effects of patients and clinical characteristics: older women were more likely to present with larger tumors, were less likely to have axillary node dissections, and were less likely to receive chemotherapy or radiation.

CONCLUSIONS

Younger age was most consistently associated with staging and the use of chemotherapy in this cohort of elderly breast cancer patients. Based on the reported initial treatment plan, hormonal therapy was infrequently used and information from axillary lymph node assessment was used to stratify treatment. Although the low use of adjuvant hormonal therapy in elderly women may compromise survival, neither comorbid nor socioeconomic factors as measured in this study explained this practice pattern.

Role of decision analysis in relation to clinical trials and a US perspective of the Battelle model

Economic assessment of evolving technologies is assuming increasing importance worldwide. One form of economic assessment uses decision analysis, a simulation technique, to determine whether performing a clinical trial is worthwhile. This type of assessment may streamline data collection within a clinical trial, and can aid in the interpretation of a trial result with substantial benefits and toxicities. Although second-line chemotherapy for patients with metastatic breast cancer is in common use, its benefit is unclear and it is associated with substantial cost. A database search of currently active or recently closed randomised phase III comparative trials for metastatic breast cancer found only 6 trials involving a comparison of chemotherapies. Only 1 trial allowed prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Given the paucity of forthcoming clinical data, decision analysis is an appropriate tool for estimating the effectiveness of potential treatments with second-line agents for metastatic breast cancer. The findings of the Battelle decision analysis model, described in this issue, identified response rates and 1-year mortality as the key areas of focus for comparative trials. Decision analysis can improve the design and efficacy of prospective, comparative trials but cannot replace them.

Trade-offs between survival and breast preservation for three initial treatments of ductal carcinoma-in-situ of the breast

PURPOSE

To assess the trade-offs between survival and breast preservation of currently accepted approaches for ductal carcinoma-in-situ (DCIS) of the breast.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Decision analysis was performed using the Markov model of hypothetical cohorts of 55-year-old white women with nonpalpable mammographic abnormalities found to be DCIS. Strategies were breast-conserving surgery (BCS), BCS with 50-Gy radiation (RT) or initial mastectomy. Recurrence rates were derived from the published literature. Main outcomes were overall, breast cancer-free, and event-free survival plus years of both breasts preserved.

RESULTS

Using the conditions defined in this model, the actuarial survival rates at 10 and 20 years were 91.7% and 74.1% for the initial mastectomy strategy, 91.0% and 72.1% for BCS plus RT, and 89.6% and 68.2% for BCS alone. At 20 years, the initial mastectomy strategy also had a greater breast cancer-free survival rate of 74.5%, compared with 63.3% for BCS plus RT, or 46.8% for BCS alone. However, BCS alone had the highest survival rate with both breasts preserved (64.2%) compared with BCS plus RT (56.0%) or initial mastectomy (0%). Of the breast-conserving strategies at 20 years, the breast event-free survival rate (no invasive cancer or DCIS) was greater for BCS plus RT (47.2%) compared with BCS alone (28.4%). Using just survival as the primary end point, mastectomy is the optimal strategy by a small margin. However, if quality-adjusted survival is at issue, mastectomy is the choice only if the yearly reduction in quality of life due to mastectomy is less than 1%.

CONCLUSION

BCS with or without radiation compared with mastectomy as initial management of DCIS of the breast trades a slight decrease in survival rates for the value of breast preservation. This model should aid clinicians in matching treatments to their patients' preferences.

Differences in initial treatment patterns and outcomes of lung cancer in the elderly

BACKGROUND

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for substantial deaths and costs in the elderly greater than 65 years old. The current practice of NSCLC treatment in a Medicare population was examined to ascertain important areas of practice variation, and differences in clinical outcome and costs.

METHODS

Data from incident cases of NSCLC from the Virginia Cancer Registry (VCR), 1985-89, were matched with claims from Medicare Part A and B, census tract data and the Area Resource File. Multivariate models were created to include clinical data, demographics, and access information.

RESULTS

For patients with locoregional disease, increasing age was associated with lower likelihood of therapy (odds ratio (OR) 0.35; confidence intervals (CI) 0.29, 0.43), thoracotomy (OR 0.27; CI 0.21, 0.34), and more use of radiation therapy compared to surgery (OR 1.69; CI 1.39, 2.03). Low education levels were associated with less likelihood of treatment (OR 0.78; CI 0.66, 0.94), or radiation instead of surgery (OR 1.22; CI 1.05, 1.47). Patients in urban areas were less likely to receive therapy (OR 0.67; CI 0.49, 0.92). For distant disease, increasing age was also associated with lower likelihood of treatment (OR 0.48; CI 0.41, 0.56), as was increasing co-morbidity (OR 0.84; CI 0.75, 0.93). Distance to radiation oncologists made no difference in radiotherapy utilization. Two year survival according to therapy was surgery 66%, radiation 15%, no therapy 17%.

CONCLUSIONS

Patterns of care, and survival according to therapy, vary widely for elderly NSCLC patients. Age, low education, higher co-morbidity and urban residence all decrease the likelihood of surgical therapy for locoregional NSCLC. Despite the availability of coverage through the Medicare program, use of therapies and survival is not uniform for all beneficiaries. Possible discrimination by age, co-morbid illnesses not recorded in the Medicare files, or patient and provider choice could all be involved; administrative billing files cannot resolve these important differences.