Cost-effectiveness of a pragmatic exercise intervention for women with breast cancer: results from a randomized controlled trial

Patient preferences for breast cancer screening: a systematic review update to inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care

BACKGROUND

Different guideline panels, and individuals, may make different decisions based in part on their preferences. Preferences for or against an intervention are viewed as a consequence of the relative importance people place on the expected or experienced health outcomes it incurs. These findings can then be considered as patient input when balancing effect estimates on benefits and harms reported by empirical evidence on the clinical effectiveness of screening programs. This systematic review update examined the relative importance placed by patients on the potential benefits and harms of mammography-based breast cancer screening to inform an update to the 2018 Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care's guideline on screening.

METHODS

We screened all articles from our previous review (search December 2017) and updated our searches to June 19, 2023 in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. We also screened grey literature, submissions by stakeholders, and reference lists. The target population was cisgender women and other adults assigned female at birth (including transgender men and nonbinary persons) aged ≥ 35 years and at average or moderately increased risk for breast cancer. Studies of patients with breast cancer were eligible for health-state utility data for relevant outcomes. We sought three types of data, directly through (i) disutilities of screening and curative treatment health states (measuring the impact of the outcome on one's health-related quality of life; utilities measured on a scale of 0 [death] to 1 [perfect health]), and (ii) other preference-based data, such as outcome trade-offs, and indirectly through (iii) the relative importance of benefits versus harms inferred from attitudes, intentions, and behaviors towards screening among patients provided with estimates of the magnitudes of benefit(s) and harms(s). For screening, we used machine learning as one of the reviewers after at least 50% of studies had been reviewed in duplicate by humans; full-text selection used independent review by two humans. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments used a single reviewer with verification. Our main analysis for utilities used data from utility-based health-related quality of life tools (e.g., EQ-5D) in patients; a disutility value of about 0.04 can be considered a minimally important value for the Canadian public. When suitable, we pooled utilities and explored heterogeneity. Disutilities were calculated for screening health states and between different treatment states. Non-utility data were grouped into categories, based on outcomes compared (e.g. for trade-off data), participant age, and our judgements of the net benefit of screening portrayed by the studies. Thereafter, we compared and contrasted findings while considering sample sizes, risk of bias, subgroup findings and data on knowledge scores, and created summary statements for each data set. Certainty assessments followed GRADE guidance for patient preferences and used consensus among at least two reviewers.

FINDINGS

Eighty-two studies (38 on utilities) were included. The estimated disutilities were 0.07 for a positive screening result (moderate certainty), 0.03-0.04 for a false positive (FP; "additional testing" resolved as negative for cancer) (low certainty), and 0.08 for untreated screen-detected cancer (moderate certainty) or (low certainty) an interval cancer. At ≤12 months, disutilities of mastectomy (vs. breast-conserving therapy), chemotherapy (vs. none) (low certainty), and radiation therapy (vs. none) (moderate certainty) were 0.02-0.03, 0.02-0.04, and little-to-none, respectively, though in each case findings were somewhat limited in their applicability. Over the longer term, there was moderate certainty for little-to-no disutility from mastectomy versus breast-conserving surgery/lumpectomy with radiation and from radiation. There was moderate certainty that a majority (>50%) and possibly a large majority (>75%) of women probably accept up to six cases of overdiagnosis to prevent one breast-cancer death; there was some uncertainty because of an indication that overdiagnosis was not fully understood by participants in some cases. Low certainty evidence suggested that a large majority may accept that screening may reduce breast-cancer but not all-cause mortality, at least when presented with relatively high rates of breast-cancer mortality reductions (n = 2; 2 and 5 fewer per 1000 screened), and at least a majority accept that to prevent one breast-cancer death at least a few hundred patients will receive a FP result and 10-15 will have a FP resolved through biopsy. An upper limit for an acceptable number of FPs was not evaluated. When using data from studies assessing attitudes, intentions, and screening behaviors, across all age groups but most evident for women in their 40s, preferences reduced as the net benefit presented by study authors decreased in magnitude. In a relatively low net-benefit scenario, a majority of patients in their 40s may not weigh the benefits as greater than the harms from screening whereas for women in their 50s a large majority may prefer screening (low certainty evidence for both ages). There was moderate certainty that a large majority of women 50 years of age and 50 to 69 years of age, who have usually experienced screening, weigh the benefits as greater than the harms from screening in a high net-benefit scenario. A large majority of patients aged 70-71 years who have recently screened probably think the benefits outweigh the harms of continuing to screen. A majority of women in their mid-70s to early 80s may prefer to continue screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence across a range of data sources on how informed patients value the potential outcomes from breast-cancer screening will be useful during decision-making for recommendations. The evidence suggests that all of the outcomes examined have importance to women of any age, that there is at least some and possibly substantial (among those in their 40s) variability across and within age groups about the acceptable magnitude of effects across outcomes, and that provision of easily understandable information on the likelihood of the outcomes may be necessary to enable informed decision making. Although studies came from a wide range of countries, there were limited data from Canada and about whether findings applied well across an ethnographically and socioeconomically diverse population.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Protocol available at Open Science Framework https://osf.io/xngsu/ .

Utilization and Cost of Outpatient Rehabilitation Services for Pediatric Patients Treated for Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Using a Commercial Claims Database

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the temporal trends and factors associated with outpatient rehabilitation utilization and costs for pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

DESIGN

Deidentified administrative claims data and longitudinal health information on patients representing a mixture of ages, ethnicities, and geographic regions across the United States were accessed using Optum Labs Data Warehouse. Regression models were constructed to assess associations of outpatient rehabilitation with age, sex, race and ethnicity, year of diagnosis, and region.

SETTING

Outpatient rehabilitation.

PARTICIPANTS

1000 Patients aged 1-30 years with a new diagnosis of ALL between 1993 and 2017 and continuous insurance coverage (N=1000).

INTERVENTION

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Outpatient rehabilitation service utilization and cost based on reimbursed charge codes, summarized over 36 months after cancer diagnosis.

RESULTS

In 1000 patients, utilization of outpatient rehabilitation services increased from 20% in 1993-2002 to 55% in 2013-2017. In the earliest era examined, physical and/or occupational therapy was provided to 18% and increased to 54% in the latest years. Speech service utilization remained between 5%-8% across timepoints. Inflation-adjusted cost for provision of services did not change significantly across time and remained low, accounting for a median of 1.3% (Q1, Q3 0.3, 3.4) of total treatment cost in 1993-2002 and decreasing to a median 0.4% (Q1, Q3, 0.1, 1.0) in 2013-2017. Age 1 to 5 years at ALL diagnosis was associated with increased rehabilitation visit number and cost, and treatment in the Midwest was associated with increased likelihood of outpatient rehabilitation service utilization compared to other geographic regions.

CONCLUSIONS

Outpatient rehabilitation services are being increasingly provided to patients with ALL at a relatively low cost per patient, yet geographic variability in care utilization is evident. These services do not add excessively to the overall cost of leukemia care and thus cost containment should not be an excuse to limit access.

Generic Health Utility Measures in Exercise Oncology: A Scoping Review and Future Directions

Despite the evidence that exercise is effective at mitigating common side effects in adults with cancer, it is rarely part of usual cancer care. One reason for this is the lack of economic evidence supporting the benefit of exercise. Economic evaluations often rely on the use of generic utility measures to assess cost effectiveness. This review identifies and synthesizes the literature on the use of generic utility measures used to evaluate exercise interventions for adults with cancer. A systematic search of the literature from January 2000 to February 2023 was conducted using four databases (Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Academic Search Complete). Exercise studies involving adults with any type of cancer that used a generic utility measure were eligible for inclusion. Of the 2780 citations retrieved, 10 articles were included in this review. Seven articles included economic evaluations, with varying results. Four studies reported on cost-effectiveness; however, detailed effectiveness data derived from the generic utility measure were often not reported. Generic utility measures help to compare baseline values of and changes in health utility weights across studies and to general population norms; however, to date, they are underutilized in exercise oncology studies. Consideration should be given to the identified research evidence, population, and methodological gaps.

Randomized Trial Evaluating a Self-Guided Lifestyle Intervention Delivered via Evidence-Based Materials versus a Waitlist Group on Changes in Body Weight, Diet Quality, Physical Activity, and Quality of Life among Breast Cancer Survivors

Background: Lifestyle interventions for breast cancer survivors have proved effective at stimulating positive behavior change and promoting healthy weight loss, although integrating these programs into clinical practice is challenging. We evaluated the effect of a 6-month, unsupervised, self-guided, lifestyle intervention using printed materials and online videos vs. waitlist group on body weight for breast cancer survivors. Methods: The Lifestyle, Exercise and Nutrition (LEAN) Self-Guided trial randomized breast cancer survivors with a body mass index ≥25 kg/m2 to a 6-month lifestyle intervention (N = 102) or waitlist group (N = 103). Effects of the intervention on self-reported body weight, physical activity (PA), diet quality (via Health Eating Index-2010 (HEI-2010)), and quality of life were assessed using mixed model repeated measures analysis. Results: At 6 months, the intervention arm had significantly greater weight loss compared with the waitlist group (mean difference = -1.3 kg, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -2.5, -0.13). We observed suggestive improvements in PA (mean difference = 18.7 min/week, 95% CI = -24.2, 61.6), diet quality (mean difference in HEI = 3.2 points, 95% CI = -0.20, 6.5), and fatigue (mean difference in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue scale = 1.4 points, 95% CI = -1.1, 3.9). Conclusions: The LEAN Self-Guided intervention led to favorable weight changes over 6 months. Low-resource-intensive programs have the potential to be delivered in diverse healthcare settings and may support breast cancer survivors in achieving a healthy body weight.

Cost-effectiveness of peer-delivered physical activity promotion and maintenance programs for initially sedentary breast cancer survivors

The evidence for the survival and health benefits of physical activity (PA) among cancer survivors is well documented. However, it has been challenging to maintain PA among cancer survivors. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of peer support to encourage maintenance of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) among breast cancer survivors. Participants were randomized into Reach Plus Message (weekly text/email messages), Reach Plus Phone (monthly phone calls) or Reach Plus (a self-monitoring intervention) over 6 months after an initial adoption phase. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) in terms of quality-adjusted years life years (QALYs) and self-reported MVPA, from the payer's budgetary and societal perspectives over 1 year. Intervention costs were collected via time logs from the trainers and peer coaches, and participant costs from the participants via surveys. For our sensitivity analyses, we bootstrapped costs and effects to construct cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves. The intervention that provides weekly messages from peer coaches has an ICER of $14,446 per QALY gained and $0.95 per extra minute of MVPA per day over Reach Plus. Reach Plus Message has a 49.8% and 78.5% probability of cost-effectiveness respectively when decision makers are willing to pay approximately $25,000 per QALY and $10 per additional minute of MVPA. Reach Plus Phone, which requires tailored monthly telephone calls, costs more than Reach Plus Message but yields less QALY and self-reported MVPA at 1 year. Reach Plus Message may be a viable and cost-effective intervention strategy to maintain MVPA among breast cancer survivors.

A cost-consequences analysis of the SAFE trial: a comparative, effectiveness trial evaluating high- versus low-supervision of an exercise intervention for women with breast cancer

PURPOSE

The aim of this analysis was to compare the cost-consequences of a 12 week exercise intervention when delivered under high- versus low-level supervision conditions by an Exercise Professional (ExP) to women with breast cancer.

METHODS

60 women (50 ± 9 years) with stage II + breast cancer, who were insufficiently active, and reported ≥ 1 comorbidities or persistent treatment-related side-effects, were randomized to the high- or low-supervision group. The high-supervision group received 20 supervised sessions with an ExP over a 12 week period (reflecting a typical research model), whereas the low-supervision group received five sessions over the same period (replicating what is publicly funded within Australia). Health outcomes including health-related quality of life, and physical and psychosocial outcomes were assessed at baseline and post-intervention. To assess intervention consequences, composite effectiveness scores were created by calculating mean z-scores from raw data for all outcomes per participant. Total program costs were calculated including program development, staff training, program implementation, and equipment.

RESULTS

79.3% of the high- and 63.0% of the low-supervision group showed clinically relevant health improvements. Cost per improver was $1,814 for 23 improvers and $1,571 for 17 improvers in the high- and low-supervision groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The SAFE exercise intervention, when delivered via high- or low-supervised conditions, represents good value with over 60% of women in both groups reporting health improvements. High-supervision levels resulted in a greater proportion of women experiencing health benefits, but future research will need to determine the longer term health impacts of these group differences.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Adjunctive Lifestyle Interventions for the Management of Cancer: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

There is a paucity of papers synthesizing the cost-effectiveness (CE) of lifestyle interventions to support cancer patients, and the synthesis papers available have used analytic methods that do not permit easy comparison between studies. We therefore evaluated the CE of adjunctive lifestyle interventions compared with usual care.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of Scopus, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library databases was conducted from database inception until June 2021. Eligible studies were economic evaluations from randomised controlled trials or modelled economic evaluations that recruited subjects with a confirmed diagnosis of cancer and were allocated to a lifestyle intervention as an adjunct or supportive treatment, or usual care. Studies were excluded if there was no cost-effectiveness analysis or if costs were identified but not related back to measures of effectiveness. CE of the included interventions was recalculated, adjusting for key differences (with respect to absolute resource costs and timing) between the broad range of study settings and a common 'target' setting. All CE data were converted into incremental net monetary benefit using a common cost-effectiveness threshold to facilitate comparison. The quality of the studies was evaluated for risk of bias using the ECOBIAS check list.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included in our review. Seven studies investigated the benefits of physical exercise in combination with cancer treatment and two studies investigated the combination of exercise and psychosocial counselling alongside cancer treatment. Six studies with an exercise intervention reported larger quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains compared with usual care and when cost per QALY gained was considered, three of the interventions were cost effective. One of the two interventions combining exercise with psychosocial counselling was cost effective. All studies were considered of good quality but all had some limitations.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence to support the cost effectiveness of lifestyle interventions in patients with cancer is mixed with four of the nine interventions found to be cost effective and two remaining cost effective when uncertainty was taken into account. Sensitivity analysis showed the influence of the CE threshold on the results, highlighting the importance of selecting a CE threshold that is appropriate to the setting.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42020185376.

Impact of telehealth interventions on physiological and psychological outcomes in breast cancer survivors: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Introduction

The use of telehealth interventions has been evaluated in different perspectives in women and also supported with various clinical trials, but its overall efficacy is still ascertained. The objective of the present review is to identify, appraise and analyze randomized controlled trials on breast cancer survivors who have participated in technology-based intervention programs incorporating a wide range of physical and psychological outcome measures.

Material and methods

We conducted electronic search of the literature during last twenty years i.e., from 2001 till August 10, 2021 through four databases. Standardized mean difference with 95% confidence interval was used.

Results

A total of 56 records were included in the qualitative and 28 in quantitative analysis. Pooled results show that telehealth interventions were associated with improved quality of life (SMD 0.48, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.92, p=0.04), reduced depression (SMD -1.27, 95% CI =-2.43 to -0.10 p=0.03), low distress and less perceived stress (SMD -0.40, 95% CI =-0.68 to -0.12, p=0.005). However, no significant differences were observed on weight change (SMD -0.27, 95% CI =-2.39 to 1.86, p=0.81) and anxiety scores (SMD -0.09, 95% CI =-0.20 to 0.02, p=0.10) between the two groups. Improvement in health care competence and fitness among participants was also reported.

Conclusion

Study concludes that telehealth care is a quick, convenient and assuring approach to breast cancer care in women that can reduce treatment burden and subsequent disturbance to the lives of breast cancer survivors.

ENDURANCE TRAINING ASSOCIATED WITH A HYPOCALORIC DIET IN OBESE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

ABSTRACT Introduction: The long-term energy imbalance between intake and consumption is the main reason for obesity in college students. Therefore, weight loss should also combine an inversely proportional intervention. Based on this premise, a growing number of studies combine physical training and diet to restore physical health in this population group. Objective: Study the impacts of endurance training associated with a low-calorie diet on the constitution and metabolism of obese college students. Methods: Through a questionnaire survey and a 4-week experimental endurance training program and hypocaloric diet, 20 obese college students volunteered for the intervention project. The exercise protocol for the training composition and the diet menu followed the updated recommendations in the scientific literature. At the end of the experiment, the relevant data collected were statistically analyzed and discussed. Results: After the diet intervention associated with endurance training, the BMI index of college students reduced from 28,075 to 26,378; the basal metabolic rate increased from 1581,046 kcal to 1681,317 kcal. Conclusion: Endurance training associated with a hypocaloric diet significantly reduced fat in obese college students. The efficacy of this association promoted a better joint effect on the outcome, compared to individual weight loss plans. Level of evidence II; Therapeutic studies - investigation of treatment outcomes.

A Systematic Literature Review of Health Utility Values in Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Health utility values (HUVs) are important inputs to the cost-utility analysis of breast cancer interventions.

PURPOSE

Provide a catalog of breast cancer-related published HUVs across different stages of breast cancer and treatment interventions.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic searches of MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EconLit, and Cochrane databases (2005-2017).

STUDY SELECTION

Studies published in English that reported mean or median HUVs using direct or indirect methods of utility elicitation for breast cancer.

DATA EXTRACTION

Independent reviewers extracted data on a preestablished and piloted form; disagreements were resolved through discussion.

DATA ANALYSIS

Mixed-effects meta-regression using restricted maximum likelihood modeling was conducted for intervention type, stage of breast cancer, and typical clinical and treatment trajectory of breast cancer patients to assess the effect of study characteristics (i.e., sample size, utility elicitation method, and respondent type) on HUVs.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Seventy-nine studies were included in the review. Most articles (n = 52, 66%) derived HUVs using the EQ-5D. Patients with advanced-stage breast cancer (range, 0.08 to 0.82) reported lower HUVs as compared with patients with early-stage breast cancer (range, 0.58 to 0.99). The meta-regression analysis found that undergoing chemotherapy and surgery and radiation, being diagnosed with an advanced stage of breast cancer, and recurrent cancer were associated with lower HUVs. The members of the general public reported lower HUVs as compared with patients.

LIMITATIONS

There was considerable heterogeneity in the study population, health states assessed, and utility elicitation methods.

CONCLUSION

This review provides a catalog of published HUVs related to breast cancer. The substantial heterogeneity in the health utility studies makes it challenging for researchers to choose which HUVs to use in cost-utility analyses for breast cancer interventions.

Telerehabilitation's Safety, Feasibility, and Exercise Uptake in Cancer Survivors: Process Evaluation

BACKGROUND

Access to exercise for cancer survivors is poor despite global recognition of its benefits. Telerehabilitation may overcome barriers to exercise for cancer survivors but is not routinely offered.

OBJECTIVE

Following the rapid implementation of an exercise-based telerehabilitation program in response to COVID-19, a process evaluation was conducted to understand the impact on patients, staff, and the health service with the aim of informing future program development.

METHODS

A mixed methods evaluation was completed for a telerehabilitation program for cancer survivors admitted between March and December 2020. Interviews were conducted with patients and staff involved in implementation. Routinely collected hospital data (adverse events, referrals, admissions, wait time, attendance, physical activity, and quality of life) were also assessed. Patients received an 8-week telerehabilitation intervention including one-on-one health coaching via telehealth, online group exercise and education, information portal, and home exercise prescription. Quantitative data were reported descriptively, and qualitative interview data were coded and mapped to the Proctor model for implementation research.

RESULTS

The telerehabilitation program received 175 new referrals over 8 months. Of those eligible, 123 of 150 (82%) commenced the study. There were no major adverse events. Adherence to health coaching was high (674/843, 80% of scheduled sessions), but participation in online group exercise classes was low (n=36, 29%). Patients improved their self-reported physical activity levels by a median of 110 minutes per week (IQR 90-401) by program completion. Patients were satisfied with telerehabilitation, but clinicians reported a mixed experience of pride in rapid care delivery contrasting with loss of personal connections. The average health service cost per patient was Aus $1104 (US $790).

CONCLUSIONS

Telerehabilitation is safe, feasible, and improved outcomes for cancer survivors. Learnings from this study may inform the ongoing implementation of cancer telerehabilitation.

Quality of Life: A Nurse-Led Physical Activity Coaching Program to Improve the Quality of Life of Patients With Cancer During the COVID-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND

Physical activity has been shown to mitigate many of the effects of cancer treatment, yet it often is not embraced by the patient or made part of the nursing standard of care.

OBJECTIVES

This pilot study evaluates the impact of the Oncology Nursing Society's Get Up, Get Moving program, a personalized, home-based, nurse-led physical activity coaching program.

METHODS

Patients with cancer in the intervention and control groups completed the SF-36® and the Godin Leisure-Time Exercise Questionnaire at weeks 1 and 12. All patients were initially counseled on exercise. A nurse called each member of the intervention group weekly to encourage physical activity and asked about fatigue, nausea, and step count. The control group was contacted at 6 weeks and 12 weeks only.

FINDINGS

The program, coupled with nurse telephone calls, increased steps, decreased fatigue, and maintained health-related quality of life among patients in the intervention group. The control group had a decrease in steps, a decline in their SF-36 general health score, and an increase in fatigue. Nurse coaching positively affects physical activity, which may help to decrease cancer treatment side effects.

Connected device and therapeutic patient education to promote physical activity among women with localised breast cancer (DISCO trial): protocol for a multicentre 2×2 factorial randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Despite safety and benefits of physical activity during treatment of localised breast cancer, successful exercise strategies remain to be determined. The primary objective of the 'dispositif connecté', that is, connected device in English trial is to evaluate the efficacy of two 6-month exercise interventions, either single or combined, concomitant to adjuvant treatments, on the physical activity level of patients with breast cancer, compared with usual care: an exercise programme using a connected device (activity tracker, smartphone application, website) and a therapeutic patient education intervention. Secondary objectives are to evaluate adherence to interventions, their impact at 6 and 12 months, representations and acceptability of interventions, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of the interventions using quality-adjusted life-years.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a 2×2 factorial, multicentre, phase III randomised controlled trial. The study population (with written informed consent) will consist of 432 women diagnosed with primary localised invasive breast carcinoma and eligible for adjuvant chemotherapy, hormonotherapy and/or radiotherapy. They will be randomly allocated between one of four arms: (1) web-based connected device (evolving target number of daily steps and an individualised, semisupervised, adaptive programme of two walking and one muscle strengthening sessions per week in autonomy), (2) therapeutic patient education (one educational diagnosis, two collective educational sessions, one evaluation), (3) combination of both interventions and (4) control. All participants will receive the international physical activity recommendations. Assessments (baseline, 6 and 12 months) will include physical fitness tests, anthropometrics measures, body composition (CT scan, bioelectrical impedance), self-administered questionnaires (physical activity profile (Recent Physical Activity Questionnaire), quality of life (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-Of-Life Questionnaire-30, EQ-5D-5L), fatigue (Piper Fatigue Scale-12), social deprivation (Evaluation of Deprivation and Inequalities in Health Examination Centres), lifestyle, physical activity barriers, occupational status) and biological parameters (blood draw).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was reviewed and approved by the French Ethics Committee. The findings will be disseminated to the scientific and medical community via publications in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03529383; Pre-results.

Identifying outcomes reported in exercise interventions in oesophagogastric cancer survivors: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Research investigating exercise interventions in oesophagogastric cancer survivors is sparse, and the outcomes are varied. The aim of this systematic review is to identify the domains and outcomes reported in exercise interventions in oesophagogastric cancer survivors to be included in a Delphi study, with a view to informing the development of a core outcome set (COS).

METHODS

EMBASE, PubMed, CINHAL, Cochrane Library, SCOPUS, and PEDro were searched up to March 2020 using a predefined search strategy. The outcomes identified during data extraction were categorised using the core areas outlined in the OMERACT Filter 2.0.

RESULTS

Fourteen domains and 63 outcomes were identified. The most frequently reported outcomes were in the domains of quality of life using the EORTC-QLQ-C30 questionnaire and the relevant disease-specific modules (100%), exercise capacity/fitness/physical function (100%), anthropometrics (83.33%), physical activity (66.67%), and biomarker analysis (50%).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review quantifies and describes the domains and outcomes examined in exercise interventions in oesophagogastric cancer survivors. Some inconsistency exists within the domains and outcomes used, and little attention was given to nutritional or economic endpoints. In order to develop a COS, a Delphi consensus process with key stakeholders is needed to identify the relevant domains and outcomes for inclusion.

Cost-effectiveness of physical activity interventions in cancer survivors of developed countries: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Physical activity has been shown to improve survival and quality of life of cancer patients. Due to differences in patient populations, healthcare settings, and types of intervention, cost-effectiveness analyses of physical activity interventions in cancer survivors are difficult to compare. Available evidence from breast cancer survivor research has shown inconsistent results, and transfer of results to other types of cancer is not straightforward. This paper systematically reviewed current evidence on the cost-effectiveness of physical activity interventions in cancer survivors independent of cancer type compared to usual care or another experimental intervention.

METHODS

The literature search was conducted in seven databases and enhanced by a search for gray literature. Eligible studies were restricted to developed countries and assessed using the CHEERS, CHEC, and PHILIPS checklists. The study protocol was pre-published in PROSPERO.

RESULTS

Seven studies, five cost-utility, and two combined cost-utility/cost-effectiveness analyses fully met the inclusion criteria. They covered eight different types of cancer and various interventions. The cost-effectiveness analyses were of moderate to high methodological quality. A high probability of cost-effectiveness was reported in two analyses. One intervention appeared to be not cost-effective, and one to be cost-effective only from an organizational perspective. Three other analyses reported a cost-effectiveness better than US$ 101,195 (€ 80,000) per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

Physical activity interventions in cancer survivors of developed countries were cost-effective in some but not all clinical trials reviewed.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Cost-effectiveness of physical activity interventions appear to depend upon the intensity of the activity.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis from a Randomized Controlled Trial of Tailored Exercise Prescription for Women with Breast Cancer with 8-Year Follow-Up

Studies show conflicting results on whether exercise interventions to improve outcomes for women with breast cancer are cost-effective. We modelled the long-term cost-effectiveness of the Exercise for Health intervention compared with usual care. A lifetime Markov cohort model for women with early breast cancer was constructed taking a societal perspective. Data were obtained from trial, epidemiological, quality of life, and healthcare cost reports. Outcomes were calculated from 5000 Monte Carlo simulations, and one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Over the cohort's remaining life, the incremental cost for the exercise versus usual care groups were $7409 and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained were 0.35 resulting in an incremental cost per QALY ratio of AU$21,247 (95% Uncertainty Interval (UI): Dominant, AU$31,398). The likelihood that the exercise intervention was cost-effective at acceptable levels was 93.0%. The incremental cost per life year gained was AU$8894 (95% UI Dominant, AU$11,769) with a 99.4% probability of being cost effective. Findings were most sensitive to the probability of recurrence in the exercise and usual care groups, followed by the costs of out-of-pocket expenses and the model starting age. This exercise intervention for women after early-stage breast cancer is cost-effective and would be a sound investment of healthcare resources.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Supervised Exercise Training in Men with Prostate Cancer Previously Treated with Radiation Therapy and Androgen-Deprivation Therapy

BACKGROUND

Exercise for prostate cancer (PCa) survivors has been shown to be effective in addressing metabolic function and associated co-morbidities, as well as sarcopenia and significant functional impairment resulting from long-term androgen deprivation. Evidence on the cost-effectiveness of exercise interventions for PCa, however, is lacking, thus the aim of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of a supervised exercise intervention for long-term PCa survivors who previously received radiation therapy and androgen-deprivation therapy.

METHODS

Cost-effectiveness analysis from an Australian healthcare-payer perspective was conducted using patient-level data from a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) of supervised exercise training (resistance and aerobic) compared to receiving printed exercise material and a recommendation to exercise in long-term PCa survivors (> 5 years post-diagnosis). Analysis was undertaken for the 6-month supervised exercise portion of the intervention, which involved 100 men aged between 62 and 85 years, 50 in each arm. The primary outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).

RESULTS

A 6-month supervised exercise intervention for PCa survivors resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of AU$64,235 (2018 AUD) at an incremental cost of AU$546 per person and a QALY gain of 0.0085. At a willingness-to-pay of AU$50,000, the probability that the intervention is cost-effective was 41%. Sensitivity analysis showed that maintenance of benefits via a 6-month home-based intervention, immediately following the supervised intervention, lowered the cost per QALY gained to AU$32,051.

DISCUSSION

This is the first cost-effectiveness analysis of exercise for PCa survivors. The intervention was effective, but unlikely to be cost-effective at the generally accepted willingness-to-pay of AU$50,000 per QALY. It is likely that evidence to support cost savings from post-intervention outcomes would reveal greater benefits and contribute to a more comprehensive cost-effectiveness analysis. Future RCTs should incorporate longer follow-up durations and collection of data to support modelling to capture future health benefits. Measures of quality of life or utility more sensitive to the impact of physical activity would also improve future economic evaluations.

A Model-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of an Exercise Program for Lung Cancer Survivors After Curative-Intent Treatment

OBJECTIVE

The cost-effectiveness of exercise interventions in lung cancer survivors is unknown. We performed a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of an exercise intervention in lung cancer survivors.

DESIGN

We used Markov modeling to simulate the impact of the Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders exercise intervention compared with usual care for stage I-IIIA lung cancer survivors after curative-intent treatment. We calculated and considered incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of less than US $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year as cost-effective and assessed model uncertainty using sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

The base-case model showed that the Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders exercise program would increase overall cost by US $4740 and effectiveness by 0.06 quality-adjusted life-years compared with usual care and have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US $79,504/quality-adjusted life-year. The model was most sensitive to the cost of the exercise program, probability of increasing exercise, and utility benefit related to exercise. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of US $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year, Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders had a 71% probability of being cost-effective compared with 27% for usual care. When we included opportunity costs, Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US $179,774/quality-adjusted life-year, exceeding the cost-effectiveness threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

A simulation of the Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders exercise intervention in lung cancer survivors demonstrates cost-effectiveness from an organization but not societal perspective. A similar exercise program for lung cancer survivors may be cost-effective.

Systematic review of economic evaluations of exercise and physiotherapy for patients treated for breast cancer

PURPOSE

Treatments for breast cancer can lead to chronic musculoskeletal problems. This study aimed to systematically review the evidence surrounding the cost-effectiveness of exercise and physiotherapy interventions aimed at reducing the risk of physical symptoms and functional limitations due to breast cancer treatment.

METHODS

A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of exercise and physiotherapy interventions during and following treatment for breast cancer was undertaken according to PRISMA guidelines. Literature searches were carried out in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Web of Science, EconLit, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus and the Cochrane Library. Cost-effectiveness evidence was summarised in a descriptive manner and studies were assessed using quality appraisal tools. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO.

RESULTS

A total of 7783 articles were identified and seven were included in the final review. Five studies undertook trial-based economic evaluations, whereas two studies conducted economic evaluation based on decision models. One study was a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), three undertook stand-alone cost-utility analyses (CUA) and three studies were combined CEAs and CUAs. Three studies reported favourable cost-effectiveness results for different exercise or physiotherapy interventions. In contrast, four studies found that exercise and physiotherapy interventions were not cost-effective on the basis of quality-adjusted life year outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence surrounding the cost-effectiveness of exercise and physiotherapy interventions for the treatment of breast cancer remains sparse with contrasting conclusions. Future research should particularly aim to broaden the evidence base by disentangling the contributing effects of frequency, intensity, time and type of exercise and physiotherapy interventions on cost-effectiveness outcomes.

COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERVENTIONS BASED ON PHYSICAL ACTIVITY IN THE TREATMENT OF CHRONIC CONDITIONS: A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW

Objectives:

The aim of this study is to review evidence on the cost-effectiveness of exercise-based interventions in the treatment of chronic conditions a decade after the publication of Roine et al. in 2009 (Roine E, Roine RP, Räsänen P, et al. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:427–454).

Methods:

We carried out a review of published articles in PUBMED and JSTOR between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2016. Full economic evaluations of exercise programs targeting patients with a chronic condition were eligible for inclusion. Data on program, design, and economic characteristics were extracted using a predefined extraction form. The quality of the economic evaluations was appraised using the adjusted Consensus Health Economic Criteria List.

Results:

A total of 426 articles were identified and thirty-seven studies were selected. Eleven studies dealt with musculoskeletal and rheumatologic disorders, ten with cardiovascular diseases, six with neurological disorders, three with mental illnesses, three with cancers, and four with diabetes, respiratory diseases, or pelvic organ prolapse. In total, 60 percent of exercise programs were dominant or cost-effective. For musculoskeletal and rheumatologic disorders, 72 percent of programs were dominant or cost-effective while this was the case for 57 percent of programs for cardiovascular diseases using a nonsurgical comparator.

Conclusions:

There is clear evidence in favor of exercise-based programs for the treatment of musculoskeletal and rheumatologic disorders and, to a lesser extent, for the treatment of cardiovascular diseases. More research is needed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of physical activity in the treatment of neurological disorders, mental illnesses, cancers, respiratory diseases, and diabetes/obesity.

Cost-effectiveness of the BRECONDA decision aid for women with breast cancer: Results from a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To report on the cost-effectiveness of BRECONDA (Breast RECONstruction Decision Aid), a web-based decision aid to facilitate decisions regarding breast reconstruction surgery, with usual care for women with breast cancer.

METHODS

The economic evaluation was conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial. Women diagnosed with breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ and eligible for breast reconstruction following mastectomy were randomized to access BRECONDA for 6 months + usual care (n = 106) or usual care (n = 116) and were assessed at baseline preintervention, and then 1-month and 6-months post-randomization. Decisional conflict, satisfaction with information, decisional regret, and utilities were assessed by using maximum-likelihood linear mixed effects models. Costs included the fixed costs of BRECONDA, health care provider time, and health care resource use. Nonparametric bootstrapping was used to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

RESULTS

BRECONDA resulted in significantly less decisional conflict and greater satisfaction with information over time. Quality-adjusted life years did not differ between participants who received the decision aid compared with usual care. The cost of BRECONDA was estimated to be small (AUD$10) relative to other health care interventions and resulted in decreased health care costs overall (AUD$764). Based on the point estimates, the decision aid was more effective and less costly (dominant) for all measures of effectiveness. It was estimated that the decision aid has an 87% probability of being cost-effective at $60 000 per quality-adjusted life year gained.

CONCLUSIONS

The BRECONDA web-based intervention designed to facilitate decisions regarding breast reconstruction surgery is likely to be cost-effective compared with usual care for women with breast cancer.

Exercise following breast cancer: exploratory survival analyses of two randomised, controlled trials

PURPOSE

The Exercise for Health trials were randomised, controlled trials designed to evaluate an 8-month pragmatic exercise intervention, commencing 6 weeks post-surgery for women with newly diagnosed breast cancer residing in urban or rural/regional Australia. For these exploratory analyses, the primary and secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS), respectively.

METHODS

Consenting urban- (n = 194) and rural/regional-residing women (n = 143) were randomised to exercise (intervention delivered face-to-face or by telephone) or usual care. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for survival outcomes (exercise group, n = 207, 65% urban women; usual care group, n = 130, 46% urban women).

RESULTS

After a median follow-up of 8.3 years, there were 11 (5.3%) deaths in the exercise group compared with 15 (11.5%) deaths in the usual care group (OS HR for the exercise group: 0.45, 95% CI 0.20-0.96; p = 0.04). DFS events for the exercise versus usual care group were 25 (12.1%) and 23 (17.7%), respectively (HR: 0.66, 95% CI 0.38-1.17; p = 0.16). HRs for OS favoured exercise irrespective of age, body mass index, stage of disease, intervention compliance, and physical activity levels at 12 months post-diagnosis, although were stronger (p < 0.05) for younger women, women with stage II + disease, women with 1 + comorbidity at time of diagnosis, higher intervention compliance and for those who met national physical activity guidelines at 12 months post-diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

An exercise intervention delivered during and beyond treatment for breast cancer, and that was designed to cater for all women irrespective of place of residence and access to health services, has clear potential to benefit survival. Trial numbers: ACT RN: 012606000233527; ACT RN: 12609000809235.