Cancer patient care in clinical trials sponsored by the National Cancer Institute: what does it cost?

Drug cost savings in phase III hematological oncology clinical trials in a university hospital

The rapid emergence of expensive anticancer therapies is leading to exponential growth in healthcare expenses. In clinical trials, most investigational drugs are provided free of charge by industrial and academic sponsors. This results in drug cost savings for healthcare payers, who are no longer charged with the cost of the standard-of-care treatment, which would have been administered outside the trial. This study aims to estimate drug cost savings resulting from patient enrolment in hematological oncology clinical trials, from a public payer perspective. Retrospective screening identified all patients with hematological malignancies included from 2011 to 2016 in a phase III trial and having received at least one sponsor-provided cycle. Drug cost savings were defined as the standard treatment costs not charged to the payer due to sponsor provision of treatment. For each patient, cost savings were determined by the number of cycles received in the trial and the cost of standard (control arm) treatment. Of the 345 patients included in eligible trials during study period, 272 received sponsor-provided drugs. Drug cost savings could be estimated for 177 patients (65.1%) included in 27 trials. Total cost savings were €5218 million (US$ 6804 million) for 1720 sponsor-provided cycles. Mean cost saving per patient was €19 182.7 ± 29 865.7 ($25 015.24 ± 39 478.25). Most cost-saving trials were industry-sponsored (77.8%), although academic trials generated 40.15% of total cost savings. Enrolling patients in clinical trials, whether industry-sponsored or academic, leads to substantial drug cost savings for payers. Implications are significant for public payers facing increasing financial constraints, as savings can be reallocated to patient care.

A screening tool to enhance clinical trial participation at a community center involved in a radiation oncology disparities program

PURPOSE

To investigate the effectiveness of a screening tool to enhance clinical trial participation at a community radiation oncology center involved in a National Cancer Institute-funded disparities program but lacking on-site clinical trials personnel.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The screening form was pasted to the front of the charts and filled out for all new patients over the 9-month period of the study, during which time five external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) trials and a patient perception study were open for accrual. Patient consent was obtained by assorted personnel at several different sites. Patients potentially eligible for a trial were identified and approached by one of the clinic staff. Patients who were under- or uninsured, age > 80 years, members of an racial/ethnic minority, or recipients of medical assistance were identified as at risk for health care disparities and were offered patient navigator services.

RESULTS

Of 196 patients consulted during the study, 144 were treated with EBRT. Of the 24 patients eligible for EBRT trials, 23 were approached (one had an incomplete screening form), and 15 accepted. Of 77 patients eligible for a patient perception trial, 72 were approached (five had incomplete forms), and 45 accepted. The eligibility and acceptance rates for EBRT trials were similar for disparities and nondisparities patients. Screening was completed for 96 patients (67%).

CONCLUSION

When completed, the screening tool ensured clinical trial accrual. The major factor limiting overall accrual was a shortage of available trials.

The changing face of phase 1 cancer clinical trials: new challenges in study requirements

Phase 1 studies in cancer have changed in recent years. Now, with the advent of new, less toxic, targeted agents, more patients may be candidates for new drug studies earlier in the course of their disease. It is to the advantage of the members of the oncology community to know more regarding the details and requirements for participation in early-phase clinical trials so they can advocate for their patients and help them decide when such trials may be an appropriate choice. To examine the work intensity of early phase cancer clinical trials, the authors of this report compared the study requirements of phase 1 and 2 protocols. Five parameters were studied as a surrogate of study complexity-the number of physical examinations, vital sign determinations, electrocardiograms (ECGs), nonpharmacokinetic laboratory tests, and pharmacokinetic (PK) sampling-in the first 4 weeks of protocol in 90 studies (49 phase 1 studies and 41 phase 2 studies). From July 2004 through March 2007, there were 49 phase 1 trials in the phase 1 Program, 9 phase 2 studies that were conducted by physicians appointed in that program, and 32 phase 2 trials with accessible data in the Department of Thoracic/Head & Neck Medical Oncology. In the phase 1 trials versus the phase 2 trials, there were significantly more (P < .05) physical examinations (mean +/- standard error, 3.16 +/- 0.24 vs 2.22 +/- 0.13), vital sign determinations (5.63 +/- 0.61 vs 2.80 +/- 0.26), ECGs (4.36 +/- 1.16 vs 0.80 +/- 0.17), nonpharmacokinetic laboratory tests (18.08 +/- 1.31 vs 10.12 +/- 0.65), and PK sampling (15.14 +/- 1.79 vs 1.02 +/- 0.53). These values also differed significantly (P < .005 for each) when the median values were compared in nonparametric tests. Although both phase 1 and phase 2 trials had substantial study requirements, those for the phase 1 studies were significantly higher. The successful conduct of early-phase clinical trials requires significant research infrastructure.

Enrollment of older patients in cancer treatment trials in Canada: why is age a barrier?

PURPOSE

To evaluate the enrollment of older patients (>/= 65 years) in Canadian cancer treatment trials and compare accrual of older patients in Canada and the United States.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the number of older patients enrolled in National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group (NCIC CTG) treatment trials between 1993 and 1996 was performed. These rates were compared with the corresponding rates in the general population of patients who were >/= 65 years old and had cancer, obtained from Statistics Canada, and those published by the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) in the United States.

RESULTS

Between 1993 and 1996, 4,174 patients were enrolled onto 69 NCIC CTG trials of 16 tumor types. Older patients accounted for 22% of trial enrollees, compared with 58% of the Canadian population with cancer. This discrepancy existed in all cancer types except for multiple myeloma. The percentages of older patients enrolled were also analyzed by study type: 15% in adjuvant trials, 25% in metastatic trials, 29% in investigational new drug trials, 24% in phase I trials, and 21% in supportive care trials. The overall proportion of older patients enrolled onto Canadian trials (22%) was slightly lower than that in SWOG trials (25%).

CONCLUSION

Age remains a barrier for accrual onto cancer treatment trials, even when reimbursement is not an issue. Strategies to overcome this barrier, including the implementation of trials specifically tailored to patients aged >/= 65 years, are prudent in light of our aging population.

Clinical trial participation among patients enrolled in the Glioma Outcomes Project

BACKGROUND

Patient participation in well-designed and conducted clinical trials enables researchers to test new therapies. An understanding of the variables that possibly influence patient enrollment may help in patient recruitment for future trials. The authors evaluated factors that influenced patient enrollment in clinical trials using a prospective, large, multi-institutional registry of patients with malignant glioma.

METHODS

Data were examined from 708 patients who underwent first or second surgery for a malignant glioma who were enrolled in the Glioma Outcomes Project, which is a prospective observational data base that captures clinical practice patterns. The frequency of clinical trial participation and the variables that may have been associated with trial participation were evaluated. These variables included age, gender, race, household income, educational level, first versus second craniotomy, histology, and whether the patient was treated at an academic institution.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-one of 708 patients (21.3%) participated in a clinical trial, which was higher than the participation reported typically for patients with other types of primary malignancies. In univariate analysis, race, histology, and first craniotomy were significant between the two groups, with Caucasian patients and patients with glioblastoma histology showing higher participation rates. In a multivariate logistic regression model, significant predictors included young age and glioblastoma multiforme histology.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors present information on factors that may influence clinical trial participation among patients with malignant glioma and compare their data with information described previously on patients with other types of malignant disease. The percent of participation among the patients in the current study was greater than among patients with other primary tumor sites. Strategies should be implemented to improve recruitment to neuro-oncology trials, especially in elderly and minority populations.

Factors affecting workload of cancer clinical trials: results of a multicenter study of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group

PURPOSE

Increasingly, cancer treatment centers need to be able to estimate specific costs and resources associated with clinical trials. Because the time requirements of trial coordination and data collection are not well known, the Clinical Research Associates (CRA) Committee of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group carried out a multicenter study to measure trials' task times and evaluate the effects of certain factors.

METHODS

A data collection instrument was designed and validated before its implementation in the study. Eighty-three CRAs from 24 cancer treatment institutions across Canada collected timing observations of 41 tasks (156 subtasks). Information from all stages of trials activity (protocol management, eligibility and entry, treatment, and follow-up and final stage) was obtained, from initial negotiations to follow-up after study closure.

RESULTS

After controlling for stage, phase and sponsor were found to be significant independent factors. Analysis within the stages showed similar patterns. New drug inclusion as a factor was confounded with phase. Industry-sponsored studies had significantly higher overall mean times than did local and cooperative group studies. Early-phase studies required more time than did phase III trials. External sponsorship of any kind increased CRA time more than that necessary for locally coordinated studies, except during the protocol management stage. The burden of a phase I study increased to greater than average once underway and accruing patients.

CONCLUSION

Our data demonstrated that sponsor and study phase are important factors to be taken into consideration when estimating clinical trial costs and resource use.

Does enrollment in a randomized clinical trial lead to a higher cost of routine care?

BACKGROUND

Reimbursement for the routine care of patients enrolled in clinical trials is controversial. Our objective was to determine the added medical costs, if any, associated with enrollment in a randomized clinical trial.

METHODS

We analyzed data from the Myocardial Infarction Triage and Intervention (MITI) Trial (1988-1991) and the registry of all patients admitted to 19 Seattle area coronary care units (1988-1993). The major trial entry criteria were age 35 to 71 years, symptom duration 15 minutes to 6 hours, and acute myocardial infarction on electrocardiogram. The trial group consisted of 264 of 324 randomized patients who received thrombolytics and had available cost data. From 11,932 registry patients, we identified a control group who met trial entry criteria but who were not enrolled because of logistic barriers or presentation outside the trial enrollment period, 335 of whom received thrombolytics and had available cost data. The groups were compared for total cost for initial hospitalization, with and without multivariable adjustment for baseline characteristics.

RESULTS

Total hospital cost was not different between trial patients (median $11,516) and control subjects (median $14,200) (trial/control mean cost ratio 0.91 [95% CI 0.82-1.02]). Participation in the trial had an insignificant effect on costs in the multivariable model (cost ratio 1.04, 95% CI 0.95-1.16). Significant predictors of cost included hospital of admission, length of stay, and coronary revascularization procedures.

CONCLUSION

Participation in the MITI randomized trial had no effect on the cost of routine care.

Measuring the incremental cost of clinical cancer research

PURPOSE

To summarize evidence on the costs of treating patients in clinical trials and to describe the Cost of Cancer Treatment Study, an ongoing effort to produce generalizable estimates of the incremental costs of government-sponsored cancer trials.

METHODS

A retrospective study of costs will be conducted with 1,500 cancer patients recruited from a randomly selected sample of institutions in the United States. Patients accrued to either phase II or phase III National Cancer Institute-sponsored clinical trials during a 15-month period will be asked to participate in a study of their health care utilization (n = 750). Costs will be measured approximately 1 year after their trial enrollment from a combination of billing records, medical records, and an in-person survey questionnaire. Similar data will be collected for a comparable group of cancer patients not in trials (n = 750) to provide an estimate of the incremental cost.

RESULTS

Evidence suggests insurers limit access to trials because of cost concerns. Public and private efforts are underway to change these policies, but their permanent status is unclear. Previous studies found that treatment costs in clinical trials are similar to costs of standard therapy. However, it is difficult to generalize from these studies because of the unique practice settings, insufficient sample sizes, and the exclusion of potentially important costs.

CONCLUSION

Denials of coverage for treatment in a clinical trial limit patient access to trials and could impede clinical research. Preliminary estimates suggest changes to these policies would not be expensive, but these results are not generalizable. The Cost of Cancer Treatment Study is an ongoing effort to provide generalizable estimates of the incremental treatment cost of phase II and phase III cancer trials. The results should be of great interest to insurers and the research community as they consider permanent ways to finance cancer trials.

Evaluating the financial impact of clinical trials in oncology: results from a pilot study from the Association of American Cancer Institutes/Northwestern University clinical trials costs and charges project

PURPOSE

Medical care for clinical trials is often not reimbursed by insurers, primarily because of concern that medical care as part of clinical trials is expensive and not part of standard medical practice. In June 2000, President Clinton ordered Medicare to reimburse for medical care expenses incurred as part of cancer clinical trials, although many private insurers are concerned about the expense of this effort. To inform this policy debate, the costs and charges of care for patients on clinical trials are being evaluated. In this Association of American Cancer Institutes (AACI) Clinical Trials Costs and Charges pilot study, we describe the results and operational considerations of one of the first completed multisite economic analyses of clinical trials.

METHODS

Our pilot effort included assessment of total direct medical charges for 6 months of care for 35 case patients who received care on phase II clinical trials and for 35 matched controls (based on age, sex, disease, stage, and treatment period) at five AACI member cancer centers. Charge data were obtained for hospital and ancillary services from automated claims files at individual study institutions. The analyses were based on the perspective of a third-party payer.

RESULTS

The mean age of the phase II clinical trial patients was 58.3 years versus 57.3 years for control patients. The study population included persons with cancer of the breast (n = 24), lung (n = 18), colon (n = 16), prostate (n = 4), and lymphoma (n = 8). The ratio of male-to-female patients was 3:4, with greater than 75% of patients having stage III to IV disease. Total mean charges for treatment from the time of study enrollment through 6 months were similar: $57,542 for clinical trial patients and $63,721 for control patients (1998 US$; P =.4)

CONCLUSION

Multisite economic analyses of oncology clinical trials are in progress. Strategies that are not likely to overburden data managers and clinicians are possible to devise. However, these studies require careful planning and coordination among cancer center directors, finance department personnel, economists, and health services researchers.

The National Cancer Program

OBJECTIVES

To provide an understanding of the history, progress, and future of the National Cancer Program.

DATA SOURCES

Published articles, reports, book chapters, and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) web site.

CONCLUSIONS

The NCI is the largest agency for cancer research. The cancer incidence and burden remains significant in spite of many advances. Oncology nurses can contribute to the prevention and cure of cancer through an enhanced understanding of the NCI's program.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

The NCI provides many opportunities for oncology nurses. Nurses can conduct NCI-sponsored research trials, serve on NCI advisory boards, and participate in clinical research. Nurses can advise patients and the public of the many resources available to patients from the NCI and assist patients with informed decision making.

Cost of care for patients in cancer clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Information on the costs of medical care for patients enrolled in clinical trials is needed by policymakers evaluating ways to facilitate clinical research in a managed care environment. We examined the direct costs of medical care for patients enrolled in cancer clinical trials at a large health maintenance organization (HMO).

METHODS

Costs for 135 patients who entered 22 cancer clinical trials (including 12 breast cancer trials) at Kaiser Permanente in Northern California, from 1994 through 1996 were compared with costs for 135 matched control subjects who were not enrolled in such trials. Cancer registry data and medical charts were used in matching the control subjects to the trial enrollees with respect to cancer site, stage, date of diagnosis, age, sex, and trial eligibility. The direct costs of medical care were compared between trial enrollees and the control subjects for a 1-year period, with data on costs and utilization of services obtained from Kaiser Permanente databases and medical charts.

RESULTS

Mean 1-year costs for the enrollees in trials were 10% higher than those for the control subjects ($17 003 per enrollee compared with $15 516 per control subject; two-sided P =.011). The primary component of this difference was a $1376 difference in chemotherapy costs ($4815 per trial enrollee versus $3439 per control subject; two-sided P<.001). Costs for the 11 enrollees in trials that had a bone marrow transplant (BMT) arm were approximately double the costs for their matched control subjects (borderline significance: two-sided P=.054). The $15 041 mean cost for the enrollees in trials without BMT was similar to the $15 186 mean cost for their matched control subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

Participation in cancer clinical trials at a large HMO did not result in substantial increases in the direct costs of medical care.