The forest and the trees: the human costs of cancer

Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, Part 2: Patient Economic Burden Associated With Cancer Care

BACKGROUND

The American Cancer Society, National Cancer Institute, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and North American Association of Central Cancer Registries provide annual information about cancer occurrence and trends in the United States. Part 1 of this annual report focuses on national cancer statistics. This study is part 2, which quantifies patient economic burden associated with cancer care.

METHODS

We used complementary data sources, linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare, and the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey to develop comprehensive estimates of patient economic burden, including out-of-pocket and patient time costs, associated with cancer care. The 2000-2013 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data were used to estimate net patient out-of-pocket costs among adults aged 65 years and older for the initial, continuing, and end-of-life phases of care for all cancer sites combined and separately for the 21 most common cancer sites. The 2008-2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data were used to calculate out-of-pocket costs and time costs associated with cancer among adults aged 18-64 years and 65 years and older.

RESULTS

Across all cancer sites, annualized net out-of-pocket costs for medical services and prescriptions drugs covered through a pharmacy benefit among adults aged 65 years and older were highest in the initial ($2200 and $243, respectively) and end-of-life phases ($3823 and $448, respectively) and lowest in the continuing phase ($466 and $127, respectively), with substantial variation by cancer site. Out-of-pocket costs were generally higher for patients diagnosed with later-stage disease. Net annual time costs associated with cancer were $304.3 (95% confidence interval = $257.9 to $350.9) and $279.1 (95% confidence interval = $215.1 to $343.3) for adults aged 18-64 years and ≥65 years, respectively, with higher time costs among more recently diagnosed survivors. National patient economic burden, including out-of-pocket and time costs, associated with cancer care was projected to be $21.1 billion in 2019.

CONCLUSIONS

This comprehensive study found that the patient economic burden associated with cancer care is substantial in the United States at the national and patient levels.

Considering anticipated regret may reduce colorectal cancer screening intentions: a randomised controlled trial

Objective: Regular screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) can substantially improve outcomes. This study investigated how measuring regret expected from failing to screen might lead to stronger screening intentions. Five potential moderators were evaluated: perceived threat, psychological reactance, prior screening participation, concurrently measuring faecal aversion (FA) and anticipated regret (AR). Design: A 2 (AR measured pre/post intention) × 2 (FA measured pre/post intention) single blind parallel randomised controlled trial was used. Australians aged 45 and over completed an online survey measuring AR, FA, intention, theory of planned behaviour variables and potential moderators. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was CRC screening intention. Results: Eight hundred and three participants were randomised, with 666 analysed. Measuring AR prior to intention unexpectedly resulted in a significantly lower intention to screen (d = 0.18, 95% CI [0.03, 0.33]) compared to measuring after intention. Trait reactance predicted a significantly lower intention when it was at least 0.52 SD above the mean; other moderators were not supported. Conclusion: The processes underlying anticipated regret manipulations must be better understood in order to have practical value in health promotion. More research is required to determine how to minimise or avoid the apparent negative effects of psychological reactance in CRC screening communication. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12618001098224 http://www.ANZCTR.org.au/ACTRN12618001098224.aspx.

Utility of serum tumor markers as an aid in the differential diagnosis of patients with clinical suspicion of cancer and in patients with cancer of unknown primary site

Cancer may be diagnosed in advanced stages, when the patient has already developed metastasis, with symptoms that can be also observed in benign diseases. The objective of this study was to evaluate tumor marker sensitivity and specificity in the differential diagnosis of patients with suspected signs of cancer. We studied 2.711 consecutive patients admitted to the Internal Medicine Department of our hospital with suspected cancer; 1.240 patients had non-malignant processes and 1.471 had malignant disease. Determinations were considered positive for suspected malignancy when serum levels were carcinoembryonic antigen >15 ng/ml (>20 in patients with renal failure or liver disease), alpha fetoprotein >40 ng/ml (>80 ng/ml in patients with liver diseases), carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19.9 > 200 U/ml (>500 U/ml in patients with liver diseases or gamma glutamyl transpeptidase (GGT) <150 UI/L or effusions; >1.000 U/ml in patients with jaundice or GGT > 150 UI/L), neuron-specific enolase >45 ng/ml (renal failure >50 ng/ml; samples with hemolysis were excluded), prostate-specific antigen > 30 ng/ml (excluding acute prostatitis), tumor-associated glycoprotein-72 >80 U/ml, cytokeratin 19 fragment 21-1 > 7.5 ng/ml (>19 ng/ml in patients with renal failure; >11 ng/ml in patients with liver cirrhosis or jaundice), >3.5 ng/ml for squamous cell carcinoma (excluding patients with renal failure or skin disorders), CA 15.3 >100 U/ml, and CA 125 >350 U/ml (>600 U/ml in patients with pleural effusion and >900 U/ml in those with ascites). There was a specificity of 97.6% in patients without malignancy, 67.4% of sensitivity in patients with malignancy, and 75.4% of sensitivity in the 1,280 patients with epithelial tumors (53.7% in patients with locally advanced tumors and 79.4% in patients with metastases). Sensitivity was 81.4% in patients with cancer of unknown primary site. Tumor markers were useful in the differential diagnosis between epithelial and non-epithelial tumors, brain masses (metastases vs. primary tumors), and between benign or malignant origin of different clinical situations such as wasting syndrome, effusions, liver or bone lesions, and effusions with a positive predictive value higher than 95%. Tumor markers are useful as an aid in the evaluation of the risk of cancer of these patients with suspected cancer and may be useful to reduce the hospitalization time, morbidity, and the number of diagnostic tests required for diagnosis.