Medical Care Costs for Recurrent versus De Novo Stage IV Cancer by Age at Diagnosis

Colonoscopy, imaging, and carcinoembryonic antigen: Comparison of guideline adherence to surveillance strategies in patients who underwent resection of colorectal cancer - A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Almost one-third of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) experience recurrence after resection. Adherence to surveillance guidelines largely dictates efficacy in early detection of recurrence. We sought to assess and compare adherence to postoperative surveillance guidelines for colonoscopy, imaging, and Carcinoembryonic Antigen (CEA).

METHODS

PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, Web of Science, and CINAHL were systematically searched. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed and pooled adherence to each surveillance strategy was assessed for CEA, imaging, and colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Overall 14 studies (55,895 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Adherence to colonoscopy guidelines was the highest (70%, 95%CI 67-73), followed by imaging (63%, 95%CI 47-80), and CEA (54%; 95%CI 42-66). Among 7 (50%) studies that examined adherence to the American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines, compliance with colonoscopy was the highest (73%; 95% CI 70-76), followed by imaging (58%; 95% CI 37-78), and CEA (45%; 95%CI 37-52). Of note, guideline adherence to CEA testing was much lower than colonoscopy among patients with colon (OR 0.21; 95%CI 0.20-0.22) and rectal cancer (OR 0.25; 95%CI 0.23-0.28) (both p < 0.05). This was also noted when compared with imaging recommendations among older patients (OR = 0.62; 95%CI 0.42-0.93) and patients with stage II, (OR = 0.80; 95%CI 0.76-0.84) and stage III disease (OR = 0.88; 95%CI 0.82-0.94) (all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

While guideline adherence to postoperative surveillance with colonoscopy was high, adherence to CEA testing and imaging surveillance strategies was markedly lower following CRC resection. Future studies should investigate avenues to improve compliance with surveillance guidelines among health care providers and patients to optimize postoperative follow-up for CRC.

Cost of treating metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The cost of treating metastatic colorectal cancer places a significant economic burden on individuals, populations, and health care. However, there is a paucity of information on the costs of the contemporary management of metastatic colorectal cancer. This systematic review aims to review the literature to estimate the direct cost of treating metastatic colorectal cancer.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews: National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database Guide, EconLit, and grey literature from the 1st of January 2000 to the 1st of February 2020 were all searched for studies reporting the direct costs of treating metastatic colorectal cancer. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Evers' Consensus on Health Economic Criteria checklist.

RESULTS

In total, 39,489 records were retrieved, and 29 studies were included. Costs of treating metastatic colorectal cancer varied because of the heterogeneity of treatment. Studies reported average costs ranged from $12,346 to $293,461. Studies that included the cost of systemic therapy reported an estimated cost of almost $300,000.

CONCLUSION

The existing evidence indicates that the cost of treating metastatic colorectal cancer places a significant economic burden on healthcare systems despite differences in methodology and treatment heterogeneity. Future research needs to define the cost components of treating metastatic colorectal cancer to improve comparability and examine the relationship between spending, overall survival, and quality of life. Identifying these costs and their impact on health care budgets can help policymakers plan health system expenditure.

Direct medical costs of young-onset colorectal cancer: a worldwide systematic review

Background

Given the rising incidence of young-onset colorectal cancer (yCRC) among individuals younger than 50 years old, understanding the economic burden of yCRC is required to inform the delivery of healthcare services. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of studies assessing the direct medical costs of yCRC, and where relevant average-age onset CRC (aCRC).

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science from inception to May 2022 for original, peer-reviewed studies, that reported direct medical costs (e.g., chemotherapy, radiotherapy, outpatient visits, inpatient care, prescription medications) for yCRC and aCRC. We used a modified version of the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist to appraise the studies. Costs were inflation-adjusted to 2020 US dollars.

Results

We included 14 studies from 10 countries, including the USA, England, France, Korea, Vietnam, China, Italy, Australia, Canada and Japan. Five studies focused on prevalent disease and reported annualized per-capita cost of prevalent yCRC, ranging from $2,263 to $16,801 and $1,412 to $14,997 among yCRC and aCRC cases, respectively. Nine studies estimated the cost of incident disease. Synthesis of per-capita costs incurred 12 months following colorectal cancer diagnosis ranged from $23,368 to $89,945 for yCRC and $19,929 to $67,195 for aCRC. Five studies used multivariable approaches to compare costs associated with yCRC and aCRC, four showed no differences and one suggested greater costs with yCRC.

Conclusion

Our synthesis of direct medical costs of yCRC across multiple jurisdictions provide relevant information for healthcare decisions, including on-going considerations for expanding CRC screening strategies to younger adults.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08481-6.

Cancer Survivorship and Supportive Care Economics Research: Current Challenges and Next Steps

BACKGROUND

Rapid growth in the number of cancer survivors raises numerous questions about health and economic outcomes among survivors along with their families, caregivers, and employers. Health economics theory and methods can contribute to many open questions to improve survivorship.

METHODS

In this paper, we review key areas where more research is needed and describe strategies for improving data infrastructure, research funding, and capacity building to strengthen survivorship health economics research.

CONCLUSIONS

Health economics has broadened an understanding of key supply- and demand-side factors that promote cancer survivorship. To ensure necessary research in survivorship health economics moving forward, we recommend dedicated funding, inclusion of health economics outcomes in primary data collection, and investments in secondary data sets.

Health Economics Research in Cancer Screening: Research Opportunities, Challenges, and Future Directions

Cancer screening has long been considered a worthy public health investment. Health economics offers the theoretical foundation and research methodology to understand the demand- and supply-side factors associated with screening and evaluate screening-related policies and interventions. This article provides an overview of health economic theories and methods related to cancer screening and discusses opportunities for future research. We review 2 academic disciplines most relevant to health economics research in cancer screening: applied microeconomics and decision science. We consider 3 emerging topics: cancer screening policies in national as well as local contexts, "choosing wisely" screening practices, and targeted screening efforts for vulnerable subpopulations. We also discuss the strengths and weaknesses of available data sources and opportunities for methodological research and training. Recommendations to strengthen research infrastructure include developing novel data linkage strategies, increasing access to electronic health records, establishing curriculum and training programs, promoting multidisciplinary collaborations, and enhancing research funding opportunities.

Cost-Effectiveness of a Web-Based Program for Residual Depressive Symptoms: Mindful Mood Balance

OBJECTIVE

Mindful Mood Balance (MMB) is an effective Web-based program for residual depressive symptoms that prevents relapse among patients with partial recovery from major depressive episodes. This cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from the health plan perspective alongside a pragmatic randomized controlled trial of MMB.

METHODS

Adults were recruited from behavioral health and primary care settings in a large integrated health system and randomly assigned to MMB plus usual depression care (MMB+UDC) or UDC. Patients had at least one prior major depressive episode; a current score of 5-9 on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, indicating residual depressive symptoms; and Internet access. Program costs included recruitment, coaching, and MMB licensing. Center for Medicare and Medicaid fee schedules were applied to electronic health record utilization data for psychotropic medications and psychiatric and psychotherapy visits. Effectiveness was measured as depression-free days (DFDs), converted from PHQ-9 scores collected monthly for 1 year. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated with various sets of cost inputs.

RESULTS

A total of 389 patients (UDC, N=210; MMB+UDC, N=179) had adequate follow-up PHQ-9 measures for inclusion. MMB+UDC patients had 29 more DFDs during follow-up. Overall, the incremental cost of MMB+UDC was $431.54 over 12 months. Incremental costs per DFD gained ranged from $9.63 for program costs only to $15.04 when psychiatric visits, psychotherapy visits, and psychotropic medications were included.

CONCLUSIONS

MMB offers a cost-effective Web-based program for reducing residual depressive symptoms and preventing relapse. Health systems should consider adopting MMB as adjunctive to traditional mental health care services.

Cost-effectiveness of telephone cognitive behavioral therapy for osteoarthritis-related insomnia

BACKGROUND

Osteoarthritis-related insomnia is the most common form of comorbid insomnia among older Americans. A randomized clinical trial found that six sessions of telephone-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) improved sleep outcomes in this population. Using these data, we evaluated the incremental cost-effectiveness of CBT-I from a healthcare sector perspective.

METHODS

The study was based on 325 community-dwelling older adults with insomnia and osteoarthritis pain enrolled with Kaiser Permanente of Washington State. We measured quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) using the EuroQol 5-dimension scale. Arthritis-specific quality of life was measured using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Insomnia-specific quality of life was measured using the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) and nights without clinical insomnia (i.e., "insomnia-free nights"). Total healthcare costs included intervention and healthcare utilization costs.

RESULTS

Over the 12 months after randomization, CBT-I improved ISI and WOMAC by -2.6 points (95% CI: -2.9 to -2.4) and -2.6 points (95% CI: -3.4 to -1.8), respectively. The ISI improvement translated into 89 additional insomnia-free nights (95% CI: 79 to 98) over the 12 months. CBT-I did not significantly reduce total healthcare costs (-$1072 [95% CI: -$1968 to $92]). Improvements in condition-specific measures were not reflected in QALYs gained (-0.01 [95% CI: -0.01 to 0.01]); at a willingness-to-pay of $150,000 per QALY, CBT-I resulted in a positive net monetary benefit of $369 with substantial uncertainty (95% CI: -$1737 to $2270).

CONCLUSION

CBT-I improved sleep and arthritis function without increasing costs. These findings support the consideration of telephone CBT-I for treating insomnia among older adults with comorbid OA. Our findings also suggest potential limitations of the general quality of life measures in assessing interventions designed to improve sleep and arthritis outcomes.

Patterns of Medical Care Cost by Service Type for Patients With Recurrent and De Novo Advanced Cancer

OBJECTIVES

There is limited knowledge about the cost patterns of patients who receive a diagnosis of de novo and recurrent advanced cancers in the United States.

METHODS

Data on patients who received a diagnosis of de novo stage IV or recurrent breast, colorectal, or lung cancer between 2000 and 2012 from 3 integrated health systems were used to estimate average annual costs for total, ambulatory, inpatient, medication, and other services during (1) 12 months preceding de novo or recurrent diagnosis (preindex) and (2) diagnosis month through 11 months after (postindex), from the payer perspective. Generalized linear regression models estimated costs adjusting for patient and clinical factors.

RESULTS

Patients who developed a recurrence <1 year after their initial cancer diagnosis had significantly higher total costs in the preindex period than those with recurrence ≥1 year after initial diagnosis and those with de novo stage IV disease across all cancers (all P < .05). Patients with de novo stage IV breast and colorectal cancer had significantly higher total costs in the postindex period than patients with cancer recurrent in <1 year and ≥1 year (all P < .05), respectively. Patients in de novo stage IV and those with recurrence in ≥1 year experienced significantly higher postindex costs than the preindex period (all P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings reveal distinct cost patterns between patients with de novo stage IV, recurrent <1-year, and recurrent ≥1-year cancer, suggesting unique care trajectories that may influence resource use and planning. Future cost studies among patients with advanced cancer should account for de novo versus recurrent diagnoses and timing of recurrence to obtain estimates that accurately reflect these care pattern complexities.

Patient, Oncologist, and Payer Preferences for Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy and CDK4/6 Inhibitor Regimens in Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Discrete Choice Experiment

PURPOSE

Several adjuvant phase III trials are evaluating cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6is) in combination with endocrine therapy (ET) in hormonal receptor positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2-) early-stage breast cancer (eBC). This study examines preferences for this combination regimen and ET alone among patients, oncologists, and payers in the United States.

METHODS

A web-based questionnaire, including a discrete choice experiment (DCE), was administered to patients, practicing oncologists, and payers. In the DCE, respondents selected between hypothetical treatment profiles with attributes associated with ET monotherapy and CDK4/6i + ET regimens. Each treatment alternative was defined by the following attributes: 5-year invasive disease-free survival (iDFS), nausea, diarrhea, neutropenia, alopecia, dosing schedule, and electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring. Payers had the additional attribute of annual per-patient treatment cost. Hierarchical Bayesian models were used to estimate relative preference weights for each attribute-level and relative attribute importance.

RESULTS

For patients (n=300) and oncologists (n=200), iDFS was most important (2 to 3 times more important than the next most important attribute), followed by neutropenia and diarrhea risks for patients and oncologists, respectively. Patients and oncologists required an improvement in iDFS of 8.0 and 5.6 percentage-points, respectively, to accept an increase in diarrhea risk from 11% to 81%. Payers (n=60) viewed annual per-patient cost as most important for treatment access decision-making, closely followed by iDFS. Payers required an improvement in iDFS of 21.8 percentage-points to accept an increase in cost from $5,100 to $149,400. Across all stakeholder groups, dosing schedule, alopecia risk, and ECG monitoring were perceived as least important.

CONCLUSION

Patients, oncologists, and payers expect a large absolute risk reduction in efficacy to offset the potential risks and costs of adding a CDK4/6i to current standard of care. An open discussion between all stakeholders is necessary to ensure that decision-making, whether at patient- or system-level, is informed by preferences for novel treatments, like CDK4/6is.

Performance of Cancer Recurrence Algorithms After Coding Scheme Switch From International Classification of Diseases 9th Revision to International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision

PURPOSE

We previously developed and validated informatic algorithms that used International Classification of Diseases 9th revision (ICD9)-based diagnostic and procedure codes to detect the presence and timing of cancer recurrence (the RECUR Algorithms). In 2015, ICD10 replaced ICD9 as the worldwide coding standard. To understand the impact of this transition, we evaluated the performance of the RECUR Algorithms after incorporating ICD10 codes.

METHODS

Using publicly available translation tables along with clinician and other expertise, we updated the algorithms to include ICD10 codes as additional input variables. We evaluated the performance of the algorithms using gold standard recurrence measures associated with a contemporary cohort of patients with stage I to III breast, colorectal, and lung (excluding IIIB) cancer and derived performance measures, including the area under the receiver operating curve, average absolute prediction error, and correct classification rate. These values were compared with the performance measures derived from the validation of the original algorithms.

RESULTS

A total of 659 colorectal, 280 lung, and 2,053 breast cancer cases were identified. Area under the receiver operating curve derived from the updated algorithms was 89.0% (95% CI, 82.3% to 95.7%), 88.9% (95% CI, 79.3% to 98.2%), and 80.5% (95% CI, 72.8% to 88.2%) for the colorectal, lung, and breast cancer algorithms, respectively. Average absolute prediction errors for recurrence timing were 2.7 (SE, 11.3%), 2.4 (SE, 10.4%), and 5.6 months (SE, 21.8%), respectively, and timing estimates were within 6 months of actual recurrence for more than 80% of colorectal, more than 90% of lung, and more than 50% of breast cancer cases using the updated algorithm.

CONCLUSION

Performance measures derived from the updated and original algorithms had overlapping confidence intervals, suggesting that the ICD9 to ICD10 transition did not affect the RECUR Algorithm performance.

Neoadjuvant treatment strategies for HER2-positive breast cancer: cost-effectiveness and quality of life outcomes

PURPOSE

Achieving a pathologic complete response (pCR) with neoadjuvant therapy for HER2-positive breast cancer is associated with less recurrence and improved clinical outcomes compared to having residual cancer at surgery. However, recent data have demonstrated favorable outcomes for patients with residual HER2-positive cancer who received adjuvant trastuzumab emtansine (TDM-1). Therefore, we sought to determine the optimal chemotherapy/anti-HER2 treatment strategy.

METHODS

We created a decision-analytic model for patients with stage II-III HER2-positive cancer that incorporated utilities based on toxicity and recurrence. We separately modeled hormone receptor-negative (HR-) and positive (HR+) disease and calculated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs through 5 years. Simulated patients received one of the following neoadjuvant treatments: three 'intensive' regimens (TCHP: docetaxel, carboplatin, trastuzumab, pertuzumab; THP + AC: taxol, trastuzumab, pertuzumab then doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide; THP: taxol, trastuzumab, pertuzumab) and two 'de-escalated' regimens (TH: taxol, trastuzumab; TDM-1) followed by adjuvant treatment based on pathologic response.

RESULTS

Among 'intensive' neoadjuvant strategies, treatment with THP was more effective and less costly than TCHP or THP + AC. When 'de-escalated' strategies were included, TH became the most cost-effective. For HR-negative cancer, TH had 0.003 fewer quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) than THP but was less costly by $55,831, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of over $18M/QALY for THP, well above any threshold. For HR-positive cancer, neoadjuvant TH dominated the THP strategy.

CONCLUSION

An adaptive-treatment strategy beginning with neoadjuvant THP or TH followed by tailoring post-operative therapy reduces treatment costs, and spares toxicity compared to more intensive chemotherapy regimens for women with HER2-positive breast cancer.

Spending for Advanced Cancer Diagnoses: Comparing Recurrent Versus De Novo Stage IV Disease

PURPOSE

Spending for patients with advanced cancer is substantial. Past efforts to characterize this spending usually have not included patients with recurrence (who may differ from those with de novo stage IV disease) or described which services drive spending.

METHODS

Using SEER-Medicare data from 2008 to 2013, we identified patients with breast, colorectal, and lung cancer with either de novo stage IV or recurrent advanced cancer. Mean spending/patient/month (2012 US dollars) was estimated from 12 months before to 11 months after diagnosis for all services and by the type of service. We describe the absolute difference in mean monthly spending for de novo versus recurrent patients, and we estimate differences after controlling for type of advanced cancer, year of diagnosis, age, sex, comorbidity, and other factors.

RESULTS

We identified 54,982 patients with advanced cancer. Before diagnosis, mean monthly spending was higher for recurrent patients (absolute difference: breast, $1,412; colorectal, $3,002; lung, $2,805; all P < .001), whereas after the diagnosis, it was higher for de novo patients (absolute difference: breast, $2,443; colorectal, $4,844; lung, $2,356; all P < .001). Spending differences were driven by inpatient, physician, and hospice services. Across the 2-year period around the advanced cancer diagnosis, adjusted mean monthly spending was higher for de novo versus recurrent patients (spending ratio: breast, 2.39 [95% CI, 2.05 to 2.77]; colorectal, 2.64 [95% CI, 2.31 to 3.01]; lung, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.30 to 1.65]).

CONCLUSION

Spending for de novo cancer was greater than spending for recurrent advanced cancer. Understanding the patterns and drivers of spending is necessary to design alternative payment models and to improve value.