The yield and cost of colonoscopy in patients with metastatic cancer of unknown primary

Healthcare Costs Before and After Diagnosis of Cancer of Unknown Primary Versus Ovarian Cancer in Australia

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the healthcare resource usage and costs for patients with cancer of unknown primary (CUP).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to describe and quantify healthcare resource use and costs in Australia, 6 months prior to and after a diagnosis of CUP, and compare to those of women with ovarian cancer.

METHODS

Individual-level data combining baseline surveys, clinical records and Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) claim records were analysed for 149 patients with CUP and 480 patients with ovarian cancer from two prospective cohort studies. MBS data were aggregated for the period 6 months prior to diagnosis date and 6 months after diagnosis. Data included doctor consultations, pathology, diagnostics, therapeutic procedures, imaging, allied health and medicines. Generalised linear models were used to evaluate the cost differences between CUP and ovarian cancer using gamma family and log link functions. Models were adjusted for age, employment, marital status, surgery, chemotherapy and number of comorbidities.

RESULTS

The mean healthcare costs in the 6 months prior to diagnosis of CUP were Australian (AU) $3903 versus AU$1327 for ovarian cancer (adjusted cost ratio 2.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.08-4.15). Mean healthcare costs 6 months post-diagnosis were higher for patients with CUP versus ovarian cancer (AU$20,339 vs AU$13,819, adjusted cost ratio 1.47, 95% CI 1.13-1.92). Higher costs for patients with CUP were driven by imaging (AU$1937 vs AU$1387), procedures (AU$5403 vs AU$2702) and prescribed medicines for all conditions (AU$10,111 vs AU$6717).

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-diagnosis costs for patients with CUP are nearly triple those for ovarian cancer. Six months after diagnosis, healthcare costs for CUP remained higher than for ovarian cancer due to imaging, procedures and medicines.

Cancer of unknown primary: Registered procedures compared with national integrated cancer pathway for illuminating external validity

Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) ranges within top 10 cancers in both incidence and mortality. As primary identification is crucial to choosing treatment, guidelines on CUP emphasize the diagnostic strategy. Whether guidelines are complied with, or if they are indeed helpful, is however unclear. We compared procedures performed in suspected CUP patients with recommendations of national guidelines to assess external validity of guidelines.The Danish National Patient Registry (NPR) comprising population data was utilized to identify the suspected CUP patients during 2009 to 2010 and explore exposure to procedures and patient survival. The cohort was investigated in terms of validity of diagnosis through cross-referencing with the Cancer Registry (CR), which served as gold standard for cancer diagnoses and patients' cancer histories.The NPR cohort consisted of 542 patients (275 males, 264 females) of whom 210 (38.7%) had a CUP diagnosis confirmed. Within the cohort, 347 patients (64.0%) had a registration in CR matching with the NPR registration. Exposure to diagnostic procedures included biopsy (n = 439, 81.0%) and image modalities (n = 532, 98.2%). Survival was poor with 67 (12.4%) individuals alive after 4 years.The validity of a CUP diagnosis in NPR was low when using data from CR as reference. More than half the suspected CUP patients had a previous cancer diagnosis with CUP being the most frequent. Patients were diagnosed in compliance with guidelines indicating high external validity, but less than 1 quarter had their primary identified and the 1-year survival was approximately 20%. Research is needed to develop efficacious methods for primary detection.

Cost effectiveness of a 92-gene assay for the diagnosis of metastatic cancer

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the clinical and economic trade-offs involved in using a molecular assay (92-gene assay, CancerTYPE ID) to aid in identifying the primary site of difficult-to-diagnose metastatic cancers and to explore whether the 92-gene assay can be used to standardize the diagnostic process and costs for clinicians, patients, and payers.

METHODS

Four decision-analytic models were developed to project the lifetime clinical and economic impact of incorporating the 92-gene assay compared with standard care alone. For each model, total and incremental costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and the proportion of patients treated correctly versus incorrectly were projected from the payer perspective. Model inputs were based on published literature, analyses of SEER (Surveillance Epidemiology and End RESULTS) data, publicly available data, and interviews with clinical experts.

RESULTS

In all four models, the 92-gene assay increased the proportion of patients treated correctly, decreased the proportion of patients treated with empiric therapy, and increased quality-adjusted survival. In the primary model, the ICER was $50,273/QALY; thus, the 92-gene assay is therefore cost effective when considering a societal willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. These findings were robust across sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the 92-gene assay for diagnosing metastatic tumors of uncertain origin is associated with reduced misdiagnoses, increased survival, and improved quality of life. Incorporating the assay into current practice is a cost-effective approach to standardizing diagnostic methods while improving patient care. Limitations of this analysis are the lack of data availability and resulting modeling simplifications, although sensitivity analyses showed these to not be key drivers of results.