1
|
Michaeli JC, Michaeli DT, Boch T, Albers S, Michaeli T. Socio-economic burden of disease: Survivorship costs for renal cell carcinoma. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2022; 31:e13569. [PMID: 35293070 DOI: 10.1111/ecc.13569] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/05/2021] [Revised: 01/27/2022] [Accepted: 03/02/2022] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to assess the risk-stratified 10-year socio-economic burden of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) follow-up costs after initial treatment in Germany from 2000 to 2020. METHODS A micro-costing method considering direct and indirect medical expenditure associated with follow-up procedures was employed to calculate survivorship costs per patient. The frequencies of physician-patient visits, examinations and diagnostic tests were extracted from guidelines, whilst expenses were sourced from literature and official scales of tariffs. Societal costs were calculated based on three perspectives: patients, providers and insurers. RESULTS Mean societal 10-year follow-up costs per patient amounted to EUR 3,377 (95%CI: 2,969-3,791) for low-risk, EUR 3,367 (95%CI: 3,003-3,692) for medium-risk and EUR 4,299 (95%CI: 3,807-4,755) for high-risk RCC in 2020. Spending increased by +32% from 2000 to 2020 for low-risk RCC, whilst medium-and high-risk RCC expenditure was cut by -39% and -22%, respectively. Patients shouldered 27%, providers 43% and insurers 35% of costs in 2020. Resources were consumed by medical imaging (52%), physician-patient consultations (31%), travel expenses (17%) and blood tests (1%). CONCLUSION Results highlight the economic burden cancer survivorship poses for society. Cancer survivors require individualised, evidence-based and insurance-covered follow-up schedules to permit the early detection of side-effects, metastasis and secondary malignancies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julia Caroline Michaeli
- Fifth Department of Medicine, University Hospital Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.,Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Asklepios-Clinic Hamburg-Altona, Asklepios Hospital Group, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Daniel Tobias Michaeli
- Fifth Department of Medicine, University Hospital Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.,Department of Personalized Oncology, University Hospital Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.,Third Department of Medicine, University Hospital Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany
| | - Tobias Boch
- Department of Personalized Oncology, University Hospital Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.,Third Department of Medicine, University Hospital Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.,Division of Personalized Medical Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Sebastian Albers
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, ATOS Klinik Fleetinsel Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Thomas Michaeli
- Fifth Department of Medicine, University Hospital Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.,Department of Personalized Oncology, University Hospital Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.,Third Department of Medicine, University Hospital Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.,Division of Personalized Medical Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Brain D, Jadambaa A. Economic Evaluation of Long-Term Survivorship Care for Cancer Patients in OECD Countries: A Systematic Review for Decision-Makers. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH 2021; 18:ijerph182111558. [PMID: 34770070 PMCID: PMC8582644 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph182111558] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/12/2021] [Revised: 10/26/2021] [Accepted: 10/26/2021] [Indexed: 01/23/2023]
Abstract
Long-term cancer survivorship care is a crucial component of an efficient healthcare system. For numerous reasons, there has been an increase in the number of cancer survivors; therefore, healthcare decision-makers are tasked with balancing a finite budget with a strong demand for services. Decision-makers require clear and pragmatic interpretation of results to inform resource allocation decisions. For these reasons, the impact and importance of economic evidence are increasing. The aim of the current study was to conduct a systematic review of economic evaluations of long-term cancer survivorship care in Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries and to assess the usefulness of economic evidence for decision-makers. A systematic review of electronic databases, including MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO and others, was conducted. The reporting quality of the included studies was appraised using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. Each included study’s usefulness for decision-makers was assessed using an adapted version of a previously published approach. Overall, 3597 studies were screened, and of the 235 studies assessed for eligibility, 34 satisfied the pre-determined inclusion criteria. We found that the majority of the included studies had limited value for informing healthcare decision-making and conclude that this represents an ongoing issue in the field. We recommend that authors explicitly include a policy statement as part of their presentation of results.
Collapse
|
3
|
Barbieri M, Richardson G, Paisley S. The cost-effectiveness of follow-up strategies after cancer treatment: a systematic literature review. Br Med Bull 2018; 126:85-100. [PMID: 29659715 DOI: 10.1093/bmb/ldy011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/09/2017] [Accepted: 03/18/2018] [Indexed: 11/14/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The cost of treatment and follow-up of cancer patients in the UK is substantial. In a budget-constrained system such as the NHS, it is necessary to consider the cost-effectiveness of the range of management strategies at different points on cancer patients' care pathways to ensure that they provide adequate value for money. SOURCES OF DATA We conducted a systematic literature review to explore the cost-effectiveness of follow-up strategies of patients previously treated for cancer with the aim of informing UK policy. All papers that were considered to be economic evaluations in the subject areas described above were extracted. AREAS OF AGREEMENT The existing literature suggests that intensive follow-up of patients with colorectal disease is likely to be cost-effective, but the opposite holds for breast cancer. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY Interventions and strategies for follow-up in cancer patients were variable across type of cancer and setting. Drawing general conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of these interventions/strategies is difficult. GROWING POINTS The search identified 2036 references but applying inclusion/exclusion criteria a total of 44 articles were included in the analysis. Breast cancer was the most common (n = 11) cancer type followed by colorectal (n = 10) cancer. In general, there were relatively few studies of cost-effectiveness of follow-up that could influence UK guidance. Where there was evidence, in the most part, NICE guidance broadly reflected this evidence. AREAS TIMELY TO DEVELOP RESEARCH In terms of future research around the timing, frequency and composition of follow-ups, this is dependent on the type of cancer being considered. Nevertheless, across most cancers, the possibility of remote follow-up (or testing) by health professionals other than hospital consultants in other settings appears to warrant further work.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Barbieri
- Centre for Health Economics, University of York, Heslington, York, UK
| | - G Richardson
- Centre for Health Economics, University of York, Heslington, York, UK
| | - S Paisley
- School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, UK
| |
Collapse
|