Standardizing Health Outcomes for Lung Cancer. Adaptation of the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement Set to the Spanish Setting

Purpose: Lung cancer (LC) and its treatment impose a significant burden on patients' life. However, patient-centered outcomes are rarely collected during patient follow-up. Filling this gap, the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) developed a standard set of variables for newly diagnosed LC patients. In order to facilitate the use of this standard set, the project aims to adapt it to the Spanish setting.

Methods: The variables (instrument and periodicity) to be included in Spanish standard set were selected through consensus during 4 nominal groups (13 oncologists, 14 hospital pharmacists, 4 hospital managers and 3 LC patients), under the supervision of a Scientific Committee (1 oncologist, 3 hospital pharmacists, 2 LC patients advocates).

Results: The variables agreed upon included: (1) case-mix: demographic [age, sex, education and social-family support], clinical [weight loss, smoking status, comorbidities (Charlson index), pulmonary function (FEV-1)], tumor [histology, clinical, and pathological stage (TNM), EGFR, ALK, ROS-1, PD-L1] and treatment factors [intent and completion] and (2) outcomes: degree of health [performance status (ECOG) and quality-of-life (EQ-5D, LCSS)], survival [overall survival and cause of death], quality of death [place of death, end-of-life care and palliative care, death aligned with living will], treatment complications, and others [date of diagnosis and treatment initiation, productivity loss (sick leave)].

Conclusion: The adaptation of ICHOM standard set to the Spanish setting pave the way to standardize the collection of variables in LC.

Economic evaluations of screening strategies for the early detection of colorectal cancer in the average-risk population: A systematic literature review

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has proven effective in reducing CRC mortality. This study aimed to systematically review, and evaluate the reporting quality, of the economic evidence regarding CRC screening in average-risk individuals.

Methods

Databases searched included Medline, EMBASE, National Health Service Economic Evaluation, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis registry, EconLit, and Health Technology Assessment database. Eligible studies were cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses comparing CRC screening strategies in average-risk individuals, published in English or Spanish, between January 2012 and November 2018. Reporting quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.

Results

Of 1,993 publications initially retrieved, 477 were excluded by duplicate review, 1,449 by title/abstract review, and 34 by full-text review. Finally, 33 publications were included in the qualitative synthesis. Most studies were conducted in Europe (36,4%), followed by United States (24,2%) and Asia (24,2%). The main screening modalities considered were fecal immunochemical tests (70%), colonoscopy (67%), guaiac fecal occult blood test (42%) and flexible sigmoidoscopy (30%). In most studies, CRC screening was deemed cost-effective compared to no screening. Sensitivity analyses indicated that cost of CRC screening tests, adherence to screening, screening test sensitivity, and cost of CRC treatment had the greatest impact on cost-effectiveness results across studies. The majority of studies (73%) adequately reported at least 50% of the items included in the CHEERS checklist. Least well reported items included setting, study perspective, discount rate, model choice, and methods to identify effectiveness data or to estimate resource use and costs.

Conclusions

CRC screening is an efficient alternative to no screening. Nevertheless, it is not possible to conclude which strategy should be preferred for population-based screening programs. Although we observed an overall good adherence to CHEERS recommendations, there is still room for improvement in economic evaluations reporting in this field.