Transformation of Cancer Care during and after the COVID Pandemic, a point of no return. The Experience of Italy.

Policymakers everywhere struggle to introduce therapeutic innovation while controlling costs, a particular challenge for the universal Italian National Healthcare System (SSN), which spends only 8.8% of GDP to care for one of the world's oldest populations. Oncology provides a telling example, where innovation has dramatically improved care and survival, transforming cancer into a chronic condition. However, innovation has also increased therapy duration, adverse event management, and service demand. The SSN risks collapse unless centralized cancer planning changes gear, particularly with Covid-19 causing treatment delays, worsening patient prognosis and straining capacity. In view of the 750 billion Euro "Next Generation EU", released by the European Union to relieve Member States hit by the pandemic, the SSN tapped a multidisciplinary research team to identify key strategies for equitable uptake of innovations in treatment and delivery, with emphasis on data-driven technological and managerial advancements - and lessons from Covid-19.

Cost-effectiveness analysis in the clinical management of patients with known or suspected lung cancer: [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose PET and CT comparison.

AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the economic impact of the introduction of positron emission tomography (PET) in the clinical management of patients with known or suspected lung cancer through a cost-effectiveness analysis of different diagnostic strategies. METHODS: In Italy, 75 patients with known or suspected lung cancer were included in the study. Three different diagnostic strategies were compared: 1) baseline or traditional strategy, i.e. computed tomography (CT) alone; 2) strategy A, i.e. PET for indefinite CT; 3) strategy B, i.e. PET for all. For each strategy expected costs and life expectancy, as measured by life year saved (LYS), were evaluated. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated to identify the most effective strategy. RESULTS: Compared to the baseline strategy, the introduction of PET changed the clinical management in 40% of cases in strategy A and in 51% of cases in strategy B, with an optimization of the clinical management. Costs of strategy A (2735.42 Euro) and strategy B (2984.52 Euro) were, respectively, 8% and 18% higher than the baseline strategy (2534.81 Euro). LYS was 2.04 and 2.64 for strategy A and B, which were, respectively, 4% and 35% higher than the baseline strategy (1.96 LYS). The ICERs were 2507.63 Euro/LYS and 415.17 Euro/LYS for strategy A and B, respectively. Strategy A is dominated by strategy B, which is more expensive, but also more effective. CONCLUSION: In Italy, the introduction of PET in the clinical management of all patients with known or suspected lung cancer previously evaluated with CT is cost-effective and allows to gain 2.64 life years at an annual cost of about 415 Euro.