Economic impact of genomic diagnostics for intermediate-risk acute myeloid leukaemia.

Acute Myeloid Leukaemia (AML) is a rare but serious group of diseases that require critical decision-making for curative treatment. Over the past decade, scientific discovery has revealed dozens of prognostic gene mutations for AML while sequencing costs have plummeted. In this study, we compared the cost-effectiveness of multigene integrative analysis (genomic analysis) with the standard molecular testing currently used for diagnosis of intermediate-risk AML. We used a decision analytic model with data for costs and outcomes from British Columbia, Canada, to assess the long-term (10-year) economic impacts. Our results suggest that genomic analysis would result in a 26% increase in the use of first-remission allogeneic stem cell transplantation. The resulting treatment decisions and downstream effects would come at an additional cost of $12 556 [2013 Canadian dollars (CAD)] per person and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio would be $49 493 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Cost-effectiveness was dependent on quality of life during the long-term (5-10) years of survival, relapse rates following first-remission chemotherapy and the upfront cost of transplantation. Non-relapse mortality rates, short-term quality of life and the cost of genomic sequencing had only minor impacts. Further research on post-remission outcomes can lead to improvements in the cost-effectiveness of curative treatments for AML.

Quality of life and socioeconomic indicators associated with survival of myeloid leukemias in Canada.

Understanding how patient-reported quality of life (QoL) and socioeconomic status (SES) relate to survival of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) may improve prognostic information sharing. This study explores associations among QoL, SES, and survival through administration of the Euro-QoL 5-Dimension, 3-level and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Leukemia and financial impact questionnaires to 138 adult participants with newly diagnosed AML or MDS in a longitudinal, pan-Canadian study. Cox regression and lasso variable selection models were used to explore associations among QoL, SES, and established predictors of survival. Secondary outcomes were changes in QoL, performance of the QoL instruments, and lost income. We found that higher QoL and SES were positively associated with survival. The Lasso model selected the visual analog scale of the EQ-5D-3L as the most important predictor among all other variables (P = .03; 92% selection). Patients with AML report improved QoL after treatment, despite higher mean out-of-pocket expenditures compared with MDS (up to $599 CDN/month for AML vs $239 for MDS; P = .05), greater loss of productivity-related income (reaching $1786/month for AML vs $709 for MDS; P < .05), and greater caregiver effects (65% vs 35% caregiver productivity losses for AML vs MDS; P < .05). Our results suggest that including patient-reported QoL and socioeconomic indicators can improve the accuracy of survival models.

The Cost-Effectiveness of High-Risk Lung Cancer Screening and Drivers of Program Efficiency.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer risk prediction models have the potential to make programs more affordable; however, the economic evidence is limited. METHODS: Participants in the National Lung Cancer Screening Trial (NLST) were retrospectively identified with the risk prediction tool developed from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial. The high-risk subgroup was assessed for lung cancer incidence and demographic characteristics compared with those in the low-risk subgroup and the Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer Study (PanCan), which is an observational study that was high-risk-selected in Canada. A comparison of high-risk screening versus standard care was made with a decision-analytic model using data from the NLST with Canadian cost data from screening and treatment in the PanCan study. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were undertaken to assess uncertainty and identify drivers of program efficiency. RESULTS: Use of the risk prediction tool developed from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial with a threshold set at 2% over 6 years would have reduced the number of individuals who needed to be screened in the NLST by 81%. High-risk screening participants in the NLST had more adverse demographic characteristics than their counterparts in the PanCan study. High-risk screening would cost $20,724 (in 2015 Canadian dollars) per quality-adjusted life-year gained and would be considered cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 in Canadian dollars per quality-adjusted life-year gained with a probability of 0.62. Cost-effectiveness was driven primarily by non-lung cancer outcomes. Higher noncurative drug costs or current costs for immunotherapy and targeted therapies in the United States would render lung cancer screening a cost-saving intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Non-lung cancer outcomes drive screening efficiency in diverse, tobacco-exposed populations. Use of risk selection can reduce the budget impact, and screening may even offer cost savings if noncurative treatment costs continue to rise.

Impact of oncologist payment method on health care outcomes, costs, quality: a rapid review.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of cancer and the cost of its treatment continue to rise. The effect of these dual forces is a major burden on the system of health care financing. One cost containment approach involves changing the way physicians are paid. Payers are testing reimbursement methods such as capitation and prospective payment while also evaluating how the changes impact health outcomes, resource utilization, and quality of care. The purpose of this study is to identify evidence related to physician payment methods' impacts, with a focus on cancer control. METHODS: We conducted a rapid review. This involved defining eligibility criteria, identifying a search strategy, performing study selection according to the eligibility criteria, and abstracting data from included studies. This process was accompanied by a gray literature search for special topics. RESULTS: The incentives in fee-for-service payment systems generally lead to health care services being applied inconsistently because providers practice independently with few systems in place for developing treatment protocols and practice reviews. This inconsistency is pronounced in cancer care because much of the total per patient spending occurs in the last month of life. Some insurers are predicting that this variation can be reduced through the use of prospective or bundled payments combined with decision support systems. Workload, recruitment, and retention are all affected by changes to physician payment models; effects seem to be magnified in the specialist context as their several extra years of training lower their overall supply. CONCLUSIONS: Experimentation with physician payment methods has tended to neglect cancer care providers. Policymakers designing cancer-focused physician reimbursement pilot programs should incorporate quality measurement since very ill patients may receive too little treatment when payment models do not cover oncologists' total costs, e.g., fee-for-service systems whose prices do not account for the possible presence of other diseases.

Cost-effectiveness of therapies for melanoma.

Melanoma presents an important burden worldwide. Until recently, the prognosis for unresectable and metastatic melanoma was poor, with 10% of metastatic melanoma patients surviving for 2 years. The introduction of newer therapies including ipilimumab, vemurafenib, dabrafenib and trametinib improved progression-free survival, with additional benefits anticipated from the forthcoming class of programmed cell death 1 inhibitors. Cost of therapy and resulting cost-effectiveness is an important factor in determining patient access to specific treatments. The objective of this study was to review the published evidence regarding cost-effectiveness of melanoma therapies and provide an overview of the relative cost-effectiveness of available therapies by disease stage. For earlier-stage disease, IFN-α has been found to be cost-effective, although its clinical benefits have not been well established. For unresectable and metastatic melanoma, newer therapies provide benefits over standard-of-care chemotherapy, but comprehensive analyses will need to be conducted to determine the most cost-effective therapy.