Strategies to accelerate the elimination of cervical cancer in British Columbia, Canada: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: To eliminate cervical cancer in Canada by 2040, defined as an annual age-standardized incidence rate (ASIR) lower than 4.0 per 100 000 women, the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (CPAC) identified 3 priorities for action: increasing human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine coverage, implementing HPV-based screening and increasing screening participation, and improving follow-up after abnormal screen results. Our objective was to explore the impact of these priorities on the projected time to elimination of cervical cancer in British Columbia. METHODS: We used OncoSim-Cervical, a microsimulation model led and supported by CPAC and developed by Statistics Canada that simulates HPV transmission and the natural history of cervical cancer for the Canadian population. We updated model parameters to reflect BC's historical participation rates and program design. We simulated the transition to HPV-based screening and developed scenarios to explore the additional impact of achieving 90% vaccination coverage, 95% screening recruitment, 90% ontime screening, and 95% follow-up compliance. We projected cervical cancer incidence, ASIR, and year of elimination for the population of BC for 2023-2050. RESULTS: HPV-based screening at current vaccination, participation, and follow-up rates can eliminate cervical cancer by 2034. Increasing on-time screening and follow-up compliance could achieve this target by 2031. Increasing vaccination coverage has a small impact over this time horizon. INTERPRETATION: With the implementation of HPV-based screening, cervical cancer can be eliminated in BC before 2040. Efforts to increase screening participation and follow-up through this transition could potentially accelerate this timeline, but the transition from cytology- to HPV-based screening is fundamental to achieving this goal.

Direct Medical Spending on Young and Average-Age Onset Colorectal Cancer before and after Diagnosis: a Population-Based Costing Study.

BACKGROUND: Despite a better understanding of the increasing incidence of young-onset colorectal cancer (yCRC; age at diagnosis <50 years), little is known about its economic burden. Therefore, we estimated direct medical spending on yCRC before and after diagnosis. METHODS: We used linked administrative health databases in British Columbia, Canada, to create a study population of yCRC and average-age onset colorectal cancer (aCRC; age at diagnosis ≥50 years) cases, along with cancer-free controls. Over the 1-year period preceding a colorectal cancer diagnosis, we estimated direct medical spending on hospital visits, healthcare practitioners, and prescription medications. After diagnosis, we calculated cost attributable to yCRC and aCRC, which additionally included the cost of cancer treatments (e.g., chemotherapy and radiotherapy) across phases of care. RESULTS: We included 1,058 yCRC (45.4% females; age at diagnosis 42.4 ± 6.2 years) and 12,619 aCRC (44.8% females; age at diagnosis of 68.1 ± 9.2 years) cases. Direct medical spending on the average yCRC and aCRC case during the year before diagnosis was $6,711 and $8,056, respectively. After diagnosis, the overall average annualized cost attributable to yCRC significantly differed in comparison with aCRC for the initial ($50,216 vs. $37,842; P < 0.001), continuing ($8,361 vs. $5,014; P < 0.001), and end-of-life cancer phase ($86,125 vs. $61,512; P < 0.001) but not end-of-life non-cancer phase ($77,273 vs. $23,316; P = 0.372). CONCLUSIONS: Reported cost estimates may be used as inputs for future economic evaluations pertaining to yCRC. IMPACT: We provided comprehensive cost estimates for healthcare spending on young-onset colorectal cancer.

Real-World Cost Effectiveness of a Policy of KRAS Testing to Inform Cetuximab or Panitumumab for Third-Line Therapy of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in British Columbia, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Cetuximab and panitumumab, two anti-EGFR therapies, are widely used for third-line therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with wild-type KRAS, but there remains uncertainty around their cost effectiveness. The objective of this analysis was to conduct a real-world cost-effectiveness analysis of the policy change introducing KRAS testing and third-line anti-EGFR therapy mCRC in British Columbia (BC), Canada. METHODS: We conducted secondary analysis of administrative data for a cohort of mCRC patients treated in BC in 2006-2015. Patients potentially eligible for KRAS testing and third-line therapy after the policy change (July 2009) were matched 2:1 to pre-policy patients using genetic matching on propensity score and baseline covariates. Costs and survival time were calculated over an 8-year time horizon, with bootstrapping to characterize uncertainty around endpoints. Cost effectiveness was expressed using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) and the probability of cost effectiveness at a range of thresholds. RESULTS: The cohort included 1757 mCRC patients (n = 456 pre-policy and n = 1304 post-policy; of those, n = 420 received cetuximab or panitumumab). There was a significant increase in survival and cost following the policy change. Adoption of KRAS testing and anti-EGFR therapy had an ICER of CA$73,759 per life-year gained (LYG) (95% CI 46,133-186,446). In scenario analysis, a reduction in cetuximab and panitumumab cost of at least 50% was required to make the policy change cost effective at a threshold of CA$50,000/LYG. CONCLUSION: A policy of third-line anti-EGFR therapy informed by KRAS testing may be considered cost effective at thresholds above CA$70,000/LYG. Reduction in drug costs, through price discounts or potential future biosimilars, would make anti-EGFR therapy considerably more cost effective. By using real-world data for a large cohort with long follow-up we can assess the value of a policy of KRAS testing and anti-EGFR therapy achieved in practice.

The impact of the early COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare system resource use and costs in two provinces in Canada: An interrupted time series analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of our study was to assess the initial impact of COVID-19 on total publicly-funded direct healthcare costs and health services use in two Canadian provinces, Ontario and British Columbia (BC). METHODS: This retrospective repeated cross-sectional study used population-based administrative datasets, linked within each province, from January 1, 2018 to December 27, 2020. Interrupted time series analysis was used to estimate changes in the level and trends of weekly resource use and costs, with March 16-22, 2020 as the first pandemic week. Also, in each week of 2020, we identified cases with their first positive SARS-CoV-2 test and estimated their healthcare costs until death or December 27, 2020. RESULTS: The resources with the largest level declines (95% confidence interval) in use in the first pandemic week compared to the previous week were physician services [Ontario: -43% (-49%,-37%); BC: -24% (-30%,-19%) (both p<0.001)] and emergency department visits [Ontario: -41% (-47%,-35%); BC: -29% (-35%,-23%) (both p<0.001)]. Hospital admissions declined by 27% (-32%,-23%) in Ontario and 21% (-26%,-16%) in BC (both p<0.001). Resource use subsequently rose but did not return to pre-pandemic levels. Only home care and dialysis clinic visits did not significantly decrease compared to pre-pandemic. Costs for COVID-19 cases represented 1.3% and 0.7% of total direct healthcare costs in 2020 in Ontario and BC, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Reduced utilization of healthcare services in the overall population outweighed utilization by COVID-19 patients in 2020. Meeting the needs of all patients across all services is essential to maintain resilient healthcare systems.

Economic evaluation of prostate cancer risk assessment methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis using population data.

BACKGROUND: The current prostate cancer (PCa) screening standard of care (SOC) leads to unnecessary biopsies and overtreatment because decisions are guided by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, which have low specificity in the gray zone (3-10 ng/mL). New risk assessment tools (RATs) aim to improve biopsy decision-making. We constructed a modeling framework to assess new RATs in men with gray zone PSA from the British Columbia healthcare system's perspective. METHODS: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a new RAT used in biopsy-naïve men aged 50+ with a PSA of 3-10 ng/mL using a time-dependent state-transition model. The model was informed by engaging patient partners and using linked administrative health data, supplemented with published literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and the probability of the RAT being cost-effective were calculated. Probabilistic analysis was used to assess parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: In the base case, a RAT based on an existing biomarker's characteristics was a dominant strategy associated with a cost savings of $44 and a quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gain of 0.00253 over 18 years of follow-up. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of $50,000/QALY, the probability that using a RAT is cost-effective relative to the SOC was 73%. Outcomes were sensitive to RAT costs and accuracy, especially the detection rate of high-grade PCa. Results were also impacted by PCa prevalence and assumptions about undetected PCa survival. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings showed that a more accurate RAT to guide biopsy can be cost-effective. Our proposed general model can be used to analyze the cost-effectiveness of any novel RAT.

Health Care Costs Attributable to Prostate Cancer in British Columbia, Canada: A Population-Based Cohort Study.

We aimed to estimate the total health care costs attributable to prostate cancer (PCa) during care phases by age, cancer stage, tumor grade, and primary treatment in the first year in British Columbia (BC), Canada. Using linked administrative health data, we followed a cohort of men aged ≥ 50 years at diagnosis with PCa between 2010 and 2017 (Cohort 1) from the diagnosis date until the date of death, the last date of observation, or 31 December 2019. Patients who died from PCa after 1 January 2010, were selected for Cohort 2. PCa attributable costs were estimated by comparing costs in patients to matched controls. Cohort 1 (n = 22,672) had a mean age of 69.9 years (SD = 8.9) and a median follow-up time of 5.2 years. Cohort 2 included 6942 patients. Mean PCa attributable costs were the highest during the first year after diagnosis ($14,307.9 [95% CI: $13,970.0, $14,645.8]) and the year before death ($9959.7 [$8738.8, $11,181.0]). Primary treatment with radiation therapy had significantly higher costs each year after diagnosis than a radical prostatectomy or other surgeries in advanced-stage PCa. Androgen deprivation therapy (and/or chemotherapy) had the highest cost for high-grade and early-stage cancer during the three years after diagnosis. No treatment group had the lowest cost. Updated cost estimates could inform economic evaluations and decision-making.

Initial health care costs for COVID-19 in British Columbia and Ontario, Canada: an interprovincial population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 imposed substantial health and economic burdens. Comprehensive population-based estimates of health care costs for COVID-19 are essential for planning and policy evaluation. We estimated publicly funded health care costs in 2 Canadian provinces during the pandemic's first wave. METHODS: In this historical cohort study, we linked patients with their first positive SARS-CoV-2 test result by June 30, 2020, in 2 Canadian provinces (British Columbia and Ontario) to health care administrative databases and matched to negative or untested controls. We stratified patients by highest level of initial care: community, long-term care, hospital (without admission to the intensive care unit [ICU]) and ICU. Mean publicly funded health care costs for patients and controls, mean net (attributable to COVID-19) costs and total costs were estimated from 30 days before to 120 days after the index date, or to July 31, 2020, in 30-day periods for patients still being followed by the start of each period. RESULTS: We identified 2465 matched people with a positive test result for SARS-CoV-2 in BC and 28 893 in Ontario. Mean age was 53.4 (standard deviation [SD] 21.8) years (BC) and 53.7 (SD 22.7) years (Ontario); 55.7% (BC) and 56.1% (Ontario) were female. Net costs in the first 30 days after the index date were $22 010 (95% confidence interval [CI] 19 512 to 24 509) and $15 750 (95% CI 15 354 to 16 147) for patients admitted to hospital, and $65 828 (95% CI 58 535 to 73 122) and $56 088 (95% CI 53 721 to 58 455) for ICU patients in BC and Ontario, respectively. In the community and long-term care settings, net costs were near 0. Total costs for all people, from 30 days before to 30 days after the index date, were $22 128 330 (BC) and $175 778 210 (Ontario). INTERPRETATION: During the first wave, we found that mean costs attributable to COVID-19 were highest for patients with ICU admission and higher in BC than Ontario. Reducing the number of people who acquire COVID-19 and severity of illness are required to mitigate the economic impact of COVID-19.

Tools for the Economic Evaluation of Precision Medicine: A Scoping Review of Frameworks for Valuing Heterogeneity-Informed Decisions.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Precision medicine highlights the importance of exploring heterogeneity in the effectiveness and costs of interventions. Our objective was to identify and compare frameworks for valuing heterogeneity-informed decisions, and consider their strengths and weaknesses for application to precision medicine. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to identify papers that proposed an analytical framework to place a value, in terms of costs and health benefits, on using heterogeneity to inform treatment selection. The search included English-language papers indexed in MEDLINE, Embase or EconLit, and a manual review of references and citations. We compared the frameworks qualitatively considering: the purpose and setting of the analysis; the types of precision medicine interventions where the framework could be applied; and the framework's ability to address the methodological challenges of evaluating precision medicine. RESULTS: Four analytical frameworks were identified: value of stratification, value of heterogeneity, expected value of individualised care and loss with respect to efficient diffusion. Each framework is suited to slightly different settings and research questions. All focus on maximising net benefit, and quantify the opportunity cost of ignoring heterogeneity by comparing individualised or stratified decisions to a means-based population-wide decision. Where the frameworks differ is in their approaches to uncertainty, and in the additional metrics they consider. CONCLUSIONS: Identifying and utilising heterogeneity is at the core of precision medicine, and the ability to quantify the value of heterogeneity-informed decisions is critical. Using an analytical framework to value heterogeneity will help provide evidence to inform investment in precision medicine interventions, appropriately capturing the value of targeted health interventions.

"Bring the Hoses to Where the Fire Is!": Differential Impacts of Marginalization and Socioeconomic Status on COVID-19 Case Counts and Healthcare Costs.

OBJECTIVES: Local health leaders and the Director General of the World Health Organization alike have observed that COVID-19 "does not discriminate." Nevertheless, the disproportionate representation of people of low socioeconomic status among those infected resembles discrimination. This population-based retrospective cohort study examined COVID-19 case counts and publicly funded healthcare costs in Ontario, Canada, with a focus on marginalization. METHODS: Individuals with their first positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 test from January 1, 2020 to June 30, 2020, were linked to administrative databases and matched to negative/untested controls. Mean net (COVID-19-attributable) costs were estimated for 30 days before and after diagnosis, and differences among strata of age, sex, comorbidity, and measures of marginalization were assessed using analysis of variance tests. RESULTS: We included 28 893 COVID-19 cases (mean age 54 years, 56% female). Most cases remained in the community (20 545, 71.1%) or in long-term care facilities (4478, 15.5%), whereas 944 (3.3%) and 2926 (10.1%) were hospitalized, with and without intensive care unit, respectively. Case counts were skewed across marginalization strata with 2 to 7 times more cases in neighborhoods with low income, high material deprivation, and highest ethnic concentration. Mean net costs after diagnosis were higher for males ($4752 vs $2520 for females) and for cases with higher comorbidity ($1394-$7751) (both P < .001) but were similar across levels of most marginalization dimensions (range $3232-$3737, all P ≥ .19). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that allocating resources unequally to marginalized individuals may improve equality in outcomes. It highlights the importance of reducing risk of COVID-19 infection among marginalized individuals to reduce overall costs and increase system capacity.

Mapping Canadian Data Assets to Generate Real-World Evidence: Lessons Learned from Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration's RWE Data Working Group.

Canadian provinces routinely collect patient-level data for administrative purposes. These real-world data (RWD) can be used to generate real-world evidence (RWE) to inform clinical care and healthcare policy. The CanREValue Collaboration is developing a framework for the use of RWE in cancer drug funding decisions. A Data Working Group (WG) was established to identify data assets across Canada for generating RWE of oncology drugs. The mapping exercise was conducted using an iterative scan with informant surveys and teleconference. Data experts from ten provinces convened for a total of three teleconferences and two in-person meetings from March 2018 to September 2019. Following each meeting, surveys were developed and shared with the data experts which focused on identifying databases and data elements, as well as a feasibility assessment of conducting RWE studies using existing data elements and resources. Survey responses were compiled into an interim data report, which was used for public stakeholder consultation. The feedback from the public consultation was used to update the interim data report. We found that databases required to conduct real-world studies are often held by multiple different data custodians. Ninety-seven databases were identified across Canada. Provinces held on average 9 distinct databases (range: 8-11). An Essential RWD Table was compiled that contains data elements that are necessary, at a minimal, to conduct an RWE study. An Expanded RWD Table that contains a more comprehensive list of potentially relevant data elements was also compiled and the availabilities of these data elements were mapped. While most provinces have data on patient demographics (e.g., age, sex) and cancer-related variables (e.g., morphology, topography), the availability and linkability of data on cancer treatment, clinical characteristics (e.g., morphology and topography), and drug costs vary among provinces. Based on current resources, data availability, and access processes, data experts in most provinces noted that more than 12 months would be required to complete an RWE study. The CanREValue Collaboration's Data WG identified key data holdings, access considerations, as well as gaps in oncology treatment-specific data. This data catalogue can be used to facilitate future oncology-specific RWE analyses across Canada.

Real-World Cost-Effectiveness of Bevacizumab With First-Line Combination Chemotherapy in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Studies in Three Canadian Provinces.

Background. Real-world evidence can be a valuable tool when clinical trial data are incomplete or uncertain. Bevacizumab was adopted as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) based on significant survival improvements in initial clinical trials; however, survival benefit diminished in subsequent analyses. Consequently, there is uncertainty surrounding the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab therapy achieved in practice. Objective. To assess real-world cost-effectiveness of first-line bevacizumab with irinotecan-based chemotherapy versus irinotecan-based chemotherapy alone for mCRC in British Columbia (BC), Saskatchewan, and Ontario, Canada. Methods. Using provincial cancer registries and linked administrative databases, we identified mCRC patients who initiated publicly funded irinotecan-based chemotherapy, with or without bevacizumab, in 2000 to 2015. We compared bevacizumab-treated patients to historical controls (treated before bevacizumab funding) and contemporaneous controls (receiving chemotherapy without bevacizumab), using inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting with propensity scores to balance baseline covariates. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) using 5-year cost and survival adjusted for censoring, with bootstrapping to characterize uncertainty. We also conducted one-way sensitivity analysis for key drivers of cost-effectiveness. Results. The cohorts included 12,112 (Ontario), 1,161 (Saskatchewan), and 2,977 (BC) patients. Bevacizumab significantly increased treatment costs, with mean ICERs between $78,000 and $84,000/LYG (life-year gained) in the contemporaneous comparisons and $75,000 and $101,000/LYG in the historical comparisons. Reducing the cost of bevacizumab by 50% brought ICERs in all comparisons below $61,000/LYG. Limitations. Residual confounding in observational data may bias results, while the use of original list prices overestimates current bevacizumab cost. Conclusion. The addition of bevacizumab to irinotecan-based chemotherapy extended survival for mCRC patients but at significant cost. At original list prices bevacizumab can only be considered cost-effective with certainty at a willingness-to-pay threshold over $100,000/LYG, but price reductions or discounts have a significant impact on cost-effectiveness.

Cancer drug expenditure in British Columbia and Saskatchewan: a trend analysis.

BACKGROUND: Expenditure on systemic therapy for cancer has been increasing quickly owing to population growth, increased use, both in the number of users and in prescription volume, and rising drug prices. Our objective was to describe trends in expenditure in British Columbia and Saskatchewan's cancer care systems and to elucidate these drivers of growth. METHODS: In this trend analysis, we obtained pharmacy dispensing records from the BC Cancer and Saskatchewan Cancer Agency pharmacies for all anticancer therapies dispensed in 2006-2013. We calculated total annual expenditure directly from the data and conducted a trend analysis of crude and standardized annual expenditure using generalized linear models. We estimated trends in the following components of total expenditure: cancer incidence, number of systemic therapy users per incident case, number of dispensed prescriptions per user and cost per prescription. Analysis was stratified by patient age group, cancer site and route of administration (oral or intravenous/other). RESULTS: Expenditure on systemic therapies, adjusted for population growth and aging, increased an average of 9.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.2 to 11.2) per year in Saskatchewan and 6.4% (95% CI 5.3 to 7.6) per year in BC. Growth in expenditure on orally administered agents was more than 2 times higher than growth in expenditure on intravenous/other agents. Growth rates varied significantly by cancer site. In both provinces, rising cost per prescription was the largest contributor to overall growth. INTERPRETATION: Price is the primary driver of growth in systemic therapy expenditure in both BC and Saskatchewan. Understanding the mechanisms of expenditure growth may inform system planning and support policy-makers' efforts to manage rising costs.

Economic Evaluations of Next-Generation Precision Oncology: A Critical Review.

PURPOSE: Precision oncology has the potential to improve patient health and reduce treatment costs. Yet the up-front cost of genomic testing with next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies can be prohibitive. Our study is a structured review of economic evaluations of precision oncology informed by NGS. The aim is to characterize the availability and scope of economic evidence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched Medline (PubMed), Embase (Ovid), and Web of Science databases for English-language full-text peer-reviewed articles published between 2000 and 2016. We focused our search on articles that estimated the benefit of precision oncology in relation to its costs. We excluded studies that did not undertake full economic evaluations or did not focus on NGS technologies. We reviewed all included studies and summarized key methodological and empirical study characteristics. RESULTS: Fifty-five economic evaluations met our inclusion criteria. The number of published studies increased steadily, from three studies between 2005 and 2007 to 26 between 2014 and 2016. Most studies evaluated multiplex panels (86%). We found testing was frequently used to predict prognosis (67%), to diagnose patients (24%), or to identify targeted therapeutic options (7%). Methods and cost effectiveness differed according to NGS technology, test strategy, and cancer type. Deterministic and probabilistic analyses were typically used to characterize parameter and decision uncertainty (91% and 75%). CONCLUSION: Although the availability of economic evidence examining precision oncology increased over time, methods used often did not align with current guidelines. Future evaluations should undertake extensive sensitivity analysis to address all sources of uncertainty associated with rapidly changing NGS technologies. Furthermore, additional research is needed evaluating the cost effectiveness of more comprehensive next-generation technologies before implementing these on a wider scale.

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.

Estimating the Cost of Cancer Care in British Columbia and Ontario: A Canadian Inter-Provincial Comparison.

BACKGROUND: Costing studies are useful to measure the economic burden of cancer. Comparing costs between healthcare systems can inform evaluation, development or modification of cancer care policies. OBJECTIVES: To estimate and compare cancer costs in British Columbia and Ontario from the payers' perspectives. METHODS: Using linked cancer registry and administrative data, and standardized costing methodology and analyses, we estimated costs for 21 cancer sites by phase of care to determine potential differences between provinces. RESULTS: Overall, costs were higher in Ontario. Costs were highest in the initial post-diagnosis and pre-death phases and lowest in the pre-diagnosis and continuing phases, and generally higher for brain cancer and multiple myeloma, and lower for melanoma. Hospitalization was the major cost category. Costs for physician services and diagnostic tests differed the most between provinces. CONCLUSIONS: The standardization of data and costing methodology is challenging, but it enables interprovincial and international comparative costing analyses.

Phase-specific and lifetime costs of cancer care in Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is a major public health issue and represents a significant economic burden to health care systems worldwide. The objective of this analysis was to estimate phase-specific, 5-year and lifetime net costs for the 21 most prevalent cancer sites, and remaining tumour sites combined, in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: We selected all adult patients diagnosed with a primary cancer between 1997 and 2007, with valid ICD-O site and histology codes, and who survived 30 days or more after diagnosis, from the Ontario Cancer Registry (N = 394,092). Patients were linked to treatment data from Cancer Care Ontario and administrative health care databases at the Institute for Clinical and Evaluative Sciences. Net costs (i.e., cost difference between patients and matched non-cancer control subjects) were estimated by phase of care and sex, and used to estimate 5-year and lifetime costs. RESULTS: Mean net costs of care (2009 CAD) were highest in the initial (6 months post-diagnosis) and terminal (12 months pre-death) phases, and lowest in the (3 months) pre-diagnosis and continuing phases of care. Phase-specific net costs were generally lowest for melanoma and highest for brain cancer. Mean 5-year net costs varied from less than $25,000 for melanoma, thyroid and testicular cancers to more than $60,000 for multiple myeloma and leukemia. Lifetime costs ranged from less than $55,000 for lung and liver cancers to over $110,000 for leukemia, multiple myeloma, lymphoma and breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Costs of cancer care are substantial and vary by cancer site, phase of care and time horizon analyzed. These cost estimates are valuable to decision makers to understand the economic burden of cancer care and may be useful inputs to researchers undertaking cancer-related economic evaluations.

Does Increasing Home Care Nursing Reduce Emergency Department Visits at the End of Life? A Population-Based Cohort Study of Cancer Decedents.

CONTEXT: Despite being commonplace in health care systems, little research has described home care nursing's effectiveness to reduce acute care use at the end of life. OBJECTIVES: To examine the temporal association between home care nursing rate on emergency department (ED) visit rate in the subsequent week during the last six months of life. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of end-of-life cancer decedents in Ontario, Canada, from 2004 to 2009 by linking administrative databases. We examined the association between home care nursing rate of one week with the ED rate in the subsequent week closer to death, controlling for covariates and repeated measures among decedents. Nursing was dichotomized into standard and end-of-life care intent. RESULTS: Our cohort included 54,576 decedents who used home care nursing services in the last six months before death, where 85% had an ED visit and 68% received end-of-life home care nursing. Patients receiving end-of-life nursing at any week had a significantly reduced ED rate in the subsequent week of 31% (relative rate [RR] 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68, 0.71) compared with standard nursing. In the last month of life, receiving end-of-life nursing and standard nursing rate of more than five hours/week was associated with a decreased ED rate of 41% (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.58, 0.61) and 32% (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.66, 0.70), respectively, compared with standard nursing of one hour/week. CONCLUSION: Our study showed a temporal association between receiving end-of-life nursing in a given week during the last six months of life, and of more standard nursing in the last month of life, with a reduced ED rate in the subsequent week.

End-of-Life Cancer Care: Temporal Association between Homecare Nursing and Hospitalizations.

OBJECTIVES: Most cancer patients want to die at home, but scaleable models to achieve this are not well researched. Our objective was to investigate the temporal association of homecare nursing, especially by generalist nurses, with reduced end-of-life hospitalizations. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective Canadian cohort study of end-of-life cancer decedents during 2004-2009 in Ontario (ON), Nova Scotia (NS), and British Columbia (BC), which have homecare systems that use generalist nurses to provide end-of-life care. Each province linked administrative databases to examine the association during the last six months of life between the homecare nursing rate and the hospitalization rate in the subsequent week, using standardized definitions and controlling for other covariates. We dichotomized nursing into standard and end-of-life care intent. RESULTS: Our cohort included 83,827 cancer decedents. Approximately 55% of decedents were older than 70 and the most common cancer was lung. Nearly 85% of the cohort had at least one hospital admission. Receiving end-of-life compared to standard homecare nursing significantly reduced a patient's hospitalization rate by 34%, 33%, and 17% in ON, BC, and NS. In the last month of life patients having a standard nursing rate of greater than five hours compared to one hour per week had a significantly lower hospitalization rate (relative reduction of 15%-23%) across the three provinces. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed a protective effect of nursing with an end-of-life intent on hospitalization across the last six months of life and of standard nursing in the last month. This finding's generalizability is strengthened, since the trends were similar across three different homecare systems.

Quality Indicators of End-of-Life Care in Patients With Cancer: What Rate Is Right?

PURPOSE: To develop data-driven and achievable benchmark rates for end-of-life quality indicators using administrative data from four provinces in Canada. METHODS: Indicators of end-of-life care were defined and measured using linked administrative data for 33 health regions across British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, and Nova Scotia. These were emergency department use, intensive care unit admission, physician house calls and home care visits before death, and death in hospital. An empiric benchmark was defined using indicator rates from the top-ranked regions to include the top decile of patients overall. Funnel plots were used to graph each region's age- and sex-adjusted indicator rates along with the overall rate and 95% confidence limits. RESULTS: Rates varied approximately two- to four-fold across the regions, with physician house calls showing the greatest variation. Benchmark rates based on the top decile performers were emergency department use, 34%; intensive care unit admission, 2%; physician house calls, 34%; home care visits, 63%; and death in hospital, 38%. With the exception of intensive care unit admission, funnel plots demonstrated that overall indicator rates and their confidence limits were uniformly worse than benchmarks even after adjusting for age and sex. Few regions met the benchmark rates. CONCLUSION: There is significant variation in end-of-life quality indicators across regions in four provinces in Canada. Using this study's methods-deriving empiric benchmarks and funnel plots-regions can determine their relative performance with greater context that facilitates priority setting and resource deployment. Applying this study's methods can support quality improvement by decreasing variation and striving for a target.

Societal preferences for the return of incidental findings from clinical genomic sequencing: a discrete-choice experiment.

BACKGROUND: An important challenge with the application of next-generation sequencing technology is the possibility of uncovering incidental genomic findings. A paucity of evidence on personal utility for incidental findings has hindered clinical guidelines. Our objective was to estimate personal utility for complex information derived from incidental genomic findings. METHODS: We used a discrete-choice experiment to evaluate participants' personal utility for the following attributes: disease penetrance, disease treatability, disease severity, carrier status and cost. Study participants were drawn from the Canadian public. We analyzed the data with a mixed logit model. RESULTS: In total, 1200 participants completed our questionnaire (available in English and French). Participants valued receiving information about high-penetrance disorders but expressed disutility for receiving information on low-penetrance disorders. The average willingness to pay was $445 (95% confidence interval [CI] $322-$567) to receive incidental findings in a scenario where clinicians returned information about high-penetrance, medically treatable disorders, but only 66% of participants (95% CI 63%-71%) indicated that they would choose to receive information in that scenario. On average, participants placed an important value ($725, 95% CI $600-$850) on having a choice about what type of findings they would receive, including receipt of information about high-penetrance, treatable disorders or receipt of information about high-penetrance disorders with or without available treatment. The predicted uptake of that scenario was 76% (95% CI 72%-79%). INTERPRETATION: Most participants valued receiving incidental findings, but personal utility depended on the type of finding, and not all participants wanted to receive incidental results, regardless of the potential health implications. These results indicate that to maximize benefit, participant-level preferences should inform the decision about whether to return incidental findings.