Clinical trials and drug cost savings for Italian health service.

BACKGROUND: The cost of anticancer drugs is constantly growing. The aim of this study was determine the impact in terms of cost reduction for anticancer drug in the Italian Health Service due to patient participation in clinical trials. METHODS: We evaluated the cost of drugs administered to patients treated in clinical trials at the National Cancer Institute of Naples in a four-week time period. Patients with a diagnosis of different cancers were considered, including adjuvant therapy and treatment for advanced disease, pharma sponsored and investigator initiated phase I, II and III clinical studies. We defined the expected standard treatment for each patient and we calculated the cost of the standard antineoplastic drugs that should be administered in clinical practice outside clinical trials. We used the market price of drugs to determine the cost savings value. Costs other than drugs were not included in the cost saving calculation. RESULTS: From 23.10.2017 to 17.11.2017, 126 patients were treated in 34 pharma sponsored and investigator initiated clinical trials, using experimental drugs provided free of charge by the sponsors, for an overall number of 152 cycles of therapy. If these patients were treated with conventional therapies in clinical practice the cost of antineoplastic drugs would account for 517,658 Euros, with an average of 5487 Euros saved per patients for a period of 4 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical trials with investigational antineoplastic drugs provided free of charge by Sponsors render considerable cost savings, with a tangible benefit in clinical and administrative strategies to reduce drug expenditures.

Improving the quality of patient care in lung cancer: key factors for successful multidisciplinary team working.

International Guidelines as well as Cancer Associations recommend a multidisciplinary approach to lung cancer care. A multidisciplinary team (MDT) can significantly improve treatment decision-making and patient coordination by putting different physicians and other health professionals "in the same room", who collectively decide upon the best possible treatment. However, this is not a panacea for cancer treatment. The impact of multidisciplinary care (MDC) on patient outcomes is not univocal, while the effective functioning of the MDT depends on many factors. This review presents the available MDT literature with an emphasis on the key factors that characterize high-quality patient care in lung cancer. The study was conducted with a bibliographic search using different electronic databases (PubMed Central, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Google) referring to multidisciplinary cancer care settings. Many key elements appear consolidated, while others emerge as prevalent and actual, especially those related to visible barriers which work across geographic, organizational, and disciplinary boundaries. MDTs must be sustained by strategic management, structured within the entity, and cannot be managed as a separate care process. Furthermore, they need to coordinate with other teams (within and outside the organization) and join with the broad range of services delivered by multiple providers at various points of the cancer journey or within the system, with the vision of integrated care.

Risk Management Activities in a Lung Cancer Multidisciplinary Team at a Comprehensive Cancer Center: Results of a Prospective Analysis.

PURPOSE: The objective of the study was to highlight sources of harm that could negatively affect the lung cancer multidisciplinary team (MDT) activities to reduce the level of risk of each factor. METHODS: A modified Delphi approach was used by a board of multi-health care professionals of the lung cancer MDT to identify the main processes, subprocesses, and risk factors of the multidisciplinary pathway of patients with lung cancer. A semiquantitative matrix was built with a five-point scale for probability of harm (likelihood) and severity of harm (consequences) according to the international risk management standards (ISO 31000-2018). The risk level was calculated by multiplying likelihood × consequences. Mitigation strategies have been identified and applied by the MDT to reduce risks to acceptable levels. RESULTS: Three main processes (outpatient specialist visit, MDT discussion, and MDT program implementation), eight related subprocesses, and 16 risk factors were identified. Four risk factors (25%) were related to outpatient specialist visit, seven (43.75%) to case discussion, and five (31.25%) to program implementation. Overall, two risk factors were assigned a low-risk level (12.5%), 11 a moderate-risk level (68.75%), one (6.25%) a high-risk level, and two (12.5%) a very high-risk level. After the implementation of mitigation measures, the new semiquantitative risk analysis showed a reduction in almost all hazardous situations: two risk factors (12.5%) were given a very low level, six (37.5%) a low level, seven (43.75%) a moderate level, and one (6.25%) a very high level. CONCLUSION: An interdisciplinary risk assessment analysis is applicable to MDT activities by using an ad hoc risk matrix: if the hazard is identified and monitored, the risk could be reduced and managed in a short time.

Risk Analysis in Healthcare Organizations: Methodological Framework and Critical Variables.

PURPOSE: A risk assessment matrix is a widely used tool for analyzing, assessing and setting priorities in risk management in many fields. This paper overviews critical variables, advantages, disadvantages, strengths and weaknesses of this tool, according to the ISO 31000 risk management framework. RESULTS: Risk assessment is one of the key stages in the Risk Management Process and involves specific steps: identifying hazards, analyzing and evaluating all possible risks. Several methods are developed to assess risks in the literature. A risk matrix method, also called "decision matrix risk assessment (DMRA) technique", is a systematic approach used to determine the risk level and to compare different risks and define which threats need to be controlled first. The actors involved in risk assessment are called on to manage different issues related to the choice of the most appropriate methodological approach, the assessment of the adequacy of the existing control measures, the articulation of risk consequence domains, the definition of the impact-consequences, the explanation of risk likelihood scales and the development of a risk matrix. CONCLUSION: We highlighted a number of recommendations in order to address these issues, especially useful when healthcare organizations provide insufficient guidance on how to use risk matrices as well as what to do in response to the existing criticisms on their use.

Costs of clinical trials with anticancer biological agents in an Oncologic Italian Cancer Center using the activity-based costing methodology.

AIM: The aim of the present study was to assess the estimated "per patient" total cost for a single Oncologic Italian Cancer Center participating in a multicenter clinical trial with new anticancer biological agents using the activity-based costing (ABC) methodology. METHODOLOGY: Nine randomized phase 3 clinical trials employing biological agents at the National Cancer Institute of Napoli, Italy, were analyzed to indentify "per patient" costs of each trial, according to the ABC methodology. The average consumption of resources for a patient completing the entire planned treatment was estimated for each trial. Through interviews of the personnel (doctors, nurses and technicians) and by analyses of the clinical trials protocols, the main activities of the 9 clinical trials were identified and, for each trial, the complete health care pathway of the patients and the treatment programmes were minutely reconstructed. Drug costs were not included because provided by Sponsors. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The average costs of the pre-study, treatment, monitoring, follow-up, audit, and administrative activities accounted for 2.357, 4.783, 700, 372, 1.263, and 9 Euro, respectively. The average total cost estimated for all "per patient" activities, including overhead costs, was 11.379 Euro. Staff costs accounted for € 5.988, while costs of diagnostic test accounted for 3.494 Euro. Clinical trials with immunotherapeutic drugs accounted for higher costs (+601 Euro as oncological staff costs, +1.318 Euro as intermediate services cost and +384 Euro as overheads). CONCLUSIONS: The average total cost estimated for all "per patient" activities of a clinical trial with new anticancer biological agents was 11.379 Euro using the ABC methodology.