Direct and Indirect Costs of Breast Cancer and Associated Implications: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Breast cancer is currently the leading cause of global cancer incidence. Breast cancer has negative consequences for society and economies internationally due to the high burden of disease which includes adverse epidemiological and economic implications. Our aim is to systematically review the estimated economic burden of breast cancer in the United States (US), Canada, Australia, and Western Europe (United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, and Switzerland), with an objective of discussing the policy and practice implications of our results. METHODS: We included English-language published studies with cost as a focal point using a primary data source to inform resource usage of women with breast cancer. We focussed on studies published since 2017, but with reported costs since 2012. A systematic search conducted on 25 January 2023 identified studies relating to the economic burden of breast cancer in the countries of interest. MEDLINE, Embase, and EconLit databases were searched via Ovid. Study quality was assessed based on three aspects: (1) validity of cost findings; (2) completeness of direct cost findings; and (3) completeness of indirect cost findings. We grouped costs based on country, cancer stage (early compared to metastatic), and four resource categories: healthcare/medical, pharmaceutical drugs, diagnosis, and indirect costs. Costs were standardized to the year 2022 in US (US$2022) and International (Int$2022) dollars. RESULTS: Fifty-three studies were included. Studies in the US (n = 19) and Canada (n = 9) were the majority (53%), followed by Western European countries (42%). Healthcare/medical costs were the focus for the majority (89%), followed by pharmaceutical drugs (25%), then diagnosis (17%) and indirect (17%) costs. Thirty-six (68%) included early-stage cancer costs, 17 (32%) included metastatic cancer costs, with 23% reporting costs across these cancer stages. No identified study explicitly compared costs across countries. Across cost categories, cost ranges tended to be higher in the US than any other country. Metastatic breast cancer was associated with higher costs than earlier-stage cancer. When indirect costs were accounted for, particularly in terms of productivity loss, they tended to be higher than any other estimated direct cost (e.g., diagnosis, drug, and other medical costs). CONCLUSION: There was substantial heterogeneity both within and across countries for the identified studies' designs and estimated costs. Despite this, current empirical literature suggests that costs associated with early initiation of treatment could be offset against potentially avoiding or reducing the overall economic burden of later-stage and more severe breast cancer. Larger scale, national, economic burden studies are needed, to be updated regularly to ensure there is an ongoing and evolving perspective of the economic burden of conditions such as breast cancer to inform policy and practice.

Demographic Analysis of Cancer Research Priorities and Treatment Correlations.

Understanding the diversity in cancer research priorities and the correlations among different treatment modalities is essential to address the evolving landscape of oncology. This study, conducted in collaboration with the European Cancer Patient Coalition (ECPC) and Childhood Cancer International-Europe (CCI-E) as part of the "UNCAN.eu" initiative, analyzed data from a comprehensive survey to explore the complex interplay of demographics, time since cancer diagnosis, and types of treatments received. Demographic analysis revealed intriguing trends, highlighting the importance of tailoring cancer research efforts to specific age groups and genders. Individuals aged 45-69 exhibited highly aligned research priorities, emphasizing the need to address the unique concerns of middle-aged and older populations. In contrast, patients over 70 years demonstrated a divergence in research priorities, underscoring the importance of recognising the distinct needs of older individuals in cancer research. The analysis of correlations among different types of cancer treatments underscored the multidisciplinary approach to cancer care, with surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, precision therapy, and biological therapies playing integral roles. These findings support the need for personalized and combined treatment strategies to achieve optimal outcomes. In conclusion, this study provides valuable insights into the complexity of cancer research priorities and treatment correlations in a European context. It emphasizes the importance of a multifaceted, patient-centred approach to cancer research and treatment, highlighting the need for ongoing support, adaptation, and collaboration to address the ever-changing landscape of oncology.

Aligning Cancer Research Priorities in Europe with Recommendations for Conquering Cancer: A Comprehensive Analysis.

Improvements in cancer care require a new degree of collaboration beyond the purely medical sphere, extending deeply into the world of other stakeholders-preeminently patients but also the other stakeholders in the hardware and software of care. Cancer remains a global health challenge, necessitating collaborative efforts to understand, prevent, and treat this complex disease. To achieve this goal, a comprehensive analysis was conducted, aligning the prioritization of cancer research measures in 13 European countries with 13 key recommendations for conquering cancer in the region. The study utilized a survey involving both patients and citizens, alongside data from IQVIA, a global healthcare data provider, to assess the availability and access to single-biomarker tests in multiple European countries. The results revealed a focused approach toward understanding, preventing, and treating cancer, with each country emphasizing specific research measures tailored to its strengths and healthcare objectives. This analysis highlights the intricate relationship between research priorities, access to biomarker tests, and financial support. Timely access to tests and increased availability positively influence research areas such as cancer prevention, early detection, ageing, and data utilization. The alignment of these country-specific measures with 13 recommendations for conquering cancer in Europe underscores the importance of tailored strategies for understanding, preventing, and treating cancer.

Framework for Adoption of Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) Globally in the Oncology Area.

Radical new possibilities of improved treatment of cancer are on offer from an advanced medical technology already demonstrating its significance: next-generation sequencing (NGS). This refined testing provides unprecedentedly precise diagnoses and permits the use of focused and highly personalized treatments. However, across regions globally, many cancer patients will continue to be denied the benefits of NGS as long as some of the yawning gaps in its implementation remain unattended. The challenges at the regional and national levels are linked because putting the solutions into effect is highly dependent on cooperation between regional- and national-level cooperation, which could be hindered by shortfalls in interpretation or understanding. The aim of the paper was to define and explore the necessary conditions for NGS and make recommendations for effective implementation based on extensive exchanges with policy makers and stakeholders. As a result, the European Alliance for Personalised Medicine (EAPM) developed a maturity framework structured around demand-side and supply-side issues to enable interested stakeholders in different countries to self-evaluate according to a common matrix. A questionnaire was designed to identify the current status of NGS implementation, and it was submitted to different experts in different institutions globally. This revealed significant variability in the different aspects of NGS uptake. Within different regions globally, to ensure those conditions are right, this can be improved by linking efforts made at the national level, where patients have needs and where care is delivered, and at the global level, where major policy initiatives in the health field are underway or in preparation, many of which offer direct or indirect pathways for building those conditions. In addition, in a period when consensus is still incomplete and catching up is needed at a political level to ensure rational allocation of resources-even within individual countries-to enable the best ways to make the necessary provisions for NGS, a key recommendation is to examine where closer links between national and regional actions could complement, support, and mutually reinforce efforts to improve the situation for patients.

Empowering quality data - the Gordian knot of bringing real innovation into healthcare system.

OBJECTIVES: The introduction of Personalised Medicine (PM) into healthcare systems could benefit from a clearer understanding of the distinct national and regional frameworks around the world. Recent engagement by international regulators on maximising the use of real-world evidence (RWE) has highlighted the scope for improving the exploitation of the treasure-trove of health data that is currently largely neglected in many countries. The European Alliance for Personalised Medicine (EAPM) led an international study aimed at identifying the current status of conditions. METHODS: A literature review examined how far such frameworks exist, with a view to identifying conducive factors - and crucial gaps. This extensive review of key factors across 22 countries and 5 regions revealed a wide variety of attitudes, approaches, provisions and conditions, and permitted the construction of a comprehensive overview of the current status of PM. Based on seven key pillars identified from the literature review and expert panels, the data was quantified, and on the basis of further analysis, an index was developed to allow comparison country by country and region by region. RESULTS: The results show that United States of America is leading according to overall outcome whereas Kenya scored the least in the overall outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Still, common approaches exist that could help accelerate take-up of opportunities even in the less prosperous parts of the world.

Fighting Cancer around the World: A Framework for Action.

Tackling cancer is a major challenge right on the global level. Europe is only the tip of an iceberg of cancer around the world. Prosperous developed countries share the same problems besetting Europe-and the countries and regions with fewer resources and less propitious conditions are in many cases struggling often heroically against a growing tide of disease. This paper offers a view on these geographically wider, but essentially similar, challenges, and on the prospects for and barriers to better results in this ceaseless battle. A series of panels have been organized by the European Alliance for Personalised Medicine (EAPM) to identify different aspects of cancer care around the globe. There is significant diversity in key issues such as NGS, RWE, molecular diagnostics, and reimbursement in different regions. In all, it leads to disparities in access and diagnostics, patients' engagement, and efforts for a better understanding of cancer.

How Can the EU Beating Cancer Plan Help in Tackling Lung Cancer, Colorectal Cancer, Breast Cancer and Melanoma?

Cancer is the second leading cause of mortality in EU countries, and the needs to tackle cancer are obvious. New scientific understanding, techniques and methodologies are opening up horizons for significant improvements in diagnosis and care. However, take-up is uneven, research needs and potential outstrip currently available resources, manifestly beneficial practices-such as population-level screening for lung cancer-are still not generalised, and the quality of life of patients and survivors is only beginning to be given attention it merits. This paper, mainly based on a series of multistakeholder expert workshops organised by the European Alliance for Personalised Medicine (EAPM), looks at some of those specifics in the interest of planning a way forward. Part of this exercise also involves taking account of the specific nature of Europe and its constituent countries, where the complexities of planning a way forward are redoubled by the wide variations in national and regional approaches to cancer, local epidemiology and the wide disparities in health systems. Despite all the differences between cancers and national and regional resources and approaches to cancer care, there is a common objective in pursuing broader and more equal access to the best available care for all European citizens.