A cost-benefit analysis of mass prostate cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PCa) causes a substantial health and financial burden worldwide, underscoring the need for efficient mass screening approaches. This study attempts to evaluate the Net Cost-Benefit Index (NCBI) of PCa screening in Iran to offer insights for informed decision-making and resource allocation. METHOD: The Net Cost-Benefit Index (NCBI) was calculated for four age groups (40 years and above) using a decision-analysis model. Two screening strategies, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) solely and PSA with Digital Rectal Examination (DRE), were evaluated from the health system perspective. A retrospective assessment of 1402 prostate cancer (PCa) patients' profiles were conducted, and direct medical and non-medical costs were calculated based on the 2021 official tariff rates, patient records, and interviews. The monetary value of mass screening was determined through Willingness to Pay (WTP) assessments, which served as a measure for the benefit aspect. RESULT: The combined PSA and DRE strategy of screening is cost-effective, yields up to $3 saving in costs per case and emerges as the dominant strategy over PSA alone. Screening for men aged 70 and above does not meet economic justification, indicated by a negative Net Cost-Benefit Index (NCBI). The 40-49 age group exhibits the highest net benefit, $13.81 based on basic information and $13.54 based on comprehensive information. Sensitivity analysis strongly supports the cost-effectiveness of the combined screening approach. CONCLUSION: This study advocates prostate cancer screening with PSA and DRE, is economically justified for men aged 40-69. The results of the study recommend that policymakers prioritize resource allocation for PCa screening programs based on age and budget constraints. Men's willingness to pay, especially for the 40-49 age group which had the highest net benefit, leverages their financial participation in screening services. Additionally, screening services for other age groups, such as 50-54 or 55-59, can be provided either for free or at a reduced cost.

A cost-benefit analysis of genetic screening test for breast cancer in Iran.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the implementation of the population- and family history (FH) -based screening for BReast CAncer (BRCA) in Iran, a country where less than 10% of breast cancer cases are attributable to a gene mutation. METHODS: This was an economic evaluation study. The Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) for genetic screening test strategies in Iranian women older than 30 was calculated. To this end, the monetary value of the test was estimated using the willingness-to-pay (WTP) approach using the contingent valuation method (CVM) by payment card. From a healthcare perspective, direct medical and non-medical costs were considered and a decision model for the strategies was developed to simulate the costs. A one-way sensitivity analysis assessed the robustness of the analysis. The data were analyzed using Excel 2010. RESULTS: 660 women were included for estimating WTP and 2,176,919 women were considered in the costing model. The cost per genetic screening test for population- and FH-based strategies was $167 and $8, respectively. The monetary value of a genetic screening test was $20 and it was $27 for women with a family history or gene mutation in breast cancer. The BCR for population-based and FH-based screening strategies was 0.12 and 3.37, respectively. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results. CONCLUSIONS: This study recommends the implementation of a FH-based strategy instead of a population-based genetic screening strategy in Iran, although a cascade genetic screening test strategy should be evaluated in future studies.

Factor associated with willingness to pay for prevention of cancer: a study of prostate cancer screening.

INTRODUCTION: This study investigates Iranian men's willingness to pay (WTP) for prostate cancer (PCa) screening and influencing factor, along with the impact of information. METHOD: We assessed preferences for prostate cancer screening in 771 Iranian men aged 40 and above using an internet-based questionnaire survey. Participants received basic and complementary information, and their willingness to pay was determined through a payment card approach. A Wilcoxon test assessed the impact of information. We also analyzed prostate cancer screening demand and employed Heckman's two-step model to evaluate factors influencing the willingness to pay. Additionally, reasons for unwillingness to pay were explored. RESULTS: Willingness to pay significantly decreased with complementary information relative to basic information (16.3$ vs 17.8$). Heckman model, using WTP based on basic information shows age, education, and monthly household expenditure positively influenced the decision to pay. In contrast, health status, expectations of remaining life and prostate problems history positively affect amount of WTP for PCa screening, and insurance coverage has a negative impact on it. Majority of respondents (91%) supported PCa screening, with 82% expressing a willingness to pay. Common reasons for not paying include seeing screening as a public good (43%), financial constraints (35%), and having insurance (20%). The screening demand is price-sensitive. CONCLUSION: The basic mindset of Iranian men exaggerates the risk of prostate cancer. Reduced willingness to pay after receiving information reassures the reliability of their financial expectation. Taking into account the factors that influence PCa screening is essential for accurate planning and the successful implementation of this program.

Economic Evaluation of Palliative Care for Patients with Cancer Disease: A Systematic Review.

Background: With the increase in the population of cancer patients and the importance of reducing the economic burden of disease, it is very important to offer solutions that can provide the services needed by this group of patients in the most appropriate way. In recent years, palliative care services have been provided in a wide range of countries for this purpose, and many studies have been conducted to assess its economic and clinical aspects. The current study aimed to systematically review economic evaluation studies that investigate the costs of end-of-life care for cancer patients. Methods: Electronic search was performed in multiple databases and different resources between 2000-2021 based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria were Studies consisting of a complete EE, including CEA, CUA, and CBA regarding the EE of palliative care for patients with cancer disease, EE studies carried out by decision analysis models following the EE approach, full-text articles in the English language, and published during 2000 and 2021 and According to our search strategy, the following articles were removed: studies conducted as a partial EE (like those intended to evaluate the effectiveness, cost evaluation, QoL evaluation), articles with poor methodological quality based on the CHEERS checklist, non-English studies, study protocols, articles presented to a conference, and letters to the editor. The quality of the articles was evaluated using a CHEERS checklist. Results: 29 studies were included based on inclusion criteria. Most articles were published during the past decade. All studies were performed in high-income countries (UK= 6 studies, Canada= 5 studies). Most studies (n=7) focused on the health sector. Results of quality evaluation showed that 10 articles had excellent quality (score higher than 85%). Most studies (27 out of 29 studies) concluded that palliative medicine interventions were cost-effective and yielded positive cost-effectiveness results. 20 studies confidently concluded about the costs and benefits of providing palliative care services on cost-effectiveness and cost savings, and 2 studies made such a conclusion with uncertainty. Therefore, palliative care for cancer patients is cost-effective or cost-saving in 85% of studies. Conclusion: Although there are a wide variety of studies, characteristics, and quality of the final studies included in the present study, there are relatively favorable and stable patterns regarding the results. Palliative care is usually less expensive than comparator groups, and the cost difference is statistically significant in most cases, and this treatment is a relatively cost-effective option. However, making the right relevant decision and applying it as a dominant therapy approach in different countries requires further study in larger populations and over a longer period.

Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib in the treatment of advanced EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The most common type of lung cancer is advanced and mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Although targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have reconstructed the care of these patients, the resistance of TKIs to the secondary EGFR-T790M mutation in advanced or metastatic NSCLC led to the introduction of the third generation of them, like osimertinib. Osimertinib has represented a remarkable increase in progression-free survival (PFS) and a decrease in death and hazard ratios in patients with required T790 mutation and sensitizing EGFR mutation without T790M. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib for the treatment of these patients compared to chemotherapy or immunotherapy with the last generations of EGFR-TKIs. AREAS COVERED: Electronic searches were conducted on PubMed, Embase, Science Direct, Scopus, , Web of Knowledge, NHSEED, NHS Health Technology assessment (CRD), and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry databases. Related articles were reviewed from January 2015 to the end of August 2020. Out of 2708 initial studies, 10 articles had the inclusion criteria. EXPERT OPINION: Although osimertinib improves the quality of life and PFS for the mentioned patients based on its greater efficacy compared to standard EGFR-TKIs and chemotherapy, its high cost prevents considering it a cost-effective option. And, since most entered studies have been done in developed countries, it certainly does not true to extend these results to low-income and developing countries. Therefore, further studies in those countries are needed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib for sensitizing EGFR mutation without T790M and required T790M in advanced or metastatic NSCLC.

Men's willingness to pay for prostate cancer screening: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to review studies on willingness to pay (WTP) for prostate cancer screening. METHODS: This systematic-review was conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines. By searching six-health-database, WTP studies on prostate cancer screening using contingent valuation method published in English until March 2020 were included and those with unavailable full-text and inadequate quality-assessment scores were excluded. Smith checklist was used for the quality assessment. Extracted WTPs were converted to US dollar in 2018 using exchange rate parity and net present value formula to make comparison. Factors' effect was assessed by vote counting. RESULTS: Six final studies published after 2006 reported above 70% Smith checklist items needed to be considered in contingent valuation study reports. Seven factors have positive effects on WTP. The reported WTP value varied from 11$ to 588$ in Japan and Germany, respectively. CONCLUSION: WTP for prostate cancer screening was positive among all studied men. The results of factors' effect assessment showed that better understanding prostate cancer risks or screening tests and factors such as age, income, family history of cancer, hospitalization history, and educational level have positive effects. Moreover, prostate-specific antigen history, health insurance, employment, and subject's health assessment received less attention. The results' generalization to all countries is not applicable because there are no studies for low- and middle-income countries. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020172789.