Cost-effectiveness of an exercise and nutritional intervention versus usual nutritional care during adjuvant treatment for localized breast cancer: the PASAPAS randomized controlled trial.

We undertook a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to compare an exercise and nutritional program with the usual nutritional care concomitant to adjuvant chemotherapy in localized breast cancer patients. The CEA was designed as part of the interventional, controlled, randomized, single-center, open-label PASAPAS study. Breast cancer patients receiving first-line adjuvant chemotherapy at a French Comprehensive Cancer Center were randomized 2:1 to a 6-month exercise program of supervised indoor and outdoor group sessions in addition to usual nutritional care (exercise arm) or a usual nutritional care group receiving dietary and physical activity counseling (control arm). Costs were assessed from the French national insurance perspective (in Euros, 2012). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for four criteria: body mass index, waist circumference, body fat percentage, and estimated aerobic capacity. Uncertainty around the ICERs was captured by a probabilistic analysis using a non-parametric bootstrap method. The analysis was based on 60 patients enrolled between 2011 and 2013. Average intervention costs per participant were €412 in the exercise arm (n = 41) and €117 (n = 19) in the control arm. Total mean costs were €17,344 (standard deviation 9,928) and €20,615 (standard deviation 14,904), respectively, did not differ significantly (p = 0.51). The 6-month exercise program was deemed to be cost-effective compared with usual care for the estimated aerobic capacity. Multicenter randomized studies with long-term costs and outcomes should be done to provide additional evidence. Clinical trial: The PASAPAS study is registered under ClinicalTrials.gov. Trial registration ID: NCT01331772.

Systematic Screening for Occupational Exposures in Lung Cancer Patients: A Prospective French Cohort.

Occupational lung cancers are under-reported and under-compensated worldwide. We assessed systematic screening for occupational exposure to carcinogens combining a self-administered questionnaire and an occupational consultation to improve the detection of occupational lung cancers and their compensation. Social deprivation and the costs of this investigation were estimated. Patients with lung cancer received a self-administered questionnaire to collect their job history, potential exposure to carcinogens and deprivation. A physician assessed the questionnaire and recommended an occupational consultation if necessary. During the consultation, a physician assessed if the lung cancer was work-related and, if it was, delivered a medical certificate to claim for compensation. Over 18 months, 440 patients received the self-administered questionnaire: 234 returned a completed questionnaire and a consultation was required for 120 patients. Compensation was judged possible for 41 patients. Among the 35 medical certificates delivered, 19 patients received compensation. Nearly half the patients (46%) were assessed as socially deprived and these patients took significantly longer to return the questionnaire compared with those who were not deprived. The mean cost of the process was €62.65 per patient. Our results showed a systematic self-administered questionnaire can be used to identify patients potentially exposed to carcinogens and to improve compensation.

HEDEN Pain Scale: A Shortened Behavioral Scale for Assessment of Prolonged Cancer or Postsurgical Pain in Children Aged 2 to 6 Years.

Few observational scales are available for assessing chronic or recurrent pain in children with cancer because overt behavioral signs of chronic pain dissipate as time passes, making them difficult to detect reliably. The Douleur Enfant Gustave Roussy (DEGR) scale developed by Gauvain-Piquard to monitor prolonged pain in children with cancer aged 2-6 years is currently the only validated tool available for this purpose, but is time consuming and difficult to use in daily clinical practice. To shorten composite measurement scales, we developed the Hétero Evaluation Douleur Enfant (HEDEN) scale from the DEGR scale. We present here the process and validation of this scale. Expert consensus was used for the elaboration of HEDEN: 5/10 DEGR items were chosen with three rating levels. Concurrent validity was tested in a first cohort with correlation analysis between HEDEN and DEGR. The HEDEN scale was then validated in a second cohort. In the first step, the study (59 children) showed acceptable correlation between DEGR and HEDEN (r = 0.5), with good reliability (α = 0.61), and interrater agreement (r = 0.62). Subsequent validation in 48 children showed a significant correlation between DEGR and HEDEN (r = 0.6). Reliability was good (α = 0.75), with excellent interrater agreement [r = 0.67 (95% CI: 0.48-0.79)]. On average, the evaluation took 23 minutes (SD = 10.4) for DEGR versus 4.42 minutes (SD = 5.9) for HEDEN. This study shows a good correlation between HEDEN and DEGR scales. HEDEN allows accurate assessment of prolonged pain in young children with cancer.

Breast cancer incidence using administrative data: correction with sensitivity and specificity.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate breast cancer incidence in the general population using a method that corrects for lack of sensitivity and specificity in the identification of incident breast cancer in inpatient claims data. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTINGS: Two-phase study: phase 1 to identify incident cases in claims data, and phase 2 to estimate sensitivity and specificity in a subset of the population. Two algorithms (1: principal diagnosis; 2: principal diagnosis+specific surgery procedures) were used to identify incident cases in claims of women aged 20 years or older, living in a French district covered by a cancer registry. Sensitivity and specificity were estimated in one district and used to correct incident cases identified. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity for algorithms 1 and 2 were 69.0% and 99.89%, and 64.4% and 99.93%, respectively. In contrast to specificity, the sensitivity for both algorithms was lower for women younger than 40 years and older than 65 years. Cases reported by cancer registries were closer to cases identified with algorithm 2 (-3.2% to +20.1%) and to corrected numbers with algorithm 1 (-1% to +15%). CONCLUSION: To obtain reliable estimates of breast cancer incidence in the general population, sensitivity and specificity, which reflect medical and coding practice variations, are necessary.