What is the economic and social return on investment for telephone cancer information and support services in Australia? An evaluative social return on investment study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Over 50% of people affected by cancer report unmet support needs. To address unmet information and psychological needs, non-government organisations such as Cancer Councils (Australia) have developed state-based telephone cancer information and support services. Due to competing demands, evidence of the value of these services is needed to ensure that future investment makes the best use of scarce resources. This research aims to determine the costs and broader economic and social value of a telephone support service, to inform future funding and service provision. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A codesigned, evaluative social return on investment analysis (SROI) will be conducted to estimate and compare the costs and monetised benefits of Cancer Council Victoria's (CCV) telephone support line, 13 11 20, over 1-year and 3-year benefit periods. Nine studies will empirically estimate the parameters to inform the SROI and calculate the ratio (economic and social value to value invested): step 1 mapping outcomes (in-depth analysis of CCV's 13 11 20 recorded call data; focus groups and interviews); step 2 providing evidence of outcomes (comparative survey of people affected by cancer who do and do not call CCV's 13 11 20; general public survey); step 3 valuing the outcomes (financial proxies, value games); step 4 establishing the impact (Delphi); step 5 calculating the net benefit and step 6 service improvement (discrete choice experiment (DCE), 'what if' analysis). Qualitative (focus groups, interviews) and quantitative studies (natural language processing, cross-sectional studies, Delphi) and economic techniques (willingness-to-pay, financial proxies, value games, DCE) will be applied. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval for each of the studies will be sought independently as the project progresses. So far, ethics approval has been granted for the first two studies. As each study analysis is completed, results will be disseminated through presentation, conferences, publications and reports to the partner organisations.

Cost-effectiveness of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: The use of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA) has increased dramatically over the past decade. ECPR is resource intensive and costly, presenting challenges for policymakers. We sought to review the cost-effectiveness of ECPR compared with conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CCPR) in OHCA. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, Tufts CEA registry and NHS EED databases from database inception to 2021 or 2015 for NHS EED. Cochrane Covidence was used to screen and assess studies. Data on costs, effects and cost-effectiveness of included studies were extracted by two independent reviewers. Costs were converted to USD using purchasing power parities (OECD, 2022).1 The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist (Husereau et al., 2022)2 was used for reporting quality and completeness of cost-effectiveness studies; the review was registered on PROSPERO, and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. RESULTS: Four studies met the inclusion criteria; three cost-effectiveness studies reported an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for OHCA compared with conventional care, and one reported the mean operating cost of ECPR. ECPR was more costly, accrued more life years (LY) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) than CCPR and was more cost-effective when compared with CCPR and other standard therapies. Overall study quality was rated as moderate. CONCLUSION: Few studies have examined the cost-effectiveness of ECPR for OHCA. Of those, ECPR for OHCA was cost-effective. Further studies are required to validate findings and assess the cost-effectiveness of establishing a new ECPR service or alternate ECPR delivery models.

Physician-patient communication of costs and financial burden of cancer and its treatment: a systematic review of clinical guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Optimising the care of individuals with cancer without imposing significant financial burden related to their anticancer treatment is becoming increasingly difficult. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has recommended clinicians discuss costs of cancer care with patients to enhance shared decision-making. We sought information to guide oncologists' discussions with patients about these costs. METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE and clinical practice guideline databases from January 2009 to 1 June 2019 for recommendations about discussing the costs of care and financial burden. Guideline quality was assessed with the AGREE-II instrument. RESULTS: Twenty-seven guidelines met our eligibility criteria, including 16 from ASCO (59%). 21 of 27 (78%) guidelines included recommendations about discussion or consideration of treatment costs when prescribing, with information about actual costs in four (15%). Recognition of the risk of financial burden or financial toxicity was described in 81% (22/27) of guidelines. However, only nine guidelines (33%) included information about managing the financial burden. CONCLUSIONS: Current clinical practice guidelines have little information to guide physician-patient discussions about costs of anticancer treatment and management of financial burden. This limits patients' ability to control costs of treatment, and for the healthcare team to reduce the incidence and severity of financial burden. Current guidelines recommend clinician awareness of price variability and high costs of treatment. Clinicians are recommended to explore cost concerns and address financial worries, especially in high risk groups. Future guidelines should include advice on facilitating cost transparency discussions, with provision of cost information and resources.

Preferences for Immunotherapy in Melanoma: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy improves overall survival for patients with metatstatic melanoma and improves recurrence-free survival in the adjuvant setting, but is costly and has adverse effects. Little is known about the preferences of patients and clinicians regarding immunotherapy. This study aimed to identify factors important to patients and clinicians when deciding about immunotherapy for stages 2-4 melanoma. METHODS: This study searched the Medline, EMBASE, ECONLIT, PsychINFO, and COCHRANE Systematic Reviews databases from inception to June 2018 for immunotherapy choice and preference studies. Findings were tabulated and summarized, and study reporting was assessed against recommended checklists. RESULTS: This investigation identified eight studies assessing preferences for melanoma treatment; four studies regarding nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or ipilimumab; and four studies regarding interferon conducted in the United States, Germany, and Australia. The following 10 factors were important to decision-making: overall survival, recurrence-free survival, treatment side effects, dosing regimen, patient or payer cost, patient age, clinician or family/friend treatment recommendation, quality of life, and psychosocial effects. Overall survival was the most important factor for all respondents. The patients judged severe toxicities to be tolerable for small survival gains. The description of information about treatment harms and benefits was limited in most studies. CONCLUSIONS: Overall survival was of primary importance to patients and clinicians considering immunotherapy. Impaired quality of life due to adverse effects appeared to be a second-order consideration. Future research is required to determine preferences for contemporary combination therapies, extended treatment durations, and avoidance of chronic side effects. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42018095899.

Culturally and linguistically diverse patient participation in glioma research.

Marginal communities, such as culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) patients, have significantly lower rates of recruitment, accrual, and retention in cancer clinical trials. A combination of language and cultural barriers means that trial participation from CALD communities remains at suboptimal levels, which in turn favors research findings that are biased towards therapeutic effects or toxicities within the context of non-CALD populations. Here we outline some key challenges and implications for CALD patient participation in glioma research in countries such as Australia, where English is the language of governance and health services implementation. We highlight multistakeholder interventions to improve both investigator recruitment and participation of CALD communities in future glioma research, particularly in this era when global migration has come of age. Enhancing research participation of CALD communities ensures not only wider understanding of genetic heterogeneity to improve glioma outcomes but also equity in access to care.