Real-world healthcare costs of ipilimumab in patients with advanced cutaneous melanoma in The Netherlands.

There is limited evidence on the costs associated with ipilimumab. We investigated healthcare costs of all Dutch patients with advanced cutaneous melanoma who were treated with ipilimumab. Data were retrieved from the nation-wide Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Costs were determined by applying unit costs to individual patient resource use. A total of 807 patients who were diagnosed between July 2012 and July 2015 received ipilimumab in Dutch practice. The mean (median) episode duration was 6.27 (4.61) months (computed from the start of ipilimumab until the start of a next treatment, death, or the last date of follow-up). The average total healthcare costs amounted to &OV0556;81 484, but varied widely (range: &OV0556;18 131-&OV0556;160 002). Ipilimumab was by far the most important cost driver (&OV0556;73 739). Other costs were related to hospital admissions (&OV0556;3323), hospital visits (&OV0556;1791), diagnostics and imaging (&OV0556;1505), radiotherapy (&OV0556;828), and surgery (&OV0556;297). Monthly costs for resource use other than ipilimumab were &OV0556;1997 (SD: &OV0556;2629). Treatment-naive patients (n=344) had higher total costs compared with previously-treated patients (n=463; &OV0556;85 081 vs. &OV0556;78 811). Although patients with colitis (n=106) had higher costs for resource use other than ipilimumab (&OV0556;11 426) compared with patients with other types of immune-related adverse events (n=90; &OV0556;9850) and patients with no immune-related adverse event (n=611; &OV0556;6796), they had lower total costs (&OV0556;76 075 vs. &OV0556;87 882 and &OV0556;81 480, respectively). In conclusion, this nation-wide study provides valuable insights into the healthcare costs of advanced cutaneous melanoma patients who were treated with ipilimumab in clinical practice. Most of the costs were attributable to ipilimumab, but the costs and its distribution varied considerably across subgroups.

Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry: Quality assurance in the care of patients with metastatic melanoma in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, the treatment of metastatic melanoma has changed dramatically due to the development of immune checkpoint and mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinase inhibitors. A population-based registry, the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry (DMTR), was set up in July 2013 to assure the safety and quality of melanoma care in the Netherlands. This article describes the design and objectives of the DMTR and presents some results of the first 2 years of registration. METHODS: The DMTR documents detailed information on all Dutch patients with unresectable stage IIIc or IV melanoma. This includes tumour and patient characteristics, treatment patterns, clinical outcomes, quality of life, healthcare utilisation, informal care and productivity losses. These data are used for clinical auditing, increasing the transparency of melanoma care, providing insights into real-world cost-effectiveness and creating a platform for research. RESULTS: Within 1 year, all melanoma centres were participating in the DMTR. The quality performance indicators demonstrated that the BRAF inhibitors and ipilimumab have been safely introduced in the Netherlands with toxicity rates that were consistent with the phase III trials conducted. The median overall survival of patients treated with systemic therapy was 10.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.1-11.1) in the first registration year and 12.7 months (95% CI 11.6-13.7) in the second year. CONCLUSION: The DMTR is the first comprehensive multipurpose nationwide registry and its collaboration with all stakeholders involved in melanoma care reflects an integrative view of cancer management. In future, the DMTR will provide insights into challenging questions regarding the definition of possible subsets of patients who benefit most from the new drugs.

Long-term prostate cancer survivors with low socioeconomic status reported worse mental health-related quality of life in a population-based study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore whether socioeconomic status (SES) was associated with health-related quality of life (HRQL) and health care use among long-term prostate cancer survivors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Through urologists in the Comprehensive Cancer Center South, all 5- to 10-year prostate cancer survivors known in the Eindhoven Cancer Registry without disease progression were invited to complete the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index, and the Dutch sexual activities module. Multivariate linear regression assessed the effect of SES (based on home value and household income) on HRQL and health care use. RESULTS: Five-hundred eighty-four patients (response rate 81%) were included. Survivors with a low SES exhibited lower mental SF-36 scores (6-16 points on a 0-100 scale), independent of sociodemographic and clinical characteristics (P < .05), and hardly any differences in physical SF-36 subscales, sexual function, and urinary and bowel function and bother. Presence of serious comorbidity had a stronger predictive value for HRQL than SES. Health care use did not seem to be associated with SES. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate cancer survivors with a low SES exhibited a worse mental but not physical HRQL than those with a higher SES. Long-term health outcomes of patients with low SES may be maximized by paying extra attention to comorbid conditions.

Socioeconomic status and changing inequalities in colorectal cancer? A review of the associations with risk, treatment and outcome.

BACKGROUND: Upcoming mass screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) makes a review of recent literature on the association with socioeconomic status (SES) relevant, because of marked and contradictory associations with risk, treatment and outcome. METHODS: The Pubmed database using the MeSH terms 'Neoplasms' or 'Colorectal Neoplasms' and 'Socioeconomic Factors' for articles added between 1995 and 1st October 2009 led to 62 articles. RESULTS: Low SES groups exhibited a higher incidence compared with high SES groups in the US and Canada (range risk ratio (RR) 1.0-1.5), but mostly lower in Europe (RR 0.3-0.9). Treatment, survival and mortality all showed less favourable results for people with a lower socioeconomic status: Patients with a low SES received less often (neo)adjuvant therapy (RR ranging from 0.4 to 0.99), had worse survival rates (hazard ratio (HR) 1.3-1.8) and exhibited generally the highest mortality rates up to 1.6 for colon cancer in Europe and up to 3.1 for rectal cancer. CONCLUSIONS: A quite consistent trend was observed favouring individuals with a high SES compared to those with a low SES that still remains in terms of treatment, survival and thus also mortality. We did not find evidence that the low/high SES gradients for treatment chosen and outcome are decreasing. To meet increasing inequalities in mortality from CRC in Europe for people with a low SES and to make mass screening successful, a high participation rate needs to be realised of low SES people in the soon starting screening program.