Financial Toxicity and Health-Related Quality of Life Profile of Patients With Hematologic Malignancies Treated in a Universal Health Care System.

PURPOSE: We investigated the association of financial toxicity (FT) with the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) profile of patients with hematologic malignancies treated in a universal health care system. METHODS: We did a secondary analysis of six multicenter studies enrolling patients with hematologic malignancies. FT was evaluated using the financial difficulties item of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30). Multivariable linear regression models were used to assess the mean differences in HRQoL scores between patients with or without FT, while adjusting for key potential confounding factors. We also examined the prevalence of clinically important problems and symptoms by the experience of FT, using established thresholds for the EORTC QLQ-C30. Multivariable binary logistic regression analysis was performed to explore the risk factors associated with FT. RESULTS: Overall, 1,847 patients were analyzed, of whom 441 (23.9%) reported FT. We observed statistically and clinically relevant worse scores for patients with FT compared with those without FT for all the EORTC QLQ-C30 scales. The three largest clinically relevant mean differences between patients with and without FT were observed in pain (∆ = 19.6 [95% CI, 15.7 to 23.5]; P < .001), social functioning (∆ = -18.9 [95% CI, -22.5 to -15.2]; P < .001), and role functioning (Δ = -17.7 [95% CI, -22.1 to -13.3]; P < .001). Patients with FT tended to report a higher prevalence of clinically important problems and symptoms across all EORTC QLQ-C30 scales. In the univariable and multivariable analyses, the presence of FT was associated with the presence of comorbidities, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥1, and not receiving a salary. CONCLUSION: Patients with hematologic malignancies treated in the setting of a universal health care system who experience FT have a worse HRQoL profile compared with those without FT.

Position paper of the Italian association of medical oncology on health disparities among transgender and gender-diverse people: the Assisi recommendations.

Transgender and gender-diverse individuals experience substantial health disparities across the cancer care continuum. Despite well recognized unique healthcare needs, there are barriers in accessing cancer prevention and treatment services, influenced by disadvantages in key social-economic determinants of health which result in worse clinical outcomes, as compared to the general population. The Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) acknowledges the critical relevance of this issue. The "Assisi Recommendations" here summarize the outcomes of the "AIOM Oncology Ethics Day" dedicated to gender differences in oncology and cancer care of transgender and gender-diverse people. The recommendations generated during a 2-day multidisciplinary discussion address the various aspects of cancer care experience of transgender and gender-diverse people. The promotion of research in this field, through the generation of new evidence and the collection of prospective data, has been identified as a priority action to mitigate these disparities. By acknowledging the challenges of cancer care in transgender and gender-diverse people and recognizing the need for dedicated policy and clinical recommendations, AIOM demonstrates its commitment to improving the health and well-being of all patients with cancer, regardless of their gender identity or any other personal or social circumstances, as part of health-for-all societal vision.

Cross-cultural adaptation of the PROFFIT Instrument to measure financial toxicity in people living with cancer within a UK population.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to develop a British version of the Patient Reported Outcomes for Fighting Financial Toxicity of Cancer (PROFFIT): originally designed to measure financial toxicity in cancer for an Italian universal healthcare system. The instrument was carefully evaluated for crosscultural equivalence, face validity and practicality. METHODS: A systematic approach to cross-cultural adaptation was used, including forward translation, synthesis, backward translation, consolidation of translations with an expert committee, and cognitive interviews. As part of the cognitive interview process, 18 cancer patients completed a structured interview of 60-90 min in length. RESULTS: The translated and modified PROFFIT questionnaire demonstrated good psycho-linguistic properties, including high compliance (only one item was revised for clarity), high retrieval from memory, high decision-making processes, and high response processes. CONCLUSION: PROFFIT has been found to be functional and adaptable in a new social environment. The tool may be useful for tailoring interventions to address and measure financial hardships within the cancer population, which appear to be a current challenge for public health. POLICY SUMMARY: Even in universal healthcare systems, financial toxicity due to the increase in outof-pocket expenses poses a significant problem. The FT phenomenon warrants proper attention in the United Kingdom since it may negatively impact financial well-being, quality of life, psychosocial health, and treatment adherence.

Multinational Analysis of Estimated Health Care Costs Related to Extended-Interval Fixed Dosing of Checkpoint Inhibitors.

Importance: New dosing options for immune checkpoint inhibitors have recently been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), including fixed dosing with extended intervals. Although the dose intensity appears the same, there is expected to be some waste with extended-interval dosing, as some drug remains in the bloodstream once a decision to stop treatment is made. The economic impact of extended-interval fixed dosing is unknown compared with standard-interval fixed dosing. Objective: To analyze the potential health care costs of using extended-interval fixed dosing instead of standard-interval fixed dosing. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation used a pharmacoeconomic model to simulate 2 cohorts of patients with platinum-resistant metastatic urothelial cancer receiving pembrolizumab as second-line therapy at different dosing intervals using 2020 pricing data. Data were analyzed from 2020 to 2022. Exposures: The simulated patients received FDA-approved regimens of either 200 mg every 3 weeks or 400 mg every 6 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: The progression-free survival curve from the KEYNOTE-045 trial was used to estimate treatment duration. Drug, imaging, and administration costs were included in analyses. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess how different imaging frequencies would affect the model results. The potential overall costs of using the 2 different dosing strategies were assessed. The base case was set in the US, while sensitivity analyses were set in several other countries. Results: In the base case analysis, dosing every 6 weeks instead of every 3 weeks resulted in an estimated 8.9% increase in pembrolizumab costs for the health care payer. Accounting for a decrease in infusion costs would result in an estimated net additional cost of $7483 per patient in the US (7.9% cost increase). In the US, this would amount to an increase of approximately $28 million annually for health care payers. Similar percentages in cost estimate increases were found for health care payers around the world, such as in Israel, where the net additional cost would be $5491 per patient. Conclusions and Relevance: This economic evaluation assessed and quantified the potential increased costs related to extended-interval fixed dosing of pembrolizumab. The model method could be applied to other diseases and other drugs for which there has been a movement toward extended-interval dosing. Results may differ in other diseases owing to differing disease courses and patient profiles.

Out-of-pocket costs sustained in the last 12 months by cancer patients: an Italian survey-based study on individual expenses between 2017 and 2018.

PURPOSE: Out of Pocket costs (OOP) sustained by cancer patients also in public NHS contribute to disease-related financial toxicity. Aim of the study was to investigate the amount and the types of OOP sustained by Italian cancer patients for care services. METHODS: A sample survey was conducted by FAVO in December 2017-June 2018, in 39 adhering hospitals and 1289 patients diagnosed from 1985 to 2018, by standardized questionnaire inquiring on: yearly expenditure by cancer service, age, year of diagnosis, disease phase, cancer site, sex, marital status, education, residence. Univariate and multivariable regression analyses were performed between OOP and each variable. Multilevel mixed-effects negative binomial regression was used to assess the combined effects of patients characteristics on the differences in acquiring health services. RESULTS: The yearly average OOP was 1841.81€, with the highest values for transports (359.34€) and for diagnostic examinations (259.82€). Significantly higher OOP were found in North and Centre than South and Islands (167.51 vs. 138.39). In the fully adjusted multivariable analysis, the variables significantly associated with higher than reference expenditure were: medium/high education (OR 1.22 [1.05-1.42], upper gastrointestinal tract cancer (OR 1.37 [1.06-1.77]), disease phase of treatments for cancer progression or pain therapy (OR 1.59 [1.30-1.93]). CONCLUSION: Italian cancer patients in 2018 sustained OOP quite similar to those measured in 2012 to supplement NHS services. The main component of the OOP costs were diagnostic examination and transportation. The NHS should pay attention to potentiate its ability to answer unmet needs of patients with advanced cancer who are the most fragile ones. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Reinforcing the services where the main OOP expenses are located can help in promoting public health actions and reduce socio-economic needs that could compromise the receipt of optimal care along the whole disease course, from diagnosis to rehabilitation.

Cross-sectional study to develop and describe psychometric characteristics of a patient-reported instrument (PROFFIT) for measuring financial toxicity of cancer within a public healthcare system.

OBJECTIVES: To measure and explain financial toxicity (FT) of cancer in Italy, where a public healthcare system exists and patients with cancer are not expected (or only marginally) to pay out-of-pocket for healthcare. SETTING: Ten clinical oncological centres, distributed across Italian macroregions (North, Centre, South and Islands), including hospitals, university hospitals and national research institutes. PARTICIPANTS: From 8 October 2019 to 11 December 2019, 184 patients, aged 18 or more, who were receiving or had received within the previous 3 months active anticancer treatment were enrolled, 108 (59%) females and 76 (41%) males. INTERVENTION: A 30-item prefinal questionnaire, previously developed within the qualitative tasks of the project, was administered, either electronically (n=115) or by paper sheet (n=69). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: According to the protocol and the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research methodology, the final questionnaire was developed by mean of explanatory factor analysis and tested for reliability, internal consistency (Cronbach's α test and item-total correlation) and stability of measurements over time (test-retest reliability by intraclass correlation coefficient and weighted Cohen's kappa coefficient). RESULTS: After exploratory factor analysis, a score measuring FT (FT score) was identified, made by seven items dealing with outcomes of FT. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the FT score was 0.87 and the item-total correlation coefficients ranged from 0.53 to 0.74. Further, nine single items representing possible determinants of FT were also retained in the final instrument. Test-retest analysis revealed a good internal validity of the FT score and of the 16 items retained in the final questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: The Patient-Reported Outcome for Fighting FInancial Toxicity (PROFFIT) instrument consists of 16 items and is the first reported instrument to assess FT of cancer developed in a country with a fully public healthcare system. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03473379.

A qualitative analysis and development of a conceptual model assessing financial toxicity in cancer patients accessing the universal healthcare system.

PURPOSE: This paper illustrates a conceptual model for a new patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) aimed at measuring financial toxicity (FT) in oncological setting in Italy, where citizens are provided universal healthcare coverage. METHODS: Focus groups with overall 34 patients/caregivers in three different Italian centers (from Northern, Centre, and Southern Italy) and an open-ended survey with 97 medical oncologists were undertaken. Transcripts from focus groups and the open-ended survey were analyzed to identify themes and links between themes. Themes from the qualitative research were supplemented with those reported in the literature; concepts identified formed the basis for item development that were then tested through the importance analysis (with 45 patients) and the cognitive debriefing (with other 45 patients) to test relevance and comprehension of the first draft PRO instrument. RESULTS: Ten domains were extracted by analyzing 156 concepts generated from focus groups and the open-ended survey. After controlling for redundancy, 55 items were generated and tested through the importance analysis. After controlling comprehension and feasibility through cognitive debriefing interviews, a first version of the questionnaire consisting of 30 items was devised. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative study represents the first part of a study conducted to develop a new PROM to assess FT in Italy, by using a bottom-up approach that makes the most of patients' experiences and the health system analysis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT03473379 first posted on March 22, 2018.

Quality of life assessment and reporting in colorectal cancer: A systematic review of phase III trials published between 2012 and 2018.

BACKGROUND: In this study, our aim was to describe quality of life (QoL) prevalence and heterogeneity in QoL reporting in colorectal cancer phase III trials. METHODS: We included all phase III trials evaluating anticancer drugs in colorectal cancer patients published between 2012 and 2018 by 11 major journals. RESULTS: Out of the 67 publications identified, in 41 (61.2 %) QoL was not listed among endpoints. Out of 26 primary publications of trials including QoL among endpoints, QoL results were not reported in 10 (38.5 %). Overall, no QoL data were available in 51/67 (76.1 %) primary publications. In particular, in the metastatic setting, QoL data were not available in 12/18 (66.7 %) trials with primary endpoint overall survival, and in 20/29 (69.0 %) trials with other primary endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: QoL was absent in a high proportion of recently published phase III trials in colorectal cancer, even in trials of second or further lines, where attention to QoL should be particularly high.

Anticancer drug prices and clinical outcomes: a cross-sectional study in Italy.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the prices of new anticancer drugs correlated with their relative benefit despite negotiation. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study correlating new anticancer drugs prices with clinical outcomes. SETTING: We did a retrospective cross-sectional study including all new anticancer drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) (2010-2016) and reimbursed in Italy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Information on clinical outcomes-in terms of median overall survival (OS), median progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR)-was extracted from pivotal trials as reported in the European Public Assessment Reports available on the EMA website. Cost of a full course treatment was estimated on negotiated official and discounted prices. Regression coefficients ß, their levels of significance p and the coefficients of determination R2 were estimated adjusting by tumour type. RESULTS: Overall, 30 new anticancer drugs (with 35 indications) were available for analysis. Where data on OS were available, we observed no correlation between the improvement in median OS (in weeks) and negotiated price (R2=0.067, n=16 drugs for 17 indications). When the clinical outcomes were expressed as improvements in the median PFS or ORR, 25 drugs (29 indications) were available for the analysis, and again, there was no correlation with prices (R2=0.004 and 0.006, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Our results suggest that the prices of anticancer drugs in Italy do not reflect their therapeutic benefit. Drug price negotiations, which is mandatory by law in Italy, do not seem to ensure that prices correlate with clinical benefits provided by the cancer drugs. These results call for further efforts to establish the standard determinants of drug prices available at the time of negotiation. These findings need to be confirmed in other countries where price negotiations are in place. Moreover, further investigations may verify whether outcome data obtained after drug marketing would improve the correlation between prices and therapeutic benefit.

Development and validation of a patient-reported outcome tool to assess cancer-related financial toxicity in Italy: a protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Financial toxicity (FT) is a well-recognised problem in oncology. US-based studies have shown that: (a) cancer patients have a 2.7 times risk of bankruptcy; (b) patients who declare bankruptcy have a 79% greater hazard of death; (c) financial burden significantly impairs quality of life (QoL) and (d) reduces compliance and adherence to treatment prescriptions. The aim of the project is to develop and validate a patient-reported-outcome (PRO) measure to assess FT of cancer patients in Italy, where, despite the universal health coverage provided by the National Health Service, FT is an emerging issue. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Our hypothesis is that a specific FT measure, which considers the relevant sociocultural context and healthcare system, would allow us to understand the main determinants of cancer-related FT in Italy, in order to address and reduce these factors. According to the International Society for Pharmaco-economics and Outcomes Research guidelines on PROs, the project will include the following steps: (1) concept elicitation (from focus groups with patients and caregivers; literature; oncologists; nurses) and analysis, creating a coding library; (2) item generation (using a format that includes a question and a response on a 4-point Likert scale) and analysis through patients' cognitive interviews of item importance within different coding categories to produce the draft instrument; (3) factor analysis and internal validation (with Cronbach's alpha and test-retest for reliability) to produce the final instrument; (4) external validation with QoL anchors and depression scales. The use of the FT measure in prospective trials is also planned. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol is approved by the ethical committees of all the participating centres. The project will tentatively produce a validated tool by the spring 2021. The project might also represent a model and the basis for future cooperation with other European countries, with different healthcare systems and socioeconomic conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03473379.

Quality-of-Life Assessment and Reporting in Prostate Cancer: Systematic Review of Phase 3 Trials Testing Anticancer Drugs Published Between 2012 and 2018.

Quality of life (QoL) is not included among the end points in many studies, and QoL results are underreported in many phase 3 oncology trials. We performed a systematic review to describe QoL prevalence and heterogeneity in QoL reporting in recently published prostate cancer phase 3 trials. A PubMed search was performed to identify primary publications of randomized phase 3 trials testing anticancer drugs in prostate cancer, issued between 2012 and 2018. We analyzed QoL inclusion among end points, presence of QoL results, and methodology of QoL analysis. Seventy-two publications were identified (15 early-stage, 20 advanced hormone-sensitive, and 37 castration-resistant prostate cancer [CRPC]). QoL was not listed among study end points in 23 studies (31.9%) (40.0% early stage, 40.0% advanced hormone sensitive, and 24.3% CRPC). QoL results were absent in 15 (30.6%) of 49 primary publications of trials that included QoL among end points. Overall, as a result of absent end point or unpublished results, QoL data were lacking in 38 (52.8%) primary publications (53.3% early stage, 55.0% in advanced hormone sensitive, and 51.4% in CRPC). The most commonly used QoL tools were Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) (21, 53.8%) and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) (14, 35.9%); most common methods of analysis were mean changes or mean scores (28, 71.8%), time to deterioration (14, 35.9%), and proportion of patients with response (10, 25.6%). In conclusion, QoL data are lacking in a not negligible proportion of recently published phase 3 trials in prostate cancer, although the presence of QoL results is better in positive trials, especially in CRPC. The methodology of QoL analysis is heterogeneous for type of instruments, analysis, and presentation of results.

Costs of clinical trials with anticancer biological agents in an Oncologic Italian Cancer Center using the activity-based costing methodology.

AIM: The aim of the present study was to assess the estimated "per patient" total cost for a single Oncologic Italian Cancer Center participating in a multicenter clinical trial with new anticancer biological agents using the activity-based costing (ABC) methodology. METHODOLOGY: Nine randomized phase 3 clinical trials employing biological agents at the National Cancer Institute of Napoli, Italy, were analyzed to indentify "per patient" costs of each trial, according to the ABC methodology. The average consumption of resources for a patient completing the entire planned treatment was estimated for each trial. Through interviews of the personnel (doctors, nurses and technicians) and by analyses of the clinical trials protocols, the main activities of the 9 clinical trials were identified and, for each trial, the complete health care pathway of the patients and the treatment programmes were minutely reconstructed. Drug costs were not included because provided by Sponsors. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The average costs of the pre-study, treatment, monitoring, follow-up, audit, and administrative activities accounted for 2.357, 4.783, 700, 372, 1.263, and 9 Euro, respectively. The average total cost estimated for all "per patient" activities, including overhead costs, was 11.379 Euro. Staff costs accounted for € 5.988, while costs of diagnostic test accounted for 3.494 Euro. Clinical trials with immunotherapeutic drugs accounted for higher costs (+601 Euro as oncological staff costs, +1.318 Euro as intermediate services cost and +384 Euro as overheads). CONCLUSIONS: The average total cost estimated for all "per patient" activities of a clinical trial with new anticancer biological agents was 11.379 Euro using the ABC methodology.

[Sustainability and new anticancer drugs]. / Sostenibilità e nuovi farmaci antitumorali.

Economic problems have been reported ever more frequently to affect the chance of cancer treatment, and financial toxicity has become a relevant issue in many countries, including the United States. Data are lacking for Europe, but the impressive cost of all new anticancer drugs is challenging European countries like Italy, where public health systems are based on solidarity and equity of access. The increasing cost of the new drugs cannot be justified by their efficacy, because the size of their benefit is frequently marginal and may have little clinical impact. In Europe, new strategies in the management of regulatory matters are required that take into consideration economic issues as one of the main aspect to establish the value of the new anticancer drugs.

Economic analysis of a randomized phase III trial of gemcitabine plus vinorelbine compared with cisplatin plus vinorelbine or cisplatin plus gemcitabine for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (Italian GEMVIN3/NCIC CTG BR14 trial).

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Non-platinum-based chemotherapy is a potential alternative to platinum doublet therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer in selected patients. We determined the cost-effectiveness of gemcitabine/vinorelbine (GEMVIN), versus cisplatin/gemcitabine (PG) or cisplatin/vinorelbine (PV), from a government payer perspective. METHODS: Results from a randomized trial of GEMVIN versus PG or PV demonstrated no significant difference in global quality of life (primary endpoint) or overall survival between regimens, but superior progression-free survival for platinum-based regimens. A cost analysis was conducted using direct medical costs of treatment, grade 3 or 4 toxicity management, and investigations for the mean number of cycles per study arm. Costs were calculated using Canadian dollars in 2005, and then in 2013 after drug patent expiry. RESULTS: In 2005, GEMVIN was the most expensive regimen ($6868), and PV the least expensive ($4650), with an incremental cost of GEMVIN over PV of $2218. Diagnostic and administration costs did not differ significantly among regimens; GEMVIN had the lowest toxicity costs. The principal cost driver in 2005 was the cost of chemotherapy. In 2013, toxicity and administration costs emerged as major drivers; GEMVIN was less costly than PV and PG, (cost savings of $413 over PV). CONCLUSION: Despite similar outcomes, GEMVIN was more expensive than PV or PG in 2005 because of higher chemotherapy costs. By 2013, after chemotherapy drug patent expiry, GEMVIN became the least costly regimen. Economic considerations in oncology change over time, and should be revisited in policy decisions based on cost.

[Community-acquired pneumonia: a budget impact model]. / Polmonite acquisita in comunità: un modello di impatto sul budget.

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is an infectious disease with high morbidity and mortality and a major social and economic impact. A budget impact model was developed to estimate the impact on hospital direct costs of different antibiotic therapies suggested by international and national (FADOI) guidelines on treatment of patients hospitalized with CAP. The model includes the costs of drugs, staffing, consumables and in-patient stays in two different scenarios: intravenous therapy only and switch therapy; it compares levofloxacin (monotherapy) versus other combination therapies as suggested by the guidelines and includes the cost of failure of first-line treatment. Budget impact analysis shows that the cost of CAP-hospitalized patients in Italy consists mainly in the cost of treatment failure while that of antibiotics is just a small component of total direct costs incurred by hospitals.

Clinical assessment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer eligible for second-line chemotherapy: a prognostic score from individual data of nine randomised trials.

PURPOSE: Knowledge of prognostic factors for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients eligible for second-line treatment is scarce. The aim of this study was to assess the prognostic role of a number of routinely collected clinical variables and to provide a summary index to discriminate patients according to probability of survival. METHODS: Individual data from nine randomised trials of second-line treatment in advanced NSCLC were analysed. Primary end-point was overall survival (OS). Cox model, stratified by trial, was used for multivariate analyses, and a prognostic index was provided and validated according to an internal/external procedure. RESULTS: Out of 1239 patients, 1197 patients (97%) had complete information. Median OS was 7.4months. At multivariate analysis, prognosis was significantly influenced by gender (worse in males), performance status (PS), tumour histology (worse in squamous and other histology versus adenocarcinoma), stage (worse in IV versus IIIB), type of previous treatment (worse for patients pretreated with platinum) and response to first-line (worse for patients not obtaining objective response). Prognostic score values range from 0 to 14. When three categories were derived, median overall survival values were equal to 11.6, 7.5 and 3.0months for best (<5), intermediate (5-9) and worst (>9) categories, respectively. CONCLUSION: Prognosis of patients eligible for second-line treatment of advanced NSCLC is significantly conditioned by gender, PS, histology, stage, previous use of platinum and response to first-line. A prognostic score was derived that discriminates well subjects with a relatively more favourable prognosis and those with very short life expectancy.

Survey of hidden costs of dialysis in Italian for-profit and not-for-profit centers.

BACKGROUND: Chronic dialysis exposes patients to several procedures that may influence lifestyle and quality of life. These hidden costs, however, have never been evaluated. AIM AND METHODS: To compare the costs related to diagnostic and therapeutic procedures between not-for-profit (nFP) and for-profit (FP) dialysis care systems, we mailed to Italian nephrology units a questionnaire on modalities of medical prescriptions and reservations, waiting time for tests and modalities of drugs distribution. RESULTS: 247 centers (42%) replied to the questionnaire: 177 nFP (72%) and 70 FP (28%). The response rate was 54% of nFP and 26% of FP centers. All centers provided hemodialysis (in satellite units, 42% nFP and 14% FP, p<0.001; at home, 23% nFP and 1% FP, p<0.001). Peritoneal dialysis was offered by 60% nFP and 6% FP (p<0.001). Centers provided dialysis care for 15,294 patients, 85% in nFP and 15% in FP. At least 1 general practitioner prescription for dialysis, diagnostic tests, specialist consultations and drugs, was requested to patients in 50% of nFP and 95% of FP centers (p<0.001). Reservations for tests and specialist visits were made by patients in 6% of nFP and 20% of FP centers (p<0.001). In nFP and FP centers, waiting time for tests was 2 vs. 4 days for lung x-ray (p<0.01), 7 vs. 11 days for gastroscopy (p<0.05) and 14 vs. 13 days for echocardiography (NS). Erythropoietin, phosphate binders and nutritional supplements, were supplied by patients in 7%, 46% and 37% of nFP centers, and 86%, 86% and 90% of FP centers (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The dialysis care system charges patients a high hidden cost, represented by procedures related to dialysis. Higher costs and reduced choice of treatment modalities may characterize the for-profit dialysis system.

Cost of insurance policies for investigator-initiated cancer clinical trials in Italy.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials with non-profit promoters are frequently performed in oncology and represent a highly valuable source of information. METHODS: To describe the costs of insurance policies and their determinants, data were collected from 12 Italian non-profit promoters of cancer trials. The cost of policies was expressed as per-patient premium. RESULTS: Sixty-two quotations issued by only two companies were collected, relative to 44 trials proposed for quotation between December 1998 and February 2003. Only the date of quotation was significantly associated with the cost (P = 0.0003) of quotations by Company A for policies with a deductible, with cost increasing over time. Date of quotation (P = 0.0002), sample size (P = 0.008) and number of study arms (P = 0.02) were independently associated with the cost of no-deductible policies quoted by Company A. Only the number of study arms was significantly associated with cost (P = 0.0001) in no-deductible policies quoted by Company B. CONCLUSION: There is insufficient competition among companies for insurance of cancer trials with non-profit promoters. Many variables that affect the trial risk profile from a clinical perspective are not associated with insurance cost. Date of quotation is among the strongest determinants of the cost, which has sharply increased over time. This trend may become a serious problem for non-profit promoters of cancer clinical trials.