All Men Are Created Equal: Addressing Disparities in Prostate Cancer Care.

The global cancer burden is estimated to have risen to 18.1 million new cases and 9.6 million deaths in 2018. By 2030, the number of cancer cases is projected to increase to 24.6 million and the number of cancer deaths, to 13 million. Global data mask the social and health disparities that influence cancer incidence and survival. Inequality in exposure to carcinogens, education, access to quality diagnostic services, and affordable treatments all affect the probability of survival. Worryingly, despite the fact that many cancers could be prevented by stronger public health actions and many others could be largely cured by better access to diagnostics and affordable treatments, the international community has yet to make a substantial move to tackle this challenge. In prostate cancer, studies show that there are geographic and racial/ethnic distribution differences as well as a number of other variables, including environmental factors, limited access to standard cancer treatments, reduced probability to be included in trials, and the financial burden of cancer treatments. Financial burden for the patients can result in poor adherence, increased debt, and poor long-term outcomes. The following article will discuss some of the important causes for disparity in prostate cancer and prostate cancer care, focused on the current situation in the United States, as well as possible remedies to address these causes.

Comparative Assessment of Clinical Benefit Using the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale Version 1.1 and the ASCO Value Framework Net Health Benefit Score.

PURPOSE: To better understand the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS v1.1) and the ASCO Value Framework Net Health Benefit score version 2 (ASCO-NHB v2), ESMO and ASCO collaborated to evaluate the concordance between the frameworks when used to assess clinical benefit attributable to new therapies. METHODS: The 102 randomized controlled trials in the noncurative setting already evaluated in the field testing of ESMO-MCBS v1.1 were scored using ASCO-NHB v2 by its developers. Measures of agreement between the frameworks were calculated and receiver operating characteristic curves used to define thresholds for the ASCO-NHB v2 corresponding to ESMO-MCBS v1.1 categories. Studies with discordant scoring were identified and evaluated to understand the reasons for discordance. RESULTS: The correlation of the 102 pairs of scores for studies in the noncurative setting is estimated to be 0.68 (Spearman's rank correlation coefficient; overall survival, 0.71; progression-free survival, 0.67). Receiver operating characteristic curves identified thresholds for ASCO-NHB v2 for facilitating comparisons with ESMO-MCBS v1.1 categories. After applying pragmatic threshold scores of 40 or less (ASCO-NHB v2) and 2 or less (ESMO-MCBS v1.1) for low benefit and 45 or greater (ASCO-NHB v2) and 4 to 5 (ESMO-MCBS v1.1) for substantial benefit, 37 discordant studies were identified. Major factors that contributed to discordance were different approaches to evaluation of relative and absolute gain for overall survival and progression-free survival, crediting tail of the curve gains, and assessing toxicity. CONCLUSION: The agreement between the frameworks was higher than observed in other studies that sought to compare them. The factors that contributed to discordant scores suggest potential approaches to improve convergence between the scales.

Value and cancer care: toward an equitable future.

Health care expenses in the United States are increasing inexorably. At the current rate of growth, it is anticipated that 20% of the gross national product will consist of health-related expenditures within the next decade. Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States, and it is increasing in prevalence because of the aging of the population and the limited number of successful prevention strategies. As the biological characteristics of cancer come into sharper focus, targeted therapies are being developed that offer the promise of increased clinical benefit with fewer toxicities than are associated with conventional treatment. Although spectacular successes are infrequent with this approach, to date, the majority of targeted therapies are modestly effective at best, and extremely costly. This observation suggests that a broadly acceptable definition of value in a cancer therapeutic agent is not at hand, but is sorely needed from the vantage points of the patient and society. A corollary issue of enormous import is how to equitably distribute the health care dollar in the service of achieving the greatest good for the greatest number. Although cancer is responsible for only 5% of the health care budget, its cost is increasing and it can be viewed as paradigmatic when contemplating the problem of equity in health care. Here, a number of concepts are discussed that focus on this goal and its implications for the cancer patient and society at large.

American Society of Clinical Oncology guidance statement: the cost of cancer care.

Advances in early detection, prevention, and treatment have resulted in consistently falling cancer death rates in the United States. In parallel with these advances have come significant increases in the cost of cancer care. It is well established that the cost of health care (including cancer care) in the United States is growing more rapidly than the overall economy. In part, this is a result of the prices and rapid uptake of new agents and other technologies, including advances in imaging and therapeutic radiology. Conventional understanding suggests that high prices may reflect the costs and risks associated with the development, production, and marketing of new drugs and technologies, many of which are valued highly by physicians, patients, and payers. The increasing cost of cancer care impacts many stakeholders who play a role in a complex health care system. Our patients are the most vulnerable because they often experience uneven insurance coverage, leading to financial strain or even ruin. Other key groups include pharmaceutical manufacturers that pass along research, development, and marketing costs to the consumer; providers of cancer care who dispense increasingly expensive drugs and technologies; and the insurance industry, which ultimately passes costs to consumers. Increasingly, the economic burden of health care in general, and high-quality cancer care in particular, will be less and less affordable for an increasing number of Americans unless steps are taken to curb current trends. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) is committed to improving cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment and eliminating disparities in cancer care through support of evidence-based and cost-effective practices. To address this goal, ASCO established a Cost of Care Task Force, which has developed this Guidance Statement on the Cost of Cancer Care. This Guidance Statement provides a concise overview of the economic issues facing stakeholders in the cancer community. It also recommends that the following steps be taken to address immediate needs: recognition that patient-physician discussions regarding the cost of care are an important component of high-quality care; the design of educational and support tools for oncology providers to promote effective communication about costs with patients; and the development of resources to help educate patients about the high cost of cancer care to help guide their decision making regarding treatment options. Looking to the future, this Guidance Statement also recommends that ASCO develop policy positions to address the underlying factors contributing to the increased cost of cancer care. Doing so will require a clear understanding of the factors that drive these costs, as well as potential modifications to the current cancer care system to ensure that all Americans have access to high-quality, cost-effective care.

ASCO Task Force on the Cost of Cancer Care.

The United States leads the world in cancer care outcomes, but the cost is extremely high-and growing rapidly. New proposals for health reform emphasize one clear and immediate need: to control runaway cost.

The costs of conducting clinical research.

PURPOSE: Physicians frequently receive payment for enrolling subjects onto clinical trials. Some view these payments as conflicts of interest. Others contend that these payments are necessary reimbursements for conducting clinical research. We evaluated the clinical and nonclinical hours and costs associated with conducting a mock phase III clinical research trial. METHODS: We collected data from representatives of 21 clinical sites, on the numbers of hours associated with 13 activities necessary to the conduct of clinical research. The hours were based on enrolling 20 patients in a 12-month randomized placebo-controlled trial of a new chemotherapeutic agent. The outcome measures were disease progression and quality-of-life reports. These costs were evaluated for both government and pharmaceutical industry-sponsored trials. RESULTS: On average, 4,012 hours (range, 1,512 to 13,319 hours) were required for a government-sponsored trial, and 3,998 hours (range: 1735 to 15,699) were required for a pharmaceutical industry-sponsored trial involving 20 subjects with 17 office visits, or approximately 200 hours per subject. Thirty-two percent of the hours were devoted to nonclinical activities, such as institutional review board submission and completion of clinical reporting forms. On average, excluding overhead expenses, it cost slightly more than 6,094 dollars (range, 2,098 dollars to 19,285 dollars) per enrolled subject for an industry-sponsored trial, including 1,999 dollars devoted to nonclinical costs. CONCLUSION: Based on the results of our mock trial, the time required for nontreatment trial activities is considerable, and the associated costs are substantial.