Financial Impact of Colorectal Cancer and Its Consequences: Associations Between Cancer-Related Financial Stress and Strain and Health-Related Quality of Life.

BACKGROUND: The financial impact and consequences of cancer on the lives of survivors remain poorly understood. This is especially true for colorectal cancer. OBJECTIVE: We investigated objective cancer-related financial stress, subjective cancer-related financial strain, and their association with health-related quality of life in colorectal cancer survivors. DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional postal survey. SETTINGS: The study was conducted in Ireland, which has a mixed public-private healthcare system. PATIENTS: Colorectal cancer survivors, diagnosed 6 to 37 months prior, were identified from the population-based National Cancer Registry. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cancer-related financial stress was assessed as impact of cancer on household ability to make ends meet and cancer-related financial strain by feelings about household financial situation since cancer diagnosis. Health-related quality of life was based on European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 global health status. Logistic regression was used to identify associations between financial stress and strain and low health-related quality of life (lowest quartile, score ≤50). RESULTS: A total of 493 survivors participated. Overall, 41% reported cancer-related financial stress and 39% cancer-related financial strain; 32% reported both financial stress and financial strain. After adjustment for sociodemographic and clinical variables, the odds of low health-related quality of life were significantly higher in those who reported cancer-related financial stress postdiagnosis compared with those who reported no change in financial stress postcancer (OR = 2.54 (95% CI, 1.62-3.99)). The odds of low health-related quality of life were also significantly higher in those with worse financial strain postdiagnosis (OR =1.73 (95% CI, 1.09-2.72)). The OR for those with both cancer-related financial stress and financial strain was 2.59 (95% CI, 1.59-4.22). LIMITATIONS: Survey responders were younger, on average, than nonresponders. Responders and nonresponders may have differed in cancer-related financial stress and strain or health-related quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Four in 10 colorectal cancer survivors reported an adverse financial impact of cancer. Cancer-related financial stress and strain were significantly associated with low health-related quality of life. To inform support strategies, additional research is needed to better understand how both objective and subjective financial distress influence survivors' health-related quality of life. See Video Abstract http://links.lww.com/DCR/A447.

Counting the cost of cancer: out-of-pocket payments made by colorectal cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: Cancer places a significant cost burden on health services. There is increasing recognition that cancer also imposes a financial and economic burden on patients but this has rarely been quantified outside North America. We investigate out-of-pocket costs (OOPCs) incurred by colorectal (CRC) survivors in Ireland. METHODS: CRC survivors (ICD10 C18-20) diagnosed 6-30 months previously were identified from the National Cancer Registry Ireland and invited to complete a postal questionnaire. Cancer-related OOPC for tests, procedures, drugs, allied medications and household management in approximately the year following diagnosis were calculated. Robust regression was used to identify predictors of OOPC; this was done for all survivors combined and stratified by age (<70 and ≥70 years) and employment status (working and not working) at diagnosis. RESULTS: Four hundred ninety-seven CRC survivors completed questionnaires (response rate = 39%). Almost all (90%) respondents reported some cancer-related OOPC. The average total OOPC was €1589. Stage III at diagnosis was associated with significantly higher OOPCs than other stages in the all-survivor model, in those not working in the employment model and in those under 70 years in the age-stratified model. In all-survivor model, those under 70 also had higher OOPCs, as did those in employment. Having one or more children was associated with significantly lower OOPCs in those under 70 years. CONCLUSIONS: Almost all CRC survivors incur cancer-related OOPCs; for some, these are not insignificant. Greater attention should be paid to the development of services to help survivors manage the financial and economic burden of cancer.

Direct costs of radiotherapy for rectal cancer: a microcosting study.

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy provides significant benefits in terms of reducing risk of local recurrence and death from rectal cancer. Despite this, up-to-date cost estimates for radiotherapy are lacking, potentially inhibiting policy and decision-making. Our objective was to generate an up-to-date estimate of the cost of traditional radiotherapy for rectal cancer and model the impact of a range of potential efficiency improvements. METHODS: Microcosting methods were used to estimate total direct radiotherapy costs for long- (assumed at 45-50 Gy in 25 daily fractions over a 5 week period) and short-courses (assumed at 25 Gy in 5 daily fractions over a one week period). Following interviews and on-site visits to radiotherapy departments in two designated cancer centers, a radiotherapy care pathway for a typical rectal cancer patient was developed. Total direct costs were derived by applying fixed and variable unit costs to resource use within each care phase. Costs included labor, capital, consumables and overheads. Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Radiotherapy treatment was estimated to cost between €2,080 (5-fraction course) and €3,609 (25-fraction course) for an average patient in 2012. Costs were highest in the treatment planning phase for the short-course (€1,217; 58% of total costs), but highest in the radiation treatment phase for the long-course (€1,974: 60% of total costs). By simultaneously varying treatment time, capacity utilization rates and linear accelerator staff numbers, the base cost fell by 20% for 5-fractions: (€1,660) and 35% for 25-fractions: (€2,354). CONCLUSIONS: Traditional radiotherapy for rectal cancer is relatively inexpensive. Moreover, significant savings may be achievable through service organization and provision changes. These results suggest that a strong economic argument can be made for expanding the use of radiotherapy in rectal cancer treatment.

How much does it cost to care for survivors of colorectal cancer? Caregiver's time, travel and out-of-pocket costs.

PURPOSE: Cancer treatment is increasingly delivered in an outpatient setting. This may entail a considerable economic burden for family members and friends who support patients/survivors. We estimated financial and time costs associated with informal care for colorectal cancer. METHODS: Two hundred twenty-eight carers of colorectal cancer survivors diagnosed on October 2007-September 2009 were sent a questionnaire. Informal care costs included hospital- and domestic-based foregone caregiver time, travel expenses and out-of-pocket (OOP) costs during two phases: diagnosis and treatment and ongoing care (previous 30 days). Multiple regression was used to determine cost predictors. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-four completed questionnaires were received (response rate = 68%). In the diagnosis and treatment phase, weekly informal care costs per person were: hospital-based costs, incurred by 99% of carers, mean = €393 (interquartile range (IQR), €131-€541); domestic-based time costs, incurred by 85%, mean = €609 (IQR, €170-€976); and domestic-based OOP costs, incurred by 68%, mean = €69 (IQR, €0-€110). Ongoing costs included domestic-based time costs incurred by 66% (mean = €66; IQR, €0-€594) and domestic-based OOP costs incurred by 52% (mean = €52; IQR, €0-€64). The approximate average first year informal care cost was €29,842, of which 85 % was time costs, 13% OOP costs and 2% travel costs. Significant cost predictors included carer age, disease stage, and survivor age. CONCLUSION: Informal caregiving associated with colorectal cancer entails considerable time and OOP costs. This burden is largely unrecognised by policymakers, service providers and society in general. These types of studies may facilitate health decision-makers in better assessing the consequences of changes in cancer care organisation and delivery.

Cost effectiveness of fecal DNA screening for colorectal cancer: a systematic review and quality appraisal of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Fecal DNA (fDNA) testing is a noninvasive potential alternative to current colorectal cancer screening tests. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review and quality assessment of studies of cost-effectiveness of fDNA as a colorectal cancer screening tool (compared with no screening and other screening modalities), and identified key variables that impinged on cost-effectiveness. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination for cost-effectiveness studies of fDNA-based screening, published in English by September 2011. STUDY SELECTION: Studies that undertook an economic evaluation of fDNA, using either a cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analysis, compared with other relevant screening modalities and/or no screening were included. Additional inclusion criteria related to the presentation of data pertaining to model variables including time horizon, costs, fDNA performance characteristics, screening uptake, and comparators. A total of 369 articles were initially identified for review. After removing duplicates and applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, seven articles were included in the final review. STUDY APPRAISAL: Data was abstracted on key descriptor variables including screening scenarios, time horizon, costs, test performance characteristics, screening uptake, comparators, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Quality assessment was undertaken using a standard checklist for economic evaluations. Studies cited by cost-effectiveness articles as the source of data on fDNA test performance characteristics were also reviewed. RESULTS: Seven cost-effectiveness studies were included, from the USA (4), Canada (1), Israel (1), and Taiwan (1). Markov models (5), a partially observable Markov decision process model (1) and MISCAN and SimCRC (1) microsimulation models were used. All studies took a third-party payer perspective and one included, in addition, a societal perspective. Comparator screening tests, screening intervals, and specific fDNA tests varied between studies. fDNA sensitivity and specificity parameters were derived from 12 research studies and one meta-analysis. Outcomes assessed were life-years gained and quality-adjusted life-years gained. fDNA was cost-effective when compared with no screening in six studies. Compared with other screening modalities, fDNA was not considered cost-effective in any of the base-case analyses: in five studies it was dominated by all alternatives considered. Sensitivity analyses identified cost, compliance, and test parameters as key influential parameters. In general, poor presentation of "study design" and "data collection" details lowered the quality of included articles. LIMITATIONS: Although the literature searches were designed for high sensitivity, the possibility cannot be excluded that some eligible studies may have been missed. Reports (such as Health Technology Assessments produced by government agencies) and other forms of grey literature were excluded because they are difficult to identify systematically and/or may not report methods and results in sufficient detail for assessment. CONCLUSION: On the basis of the available (albeit limited) evidence, while fDNA is cost-effective when compared with no screening, it is currently dominated by most of the other available screening options. Cost and test performance appear to be the main influences on cost-effectiveness.

Time costs associated with informal care for colorectal cancer: an investigation of the impact of alternative valuation methods.

BACKGROUND: A societal perspective in economic evaluation necessitates that all resources associated with a disease or intervention should be valued; however, informal care time costs are rarely considered. OBJECTIVE: We estimated time allocated to care by informal carers of colorectal cancer survivors; and investigated the impact of applying alternative valuation methods to this time. METHODS: Colorectal cancer cases (ICD10 C18-C20) diagnosed 6-30 months previously and identified from the National Cancer Registry Ireland were invited to provide details of informal carers. Carers completed a postal questionnaire. Time estimates per week associated with hospital-related and domestic-related care activities were collected for two phases: diagnosis and initial treatment (initial 3 months) and ongoing care (previous 30 days). Seven valuation scenarios, based on variants of the opportunity cost approach (OCA), and the proxy good approach (PGA), were considered. The base-case was OCA with all carer time valued at the average national wage. RESULTS: We received 154 completed questionnaires (response rate = 68 %). Average weekly time allocated to caring was 42.5 h in the diagnosis and initial treatment phase and 16.9 h in the ongoing care phase. Under the base-case, average weekly time costs were 295 (95 % CI 255-344) for hospital-related activities and 630 (95 % CI 543-739) for domestic-related activities in the diagnosis and initial treatment phase and 359 (95 % CI 293-434) in the ongoing care phase. PGA estimates were 23 % below the base-case. Only one alternative scenario (occupation and gender-specific wages for carers in paid work and replacement wages for non-working carers) surpassed base-case costs, and the difference was modest. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, significant time is associated with informal caring in colorectal cancer. Different time valuation methods can produce quite different cost estimates. A standardised methodology for estimating informal care costs would facilitate better integration of these into economic evaluations.

Work-related productivity losses in an era of ageing populations: the case of colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated patterns and costs of lost productivity due to colorectal cancer in Ireland and examined how rising pension ages affect these costs. METHODS: Data from a postal survey of colorectal cancer survivors (6 to 30 months after diagnosis; n = 159), taken from March 2010 to January 2011, were combined with population-level survival estimates and national wage data to calculate temporary and permanent disability, and premature mortality, costs using the human capital approach. RESULTS: Almost 40% of respondents left the workforce permanently after diagnosis and 90% took temporary time off work. Total costs of lost productivity per person were 205,847 in 2008 assuming retirement at the age of 65. When the retirement age was raised to 70, productivity costs increased by almost a half. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated the considerable productivity costs associated with colorectal cancer and highlighted the effect of rising retirement ages on costs.

Cost comparisons and methodological heterogeneity in cost-of-illness studies: the example of colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide with over 1 million new cases diagnosed each year. Advances in treatment and survival are likely to have increased lifetime costs of managing the disease. Cost-of-illness (COI) studies are key building blocks in economic evaluations of interventions and comparative effectiveness research. We systematically reviewed and critiqued the COI literature on CRC. METHODS: We searched several databases for CRC COI studies published in English, between January 2000 and February 2011. Information was abstracted on: setting, patient population, top-down/bottom-up costing, incident/prevalent approach, payer perspective, time horizon, costs included, cost source, and per-person costs. We developed a framework to compare study methodologies and assess homogeneity/heterogeneity. RESULTS: A total of 26 papers met the inclusion criteria. There was extensive methodological heterogeneity. Studies included case-control studies based on claims/reimbursement data (10), examinations of patient charts (5), and analysis of claims data (4). Epidemiological approaches varied (prevalent, 6; incident, 8; mixed, 10; unclear, 4). Time horizons ranged from 1 year postdiagnosis to lifetime. Seventeen studies used top-down costing. Twenty-five studies included healthcare-payer direct medical costs; 2 included indirect costs; 1 considered patient costs. There was broad agreement in how studies accounted for time, but few studies described costs in sufficient detail to allow replication. In general, costs were not comparable between studies. CONCLUSIONS: Methodological heterogeneity and lack of transparency made it almost impossible to compare CRC costs between studies or over time. For COI studies to be more useful and robust there is need for clear and rigorous guidelines around methodological and reporting "best practice."

Cost-effectiveness of computed tomography colonography in colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: The European Code Against Cancer recommends individuals aged ≥ 50 should participate in colorectal cancer screening. CT-colonography (CTC) is one of several screening tests available. We systematically reviewed evidence on, and identified key factors influencing, cost-effectiveness of CTC screening. METHODS: PubMed, Medline, and the Cochrane library were searched for cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analyses of CTC-based screening, published in English, January 1999 to July 2010. Data was abstracted on setting, model type and horizon, screening scenario(s), comparator(s), participants, uptake, CTC performance and cost, effectiveness, ICERs, and whether extra-colonic findings and medical complications were considered. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were identified from the United States (n = 11), Canada (n = 2), and France, Italy, and the United Kingdom (1 each). Markov state-transition (n = 14) or microsimulation (n = 2) models were used. Eleven considered direct medical costs only; five included indirect costs. Fourteen compared CTC with no screening; fourteen compared CTC with colonoscopy-based screening; fewer compared CTC with sigmoidoscopy (8) or fecal tests (4). Outcomes assessed were life-years gained/saved (13), QALYs (2), or both (1). Three considered extra-colonic findings; seven considered complications. CTC appeared cost-effective versus no screening and, in general, flexible sigmoidoscopy and fecal occult blood testing. Results were mixed comparing CTC to colonoscopy. Parameters most influencing cost-effectiveness included: CTC costs, screening uptake, threshold for polyp referral, and extra-colonic findings. CONCLUSION: Evidence on cost-effectiveness of CTC screening is heterogeneous, due largely to between-study differences in comparators and parameter values. Future studies should: compare CTC with currently favored tests, especially fecal immunochemical tests; consider extra-colonic findings; and conduct comprehensive sensitivity analyses.