Patterns of Medical Care Cost by Service Type for Patients With Recurrent and De Novo Advanced Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: There is limited knowledge about the cost patterns of patients who receive a diagnosis of de novo and recurrent advanced cancers in the United States. METHODS: Data on patients who received a diagnosis of de novo stage IV or recurrent breast, colorectal, or lung cancer between 2000 and 2012 from 3 integrated health systems were used to estimate average annual costs for total, ambulatory, inpatient, medication, and other services during (1) 12 months preceding de novo or recurrent diagnosis (preindex) and (2) diagnosis month through 11 months after (postindex), from the payer perspective. Generalized linear regression models estimated costs adjusting for patient and clinical factors. RESULTS: Patients who developed a recurrence <1 year after their initial cancer diagnosis had significantly higher total costs in the preindex period than those with recurrence ≥1 year after initial diagnosis and those with de novo stage IV disease across all cancers (all P < .05). Patients with de novo stage IV breast and colorectal cancer had significantly higher total costs in the postindex period than patients with cancer recurrent in <1 year and ≥1 year (all P < .05), respectively. Patients in de novo stage IV and those with recurrence in ≥1 year experienced significantly higher postindex costs than the preindex period (all P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings reveal distinct cost patterns between patients with de novo stage IV, recurrent <1-year, and recurrent ≥1-year cancer, suggesting unique care trajectories that may influence resource use and planning. Future cost studies among patients with advanced cancer should account for de novo versus recurrent diagnoses and timing of recurrence to obtain estimates that accurately reflect these care pattern complexities.

The patient-level effect of the cost of Cancer care - financial burden in German Cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Financial toxicity of cancer has so far been discussed primarily in the US health care system and is associated with higher morbidity and mortality. In European health care systems, the socio-economic impact of cancer is poorly understood. This study investigates the financial burden and patient-reported outcomes of neuroendocrine (NET) or colorectal (CRC) cancer patients at a German Comprehensive Cancer Center. METHODS: This prospective cross-sectional study surveyed 247 advanced stage patients (n = 122 NET/n = 125 CRC) at the National Center for Tumor Diseases, in Germany about cancer-related out-of-pocket costs, income loss, distress, and quality of life. Multiple linear regression analysis was performed to demonstrate the effects of economic deterioration on patients' quality of life and distress. RESULTS: 81% (n = 199) of the patients reported out-of-pocket costs, and 37% (n = 92) income loss as a consequence of their disease. While monthly out-of-pocket costs did not exceed 200€ in 77% of affected patients, 24% of those with income losses reported losing more than 1.200€ per month. High financial loss relative to income was significantly associated with patients' reporting a worse quality of life (p < .05) and more distress (p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Financial toxicity in third-party payer health care systems like Germany is caused rather by income loss than by co-payments. Distress and reduced quality of life due to financial problems seem to amplify the burden that already results from a cancer diagnosis and treatment. If confirmed at a broader scale, there is a need for targeted support measures at the individual and system level.

Outcomes Among Minority Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in a Safety-net Health Care System.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) outcomes continue to improve, but they vary significantly by race and ethnicity. We hypothesize that these disparities arise from unequal access to care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Harris Health System (HHS) is an integrated health delivery network that provides medical care to the underserved, predominantly minority population of Harris County, Texas. As the largest HHS facility and an affiliate of Baylor College of Medicine's Dan L. Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ben Taub Hospital (BTH) delivers cancer care through multidisciplinary subspecialty that prioritize access to care, adherence to evidence-based clinical pathways, integration of supportive services, and mitigation of financial toxicity. We performed a retrospective analysis of minority patients diagnosed with and treated for metastatic CRC at BTH between January 2010 and December 2012. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were compared with survival curves from randomized control trials reported during that time period. RESULTS: We identified 103 patients; 40% were black, 49% were Hispanic, and 12% were Asian or Middle Eastern. Thirty-five percent reported a language other than English as their preferred language. Seventy-four percent of patients with documented coverage status were uninsured. Eighty-four percent of patients received standard chemotherapy with a clinician-reported response rate of 63%. Overall survival for BTH patients undergoing chemotherapy was superior to that of subjects enrolled in the CRYSTAL (Cetuximab Combined with Irinotecan in First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer) trial (median, 24.0 vs. 19.9 months; P = .014). CONCLUSION: HHS provides a health delivery infrastructure through which minority patients with socioeconomic challenges experience clinical outcomes comparable with highly selected patients enrolled in randomized control trials. Efforts to resolve CRC disparities should focus on improving access of at-risk populations to high-quality comprehensive cancer care.

Optimal Surveillance Frequency After CRS/HIPEC for Appendiceal and Colorectal Neoplasms: A Multi-institutional Analysis of the US HIPEC Collaborative.

BACKGROUND: No guidelines exist for surveillance following cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC) for appendiceal and colorectal cancer. The primary objective was to define the optimal surveillance frequency after CRS/HIPEC. METHODS: The U.S. HIPEC Collaborative database (2000-2017) was reviewed for patients who underwent a CCR0/1 CRS/HIPEC for appendiceal or colorectal cancer. Radiologic surveillance frequency was divided into two categories: low-frequency surveillance (LFS) at q6-12mos or high-frequency surveillance (HFS) at q2-4mos. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Among 975 patients, the median age was 55 year, 41% were male: 31% had non-invasive appendiceal (n = 301), 45% invasive appendiceal (n = 435), and 24% colorectal cancer (CRC; n = 239). With a median follow-up time of 25 mos, the median time to recurrence was 12 mos. Despite less surveillance, LFS patients had no decrease in median OS (non-invasive appendiceal: 106 vs. 65 mos, p < 0.01; invasive appendiceal: 120 vs. 73 mos, p = 0.02; colorectal cancer [CRC]: 35 vs. 30 mos, p = 0.8). LFS patients had lower median PCI scores compared with HFS (non-invasive appendiceal: 10 vs. 19; invasive appendiceal: 10 vs. 14; CRC: 8 vs. 11; all p < 0.01). However, on multivariable analysis, accounting for PCI score, LFS was still not associated with decreased OS for any histologic type (non-invasive appendiceal: hazard ratio [HR]: 0.28, p = 0.1; invasive appendiceal: HR: 0.73, p = 0.42; CRC: HR: 1.14, p = 0.59). When estimating annual incident cases of CRS/HIPEC at 375 for non-invasive appendiceal, 375 invasive appendiceal and 4410 colorectal, LFS compared with HFS for the initial two post-operative years would potentially save $13-19 M/year to the U.S. healthcare system. CONCLUSIONS: Low-frequency surveillance after CRS/HIPEC for appendiceal or colorectal cancer is not associated with decreased survival, and when considering decreased costs, may optimize resource utilization.

The Pharmacoeconomic Analysis of Cetuximab and Panitumumab in the 1st Line Treatment of mCRC in Real Clinical Practice in the Czech Republic.

BACKGROUND: The anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) drugs cetuximab and panitumumab are currently reimbursed when administered during the first and subsequent lines of treatment of patients in the Czech Republic with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Because cetuximab and panitumumab do not show significant differences in efficacy, their choice may be dependent on cost. This retrospective study analyzed the costs of first-line treatment with cetuximab and panitumumab of patients with mCRC and wild type KRAS, as well as evaluated the correlations between costs and effectiveness, as determined by progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This analysis included 51 patients with mCRC and confirmed wild type KRAS treated at the comprehensive cancer centre in the Czech Republic between November 2011 and April 2018. Of these 51 patients, 22 were treated with cetuximab and 29 with panitumumab. Direct medical costs (medications, clinical examinations and procedures, and hospitalization) were evaluated from the initiation of treatment with anti-EGFR drug to disease progression and death. Mean follow-up was 21 months in the cetuximab group and 19 months in the panitumumab group. RESULTS: Reimbursement for anti-EGFR drugs until disease progression accounted for 71% (mean, 964,288 CZK per patient) of total costs in the cetuximab group and 77% (mean, 1,003,229 CZK per patient) of total costs in the panitumumab group, with median PFS in these two groups being 10.7 months and 8.1 months, respectively. Reimbursement of expensive center drugs from the start of anti-EGFR treatment to patient death accounted for 55% of total costs in the cetuximab group (mean, 1,752,702 CZK per patient) and 63% of total costs in the panitumumab group (mean, 1,596,919 CZK per patient), with median OS in these two groups being 20.2 months and 19.8 months, respectively. No significant between-group differences in clinical effectiveness and costs of treatment were observed (p > 0.05 each). CONCLUSION: Reimbursement for biological agents is the most expensive item in the first-line treatment of mCRC patients with wild type KRAS, both to disease progression and death. The clinical effectiveness and costs of cetuximab and panitumumab did not differ significantly. Supported by CZECRIN (identification code LM2015090); CZECRIN_4 PACIENTY (No. CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_013/0001826). The authors declare they have no potential conflicts of interest concerning drugs, products, or services used in the study. The Editorial Board declares that the manuscript met the ICMJE recommendation for biomedical papers. Submitted: 30. 4. 2019 Accepted: 17. 6. 2019.

Timing of Palliative Care in Colorectal Cancer Patients: Does It Matter?

BACKGROUND: Palliative care can improve end-of-life care and reduce health care expenditures, but the optimal timing for initiation remains unclear. We sought to characterize the association between timing of palliative care, in-hospital deaths, and health care costs. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study including all patients who were diagnosed and died of colorectal cancer between 2004 and 2012 in Manitoba, Canada. The primary exposure was timing of palliative care, defined as no involvement, late involvement (less than 14 d before death), early involvement (14 to 60 d before death), and very early involvement (>60 d before death). The primary outcome was in-hospital deaths and end-of-life health care costs. RESULTS: A total of 1607 patients were included; 315 (20%) received palliative care and 162 (10%) died in hospital. Compared to those who did not receive palliative care, patients with early and very early involvement experienced significantly decreased odds of dying in hospital (OR 0.21 95% CI 0.06-0.69 P = 0.01 and OR 0.11 95% CI 0.01-0.78 P = 0.03, respectively) and significantly lower health care costs. There were no significant differences in in-hospital deaths and health care costs between patients without palliative care and those who received late palliative care. CONCLUSIONS: Early palliative care involvement is associated with decreased odds of dying in hospital and lower health care utilization and costs in patients with colorectal cancer. These findings provide real-world evidence supporting early integration of palliative care, although the optimal timing (early versus very early) remains a matter of debate.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Cytoreductive Surgery and HIPEC Compared With Systemic Chemotherapy in Isolated Peritoneal Carcinomatosis From Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cost-effectiveness evaluations of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for the treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) from metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in the United States are lacking. METHODS: The authors developed a Markov model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of CRS/HIPEC compared with systemic chemotherapy for isolated PC from mCRC from a societal perspective in the United States. The systemic treatment regimens consisted of FOLFOX, FOLFIRI, bevacizumab, cetuximab, and pantitumumab. The model inputs including costs, probabilities, survival, progression, and utilities were taken from the literature. The cycle length for the model was 2 weeks, and the time horizon was 7 years. A discount rate of 3% was applied. The model was tested for internal and external validation, and robustness was established with univariate sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA). The primary outcomes were total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years (LYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). A willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 per QALY was assumed. RESULTS: The ICER for treatment with CRS/HIPEC compared with systemic chemotherapy was $91,034 per QALY gained ($74,098 per LY gained). The univariate sensitivity analysis showed that the total costs for treatment with CRS/HIPEC had the largest effect on the calculated ICER. The CRS/HIPEC treatment was a cost-effective strategy during the majority of simulations in the PSA. The average ICER for 100,000 simulations in the PSA was $70,807 per QALY gained. The likelihood of CRS/HIPEC being a cost-effective strategy at the WTP threshold was 87%. CONCLUSIONS: The CRS/HIPEC procedure is a cost-effective treatment for isolated PC from mCRC in the United States.

A conceptual framework and metrics for evaluating multicomponent interventions to increase colorectal cancer screening within an organized screening program.

BACKGROUND: Multicomponent, evidence-based interventions are viewed increasingly as essential for increasing the use of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening to meet national targets. Multicomponent interventions involve complex care pathways and interactions across multiple levels, including the individual, health system, and community. METHODS: The authors developed a framework and identified metrics and data elements to evaluate the implementation processes, effectiveness, and cost effectiveness of multicomponent interventions used in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program. RESULTS: Process measures to evaluate the implementation of interventions to increase community and patient demand for CRC screening, increase patient access, and increase provider delivery of services are presented. In addition, performance measures are identified to assess implementation processes along the continuum of care for screening, diagnosis, and treatment. Series of intermediate and long-term outcome and cost measures also are presented to evaluate the impact of the interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the effectiveness of multicomponent, evidence-based interventions and identifying successful approaches that can be replicated in other settings are essential to increase screening and reduce CRC burden. The use of common framework, data elements, and evaluation methods will allow the performance of comparative assessments of the interventions implemented across CRCCP sites to identify best practices for increasing colorectal screening, particularly among underserved populations, to reduce disparities in CRC incidence and mortality.

Cost Effectiveness of Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Management of Colorectal Peritoneal Carcinomatosis.

BACKGROUND: Peritoneal carcinomatosis from colorectal cancer is a stage 4 disease for which palliative chemotherapy has traditionally been considered the mainstay of treatment. Since the development of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) by Sugarbaker, this combined method treatment has resulted in improved survival outcomes with acceptable morbidity for selected patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis. This study examined the cost effectiveness of CRS and HIPEC compared with palliative chemotherapy for patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis from colorectal cancer within the context of the Singaporean health care system. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis from histologically proven colorectal cancer treated at the National Cancer Centre Singapore (NCCS) was conducted. RESULTS: The average cost of CRS and HIPEC per patient was S$83,680.26, and the median overall survival period was 47 months. The calculated cost per life year attained for a patient who underwent CRS and HIPEC was S$21,365.19 per life year. In comparison, the average cost of palliative chemotherapy was S$44,478.87, with a median overall survival of 9 months, and the calculated cost per life year attained for a patient in this treatment group was S$59,305.16 per life year. CONCLUSION: The findings show that CRS and HIPEC results in prolonged survival for selected patients with colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis and a lower cost per life year attained than for the traditionally used palliative chemotherapy. It should logically be the preferred treatment of choice for selected patients with colorectal peritoneal metastasis.

Clinical applicability and cost of a 46-gene panel for genomic analysis of solid tumours: Retrospective validation and prospective audit in the UK National Health Service.

BACKGROUND: Single gene tests to predict whether cancers respond to specific targeted therapies are performed increasingly often. Advances in sequencing technology, collectively referred to as next generation sequencing (NGS), mean the entire cancer genome or parts of it can now be sequenced at speed with increased depth and sensitivity. However, translation of NGS into routine cancer care has been slow. Healthcare stakeholders are unclear about the clinical utility of NGS and are concerned it could be an expensive addition to cancer diagnostics, rather than an affordable alternative to single gene testing. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We validated a 46-gene hotspot cancer panel assay allowing multiple gene testing from small diagnostic biopsies. From 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2013, solid tumour samples (including non-small-cell lung carcinoma [NSCLC], colorectal carcinoma, and melanoma) were sequenced in the context of the UK National Health Service from 351 consecutively submitted prospective cases for which treating clinicians thought the patient had potential to benefit from more extensive genetic analysis. Following histological assessment, tumour-rich regions of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) sections underwent macrodissection, DNA extraction, NGS, and analysis using a pipeline centred on Torrent Suite software. With a median turnaround time of seven working days, an integrated clinical report was produced indicating the variants detected, including those with potential diagnostic, prognostic, therapeutic, or clinical trial entry implications. Accompanying phenotypic data were collected, and a detailed cost analysis of the panel compared with single gene testing was undertaken to assess affordability for routine patient care. Panel sequencing was successful for 97% (342/351) of tumour samples in the prospective cohort and showed 100% concordance with known mutations (detected using cobas assays). At least one mutation was identified in 87% (296/342) of tumours. A locally actionable mutation (i.e., available targeted treatment or clinical trial) was identified in 122/351 patients (35%). Forty patients received targeted treatment, in 22/40 (55%) cases solely due to use of the panel. Examination of published data on the potential efficacy of targeted therapies showed theoretically actionable mutations (i.e., mutations for which targeted treatment was potentially appropriate) in 66% (71/107) and 39% (41/105) of melanoma and NSCLC patients, respectively. At a cost of £339 (US$449) per patient, the panel was less expensive locally than performing more than two or three single gene tests. Study limitations include the use of FFPE samples, which do not always provide high-quality DNA, and the use of "real world" data: submission of cases for sequencing did not always follow clinical guidelines, meaning that when mutations were detected, patients were not always eligible for targeted treatments on clinical grounds. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that more extensive tumour sequencing can identify mutations that could improve clinical decision-making in routine cancer care, potentially improving patient outcomes, at an affordable level for healthcare providers.

Economics of ramucirumab for metastatic colorectal cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Despite its FDA approval and incorporation into the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) treatment guidelines, ramucirumab (RAM) is associated with a drug acquisition cost that is substantially higher than other approved options. Given its substantial cost, the presence of a viable alternative treatment option, and its minimal survival improvement, the usefulness of RAM in clinical practice has been called into question. Areas covered: In this paper, we outline the cost, benefits, and economic implications of RAM from a US perspective, as it is used in the treatment of mCRC. We also dissect its use in other tumor types and in other healthcare systems around the world, and briefly compare it with similar drugs targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway. We used the search engine PubMed using the following as search terms: cost-effectiveness; ramucirumab; metastatic colon cancer; angiogenesis; and value-based medicine. Expert commentary: The use of ramucirumab in the treatment of mCRC serves as a microcosm of the worsening healthcare crisis within the US and the ongoing controversy regarding oncology drug costs, benefits, and value. Therefore, there must be a joint effort in moving towards value based pricing models.

The Impact of High Protein Nutritional Support on Clinical Outcomes and Treatment Costs of Patients with Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The primary objective of this study was to investigate the impact of high protein oral nutrition support (ONS) on clinical outcomes in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). The secondary aim was to compare the cost of treatment and length of stay (LoS) for CRC patients taking high protein ONS vs. patients on conventional nutritional support. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was conducted on adult patients with CRC undergoing colorectal surgery. Informed consent was obtained before the study. The study group (SG; n = 52) was instructed to take high protein ONS (600 kcal, 40 g protein per day) in addition to a normal diet for at least 10 days before and two weeks after surgery. Data from the comparative group (CG; n = 105) were collected retrospectively. RESULTS: A relative reduction in the frequency of the following complications was observed in SG: wound dehiscence (2.2 times lower), infections (4.3 times lower), anastomosis dehiscence (2.0 times lower), and rehospitalization (1.7 times lower). The mean LoS was shorter in SG (9.4 ± 4.97 vs. CG 12 ± 6.4 days), which resulted in significantly lower treatment costs during hospitalization (SG 479 vs. CG 538 EUR; p = 0.01) and at six months after surgery (SG 4,862 vs. CG 6,456 EUR). CONCLUSION: Pre- and postoperative high protein ONS reduces LoS, treatment costs, postoperative complications, and re-hospitalizations in CRC, regardless of initial nutritional status.Key words: high protein oral nutritional support - colorectal cancer - perioperative care.

Patients and Physicians Can Discuss Costs of Cancer Treatment in the Clinic.

PURPOSE: As one solution to reducing costs and medical bankruptcies, experts have suggested that patients and physicians should discuss the cost of care up front. Whether these discussions are possible in an oncology setting and what their effects on the doctor-patient relationship are is not known. METHODS: We used the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines and the eviti Advisor platform to show patients with metastatic breast, lung, or colorectal cancer the costs associated with their chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy options during an oncology consultation. We measured provider attitudes and assessed patient satisfaction when consultations included discussion of costs. RESULTS: We approached 107 patients; 96 (90%) enrolled onto the study, three (3%) asked if they could be interviewed at a later date, and eight (7%) did not want to participate. Only five of 18 oncologists (28%) felt comfortable discussing costs, and only one of 18 (6%) regularly asked patients about financial difficulties. The majority of patients (80%) wanted cost information, and 84% reported that these conversations would be even more important if their co-pays were to increase. In total, 72% of patients responded that no health care professional has ever discussed costs with them. The majority of patients (80%) had no negative feelings about hearing cost information. CONCLUSION: In an era of rising co-pays, patients with cancer want cost-of-treatment discussions, and these conversations do not lead to negative feelings in the majority of patients. Additional training to prepare clinicians for how to discuss costs with their patients is needed.

Peritonectomy and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: cost analysis and sustainability.

BACKGROUND: Malignancies of the peritoneum remain a challenge in any hospital that accepts to manage them, due not only to difficulties associated with the complexity of the procedures involved but also the costs, which - in Italy and other countries that use a diagnosis-related group (DRG) system - are not adequately reimbursed. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We analyzed data relative to 24 patients operated on between September 2010 and May 2013 with special regard to operating room expenditure, ICU stay, duration of hospitalization, and DRG reimbursement. The total costs per patient included clinical, operating room, procedure, pathology, imaging, ward care, allied healthcare, pharmaceutical, and ICU costs. RESULTS: Postoperative hospital stay, drugs and materials, and operating room occupancy were the main factors affecting the expenditure for cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. We had a median hospitalization of 14 days, median ICU stay of 2.4 days, and median operating room occupancy of 585 min. The median expenditure for each case was € 21,744; the median reimbursement by the national health system € 8,375. CONCLUSIONS: In a DRG reimbursement system, the economic effort in the management of patients undergoing peritonectomy procedures may not be counterbalanced by adequate reimbursement. Joint efforts between medical and administration parties are mandatory to develop appropriate treatment protocols and keep down the costs.

Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis of health care programmes--a methodological case study of the UK Bowel Cancer Screening Programme.

This paper presents an application of a new methodological framework for undertaking distributional cost-effectiveness analysis to combine the objectives of maximising health and minimising unfair variation in health when evaluating population health interventions. The National Health Service bowel cancer screening programme introduced in 2006 is expected to improve population health on average and to worsen population health inequalities associated with deprivation and ethnicity--a classic case of 'intervention-generated inequality'. We demonstrate the distributional cost-effectiveness analysis framework by examining two redesign options for the bowel cancer screening programme: (i) the introduction of an enhanced targeted reminder aimed at increasing screening uptake in deprived and ethnically diverse neighbourhoods and (ii) the introduction of a basic universal reminder aimed at increasing screening uptake across the whole population. Our analysis indicates that the universal reminder is the strategy that maximises population health, while the targeted reminder is the screening strategy that minimises unfair variation in health. The framework is used to demonstrate how these two objectives can be traded off against each other, and how alternative social value judgements influence the assessment of which strategy is best, including judgements about which dimensions of health variation are considered unfair and judgements about societal levels of inequality aversion.

Escalation of socioeconomic disparities among patients with colorectal cancer receiving advanced surgical treatment.

BACKGROUND: As tumor burden increases in colorectal cancer, treatment complexity progresses from colectomy to hepatectomy and lastly to cytoreductive surgery with heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC). The aim of this study was to evaluate whether disparities exist in the access to progressively more complex surgical treatment options. METHODS: Patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer were grouped by treatment type: group 1 (n = 224) underwent colectomy for nonmetastatic disease, group 2 (n = 112) underwent hepatectomy for liver metastasis, and group 3 (n = 112) underwent CRS-HIPEC for carcinomatosis. RESULTS: Whites were predominant in the HIPEC group (71.4 %) compared to the hepatectomy (67.9 %) and colectomy (57.6 %) groups (p = 0.025). The majority of the privately insured patients were in the HIPEC group (70.5 %) compared to the hepatectomy (56.2 %) and colectomy (30.4 %) groups (p < 0.0001). Distance traveled to the hospital was farthest on average in the HIPEC group (104.6 ± 258.3 km) compared to the hepatectomy (29.0 ± 28.0 km) or colectomy (26.4  ± 66.2 km) group (p < 0.0001). Mean household income also varied between the three groups, with HIPEC patients earning $56,957 (±24,124), hepatectomy patients earning $56,999 (±28,588), and colectomy patients earning ($51,518 ± 24,201) (p = 0.0503) on average per year. The HIPEC cohort contained a higher proportion of English speakers (90.2 %) than the other groups (hepatectomy 87.9 %, colectomy 85.3 %); however, this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.43). CONCLUSIONS: CRS-HIPEC is not accessed equally across all socioeconomic groups. Patients undergoing HIPEC were most often white, English speaking, and privately insured; had a higher mean income; and had traveled the greatest distances on average to access surgical care.

Population-based assessment of cancer survivors' financial burden and quality of life: a prospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: The impact of financial burden among patients with cancer has not yet been measured in a way that accounts for inter-relationships between quality of life, perceived quality of care, disease status, and sociodemographic characteristics. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a national, prospective, observational, population- and health care systems-based cohort study, patients with colorectal or lung cancer were enrolled from 2003 to 2006 within 3 months of diagnosis. For this analysis, surviving patients who were either disease free or had advanced disease were resurveyed a median 7.3 years from diagnosis. Structural equation modeling was used to investigate relationships between financial burden, quality of life, perceived quality of care, and sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: Among 1,000 participants enrolled from five geographic regions, five integrated health care systems, or 15 Veterans Administration Hospitals, 89% (n = 889) were cancer free, and 11% (n = 111) had advanced cancer. Overall, 48% (n = 482) reported difficulties living on their household income, and 41% (n = 396) believed their health care to be "excellent." High financial burden was associated with lower household income (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.61 per $20k per year, P < .001) and younger age (adjusted OR = 0.63 per 10 years; P < .001). High financial burden was also associated with poorer quality of life (adjusted beta = -0.06 per burden category; P < .001). Better quality of life was associated with fewer perceptions of poorer quality of care (adjusted OR = 0.85 per 0.10 EuroQol units; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Financial burden is prevalent among cancer survivors and is related to patients' health-related quality of life. Future studies should consider interventions to improve patient education and engagement with regard to financial burden.

Use of Chinese medicine among colorectal cancer patients: a nationwide population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Traditional Chinese medicine (CM) appears to be used worldwide, especially by cancer patients. The aim of the present study was to explore CM uses and CM non-users by patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted using registration and claims data sets for 2007 from the National Health Insurance Research Database. Patients with colorectal cancer were identified from the Registry for Catastrophic illness Patients. Binary logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios as the measure of association with the use of CM. RESULTS: A total of 61,211 CRC patients diagnosed in 2007 were analysis. Most CM users preferred to visit private clinics (46.9%) with 306,599 visits. In contrast, the majority of CM non-users preferred to visit private hospitals (42.2%) with 538,769 visits. Among all 176,707 cancer-specific CM visit, there were 66.6% visits to CM outpatient department (OPD) of private hospitals, while in 477,612 non-cancer-specific CM visits, 62.0% was for private clinics. The proportion of expenses for diagnostic fees for CM user in CM visits was much less than that for WM visits and CM non-users (US$4.6 vs. 29.3 vs. 33.5). The average cost for CM user in CM was less than that for WM visits and CM non-users (US$6.3 vs. 25.9 vs. 30.3). Female patients, younger age, and patients not living in the northern region, with higher EC or more comorbidities were more likely to receive CM treatment. CONCLUSION: The prevalence and costs of insurance-covered CM among CRC patients were low. Further longer longitudinal study is needed to follow up this trend.

Did changes in drug reimbursement after the medicare modernization act affect chemotherapy prescribing?

PURPOSE: The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) decreased fee-for-service (FFS) payments for outpatient chemotherapy. We assessed how this policy affected chemotherapy in FFS settings versus in integrated health networks (IHNs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We examined 5,831 chemotherapy regimens for 3,613 patients from 2003 to 2006 with colorectal cancer (CRC) or lung cancers in the Cancer Care Outcomes Research Surveillance Consortium. Patients were from four geographically defined regions, seven large health maintenance organizations, and 15 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers. The outcome of interest was receipt of chemotherapy that included at least one drug for which reimbursement declined after the MMA. RESULTS: The odds of receiving an MMA-affected drug were lower in the post-MMA era: the odds ratio (OR) was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.59 to 0.89). Important differences across cancers were detected: for CRC, the OR was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.46 to 0.92); for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the OR was 1.60 (95% CI, 1.09 to 2.35); and for small-cell lung cancer, the OR was 0.63 (95% CI, 0.34 to 1.16). After the MMA, FFS patients were less likely to receive MMA-affected drugs: OR, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.59 to 0.89). No pre- versus post-MMA difference in the use of MMA-affected drugs was detected among IHN patients: OR, 1.01 (95% CI, 0.66 to 1.56). Patients with CRC were less likely to receive an MMA-affected drug in both FFS and IHN settings in the post- versus pre-MMA era, whereas patients with NSCLC were the opposite: OR, 1.60 (95% CI, 1.09 to 2.35) for FFS and 6.33 (95% CI, 2.09 to 19.11) for IHNs post- versus pre-MMA. CONCLUSION: Changes in reimbursement after the passage of MMA appear to have had less of an impact on prescribing patterns in FFS settings than the introduction of new drugs and clinical evidence as well as other factors driving adoption of new practice patterns.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 compared with bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 for first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin) compared with bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 in first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). DESIGN: A semi-Markov model was constructed from a French health collective perspective, with health states related to first-line treatment (progression-free), disease progression with and without subsequent active treatment, resection of metastases, disease-free after successful resection and death. METHODS: Parametric survival analyses of patient-level progression-free and overall survival data from the only head-to-head clinical trial of panitumumab and bevacizumab (PEAK) were performed to estimate transitions to disease progression and death. Additional data from PEAK informed the amount of each drug consumed, duration of therapy, subsequent therapy use, and toxicities related to mCRC treatment. Literature and French public data sources were used to estimate unit costs associated with treatment and duration of subsequent active therapies. Utility weights were calculated from patient-level data from panitumumab trials in the first-, second- and third-line settings. A life-time perspective was applied. Scenario, one-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Based on a head-to-head clinical trial that demonstrates better efficacy outcomes for patients with wild-type RAS mCRC who receive panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 versus bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6, the incremental cost per life-year gained was estimated to be €26,918, and the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained was estimated to be €36,577. Sensitivity analyses indicate the model is robust to alternative parameters and assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: The incremental cost per QALY gained indicates that panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 represents good value for money in comparison to bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 and, with a willingness-to-pay ranging from €40,000 to €60,000, can be considered cost-effective in first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS mCRC.