Delivering affordable cancer care in high-income countries.

The burden of cancer is growing, and the disease is becoming a major economic expenditure for all developed countries. In 2008, the worldwide cost of cancer due to premature death and disability (not including direct medical costs) was estimated to be US$895 billion. This is not simply due to an increase in absolute numbers, but also the rate of increase of expenditure on cancer. What are the drivers and solutions to the so-called cancer-cost curve in developed countries? How are we going to afford to deliver high quality and equitable care? Here, expert opinion from health-care professionals, policy makers, and cancer survivors has been gathered to address the barriers and solutions to delivering affordable cancer care. Although many of the drivers and themes are specific to a particular field-eg, the huge development costs for cancer medicines-there is strong concordance running through each contribution. Several drivers of cost, such as over-use, rapid expansion, and shortening life cycles of cancer technologies (such as medicines and imaging modalities), and the lack of suitable clinical research and integrated health economic studies, have converged with more defensive medical practice, a less informed regulatory system, a lack of evidence-based sociopolitical debate, and a declining degree of fairness for all patients with cancer. Urgent solutions range from re-engineering of the macroeconomic basis of cancer costs (eg, value-based approaches to bend the cost curve and allow cost-saving technologies), greater education of policy makers, and an informed and transparent regulatory system. A radical shift in cancer policy is also required. Political toleration of unfairness in access to affordable cancer treatment is unacceptable. The cancer profession and industry should take responsibility and not accept a substandard evidence base and an ethos of very small benefit at whatever cost; rather, we need delivery of fair prices and real value from new technologies.

Is regionally selective D2/D3 dopamine occupancy sufficient for atypical antipsychotic effect? an in vivo quantitative [123I]epidepride SPET study of amisulpride-treated patients.

OBJECTIVE: Atypical antipsychotic drug treatment is clinically effective with a low risk of extrapyramidal symptoms. Explanations for the mechanism underlying this beneficial therapeutic profile of atypical over typical antipsychotic agents include 1) simultaneous antagonism of dopamine D(2) and serotonin 5-HT(2A) receptors or 2) selective action at limbic cortical dopamine D(2)-like receptors with modest striatal D(2) receptor occupancy. Amisulpride is an atypical antipsychotic drug with selective affinity for D(2)/D(3) dopamine receptors and provides a useful pharmacological model for examining these hypotheses. The authors' goal was to evaluate whether treatment with amisulpride results in "limbic selective" D(2)/D(3) receptor blockade in vivo. METHOD: Five hours of dynamic single photon emission tomography data were acquired after injection of [(123)I]epidepride (approximately 150 MBq). Kinetic modeling was performed by using the simplified reference region model to obtain binding potential values. Estimates of receptor occupancy were made relative to a healthy volunteer comparison group (N=6). RESULTS: Eight amisulpride-treated patients (mean dose=406 mg/day) showed moderate levels of D(2)/D(3) receptor occupancy in the striatum (56%), and significantly higher levels were seen in the thalamus (78%) and temporal cortex (82%). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with amisulpride results in a similar pattern of limbic cortical over striatal D(2)/D(3) receptor blockade to that of other atypical antipsychotic drugs. This finding suggests that modest striatal D(2) receptor occupancy and preferential occupancy of limbic cortical dopamine D(2)/D(3) receptors may be sufficient to explain the therapeutic efficacy and low extrapyramidal symptom profile of atypical antipsychotic drugs, without the need for 5-HT(2A) receptor antagonism.