RESUMEN
Loss of income and out-of-pocket expenditures are important causes of financial hardship in many patients with cancer, even in high-income countries. The far-reaching consequences extend beyond the patients themselves to their relatives, including caregivers and dependents. European research to date has been limited and is hampered by the absence of a coherent theoretical framework and by heterogeneous methods and terminology. To address these shortages, a task force initiated by the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes (OECI) produced 25 recommendations, including a comprehensive definition of socioeconomic impact from the perspective of patients and their relatives, a conceptual framework, and a consistent taxonomy linked to the framework. The OECI task force consensus statement highlights directions for future research with a view towards policy relevance. Beyond descriptive studies into the dimension of the problem, individual severity and predictors of vulnerability should be explored. It is anticipated that the consensus recommendations will facilitate and enhance future research efforts into the socioeconomic impact of cancer and cancer care, providing a crucial reference point for the development and validation of patient-reported outcome instruments aimed at measuring its broader effects.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias , Humanos , Neoplasias/epidemiología , Neoplasias/terapia , Academias e Institutos , Consenso , Factores SocioeconómicosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Breast cancer represents the most prevalent cancer among Swedish women. Although considerable research has investigated the cost-effectiveness of emerging innovative medical treatments for breast cancer, studies addressing existing surgical procedures remain scant. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of three surgical procedures for in situ breast cancer treatment in Sweden: mastectomy, lumpectomy without irradiation, and lumpectomy with irradiation. METHODS: A six-state Markov model with a 30-year time horizon was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of the three alternatives. Transition probabilities were based on a targeted literature review focusing on available evidence in Sweden and comparable contexts. Costs were estimated from both healthcare and societal perspectives, using patient data from the Swedish National Cancer Registry in 2020 (Cancerregistret). Health outcomes were quantified in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost and health outcomes were then summarised into an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between competing strategies. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was conducted to address the uncertainties in the input parameters. RESULTS: The results showed that compared to lumpectomy without irradiation, lumpectomy with irradiation yielded a "moderate" ICER per QALY gained of 402,994 Swedish Krona (SEK) from a healthcare perspective and a "high" ICER of 575,833 SEK from a societal perspective. Mastectomy proved to be the costliest and least effective of the three alternatives over a 30-year period. The PSA results further substantiated these findings. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated that lumpectomy with irradiation is "moderately" cost-effective compared with lumpectomy without irradiation. Nevertheless, extending this study by conducting a comprehensive budget impact analysis to account for the prevalence of in situ breast cancer in Sweden is prudent. These results imply that a costlier and less effective mastectomy should only be considered when lumpectomy options are infeasible. Further studies are needed to obtain more reliable parameters relevant to Sweden and to increase the consistency of the findings.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have indicated a socioeconomic impact of cancer and cancer care on patients and their families. Existing instruments designed to measure this impact lack consensus in their conceptualization of the issue. Further, various terminologies have been used in the literature (e.g., financial burden, financial hardship, financial stress) without clear definitions and consistent conceptual background. Based on a targeted review of existing models addressing the socioeconomic impact of cancer, our goal was to develop a comprehensive framework from a European perspective. METHOD: A 'best-fit' framework synthesis was applied. First, we systematically identified existing models to generate a priori concepts. Second, we systematically identified relevant European qualitative studies and coded their results against these a priori concepts. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were predefined and applied thoroughly in these processes. Thematic analysis and team discussions were applied to finalize the (sub)themes in our proposed conceptual framework. Third, we examined model structures and quotes from qualitative studies to explore relationships among (sub)themes. This process was repeated until no further change in (sub)themes and their relationships emerged. RESULT: Eighteen studies containing conceptual models and seven qualitative studies were identified. Eight concepts and 20 sub-concepts were derived from the included models. After coding the included qualitative studies against the a priori concepts and following discussions among team members, seven themes and 15 sub-themes were included in our proposed conceptual framework. Based on the identified relationships, we categorized themes into four groups: causes, intermediate consequences, outcomes and risk factors. CONCLUSION: We propose a Socioeconomic Impact Framework based on a targeted review and synthesis of existing models in the field and adapted to the European perspective. Our work contributes as an input to a European consensus project on socioeconomic impact research by an Organization European Cancer Institute (OECI) Task Force.