Paid and unpaid productivity losses due to premature mortality from cancer in Europe in 2018.

When someone dies prematurely from cancer this represents a loss of productivity for society. This loss can be valued and provides a measure of the cancer burden. We estimated paid and unpaid productivity lost due to cancer-related premature mortality in 31 European countries in 2018. Lost productivity was estimated for all cancers combined and 23 cancer sites, overall, by region and country. Deaths aged 15 to 64 were abstracted from GLOBOCAN 2018. Unpaid time lost (housework, caring, volunteering) was derived from Eurostat. Paid and unpaid productivity losses were valued using the human capital approach. In total, 347,149 premature cancer deaths occurred (60% male). The total value of cancer-related lost productivity was €104.6 billion. Of this, €52.9 billion (50.6%) was due to lost paid work, and €51.7 billion (49.4%) to unpaid work. Females accounted for 36.7% of paid work costs but half (51.1%) of the unpaid work costs. Costs were highest in Western Europe (€52.0 billion). The most costly cancer was lung (€21.7 billion), followed by breast (€10.6 billion). The average loss per premature death was highest for Hodgkin's lymphoma (€506 345), melanoma (€450 694), brain cancer (€428 449) and leukaemia (€378 750). Cancer-related lost productivity costs are significant. Almost half are due to unpaid work losses, indicating the importance of considering both paid and unpaid labour in assessing the cancer economic burden. The high cost per premature death of some less common cancers illustrates the potential benefits that could accrue from investment in prevention and control of these cancers.

Friction Costs and the Chain of Vacancies Problem: A Novel Vacancy Multiplier Solution.

OBJECTIVES: A key criticism of applying the friction cost approach (FCA) to productivity cost estimation is its focus on a single friction period. A more accurate estimate of the friction cost of worker absence requires consideration of the chain of secondary vacancies arising from the opening of a new primary vacancy. Currently, empirical evidence on this is almost absent. We suggest an original approach to empirically estimate productivity costs that include a chain of secondary vacancies. METHODS: The vacancy multiplier is based on labor market flows and transition probabilities between states of employment, unemployment, and economic inactivity. It is a summed infinite geometric series using a common ratio et - the probability of an employed person filling a new job vacancy in a given year. We report vacancy multipliers for 30 European countries for 2011-2019. RESULTS: The average multiplier across Europe is 2.21 (standard deviation [SD] = 0.40) in 2019, meaning that every new primary vacancy created a chain of secondary vacancies that increased the primary friction cost by a factor of 2.21. The equivalent multiplier is 1.99 (SD = 0.37) between 2011 and 2019. Romania had the lowest country-specific multiplier (1.11 in 2011), and Greece the highest (4.51 in 2011). CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight the extent of underestimation of current FCA costs, comprise a resource for future researchers, and provide an implementable formula to compute the multiplier for other countries.

Financial toxicity associated with a cancer diagnosis in publicly funded healthcare countries: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Financial toxicity related to cancer diagnosis and treatment is a common issue in developed countries. We seek to systematically summarize the extent of the issue in very high development index countries with publicly funded healthcare. METHODS: We identified articles published Jan 1, 2005, to March 7, 2019, describing financial burden/toxicity experienced by cancer patients and/or informal caregivers using OVID Medline Embase and PsychInfo, CINAHL, Business Source Complete, and EconLit databases. Only English language peer-reviewed full papers describing studies conducted in very high development index countries with predominantly publicly funded healthcare were eligible (excluded the USA). All stages of the review were evaluated in teams of two researchers excepting the final data extraction (CJL only). RESULTS: The searches identified 7117 unique articles, 32 of which were eligible. Studies were undertaken in Canada, Australia, Ireland, UK, Germany, Denmark, Malaysia, Finland, France, South Korea, and the Netherlands. Eighteen studies reported patient/caregiver out-of-pocket costs (range US$17-US$506/month), 18 studies reported patient/caregiver lost income (range 17.6-67.3%), 14 studies reported patient/caregiver travel and accommodation costs (range US$8-US$393/month), and 6 studies reported financial stress (range 41-48%), strain (range 7-39%), or financial burden/distress/toxicity among patients/caregivers (range 22-27%). The majority of studies focused on patients, with some including caregivers. Financial toxicity was greater in those with early disease and/or more severe cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Despite government-funded universal public healthcare, financial toxicity is an issue for cancer patients and their families. Although levels of toxicity vary between countries, the findings suggest financial protection appears to be inadequate in many countries.

Problems sleeping with prostate cancer: exploring possible risk factors for sleep disturbance in a population-based sample of survivors.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of sleeping problems in prostate cancer survivors and to explore the role of predisposing, precipitating and perpetuating factors in this process. METHODS: Using a cross-sectional design, 3348 prostate cancer survivors between 2 and 18 years post diagnosis reported experiences of insomnia using the QLQC30, along with their sociodemographic characteristics, health status and treatment(s) received. The EQ5D-5L and QLQPR25 assessed survivors' overall and prostate cancer-specific health-related quality of life. A hierarchical multiple regression analysis was constructed with three blocks: (1) predisposing (e.g. demographics at diagnosis), (2) precipitating (e.g. disease extent, treatment) and (3) perpetuating factors (e.g. side effects). RESULTS: Nineteen percent of survivors reported significant problems sleeping. The final model accounted for 31% of the variance in insomnia scores (p < .001). In order of magnitude, associates of sleep disturbance were urinary symptoms (ß = 0.22; p < .001), experiencing symptoms of depression/anxiety (ß = 0.18; p < .001), hormone treatment-related symptoms (ß = 0.12; p = .001), pain (ß = 0.10; p < .001) and bowel symptoms (ß = 0.06; p = .005). Having a lower education and more comorbidities at diagnosis also predicted sleep problems. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that it is the ongoing adverse effects of prostate cancer and its treatment (e.g. urinary symptoms) that put survivors most at risk of sleep problems. Strong associations with symptoms of depression/anxiety were also observed. Findings highlight the need for health care practitioners to treat and manage adverse effects of prostate cancer treatment in order to mitigate sleep disturbance in survivors.

Beyond care burden: associations between positive psychological appraisals and well-being among informal caregivers in Europe.

PURPOSE: The burden of caring for a family member or friend can have a negative impact on caregiver health and well-being, yet caring can also have positive consequences. Understanding the factors that may enhance caregiver well-being is merited. METHODS: We used data gathered from the European Quality of Life Survey (EQLS). Using complete case analysis followed by multiple imputation analysis, a series of multilevel regression models were developed to systematically explore the role of three distinct blocks of factors in predicting caregiver well-being as measured by the WHO-5 well-being index: (1) sociodemographic and health factors, (2) care and burden-related factors, and (3) psychological and social appraisals. Differences between frequent caregivers and the general population were also compared on all measures. RESULTS: 36,908 respondents took part in EQLS, with 4171 (11%) identifying as frequent carers. While frequent caregivers reported lower well-being compared to the remaining population, most were happy with the amount of time spent caring. Our model explained approximately 32% of variance in well-being scores. After examining the role of known risk factors, all positive psychological appraisals were associated with higher well-being (p < .001). In order of magnitude these were optimism, perceived autonomy, sense of purpose, resilience, and perceived levels of social inclusion. Self-rated health was the strongest predictor of well-being while female carers and those with high levels of various burden measures reported lower well-being. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that caregiver well-being is influenced by more than simply the burden of care. As well as attempting to reduce burden, interventions aimed at supporting caregivers could focus on fostering more positive appraisals to enhance well-being in this group.

Expecting the worst? The relationship between retrospective and prospective appraisals of illness on quality of life in prostate cancer survivors.

OBJECTIVE: Despite a generally good prognosis, many prostate cancer survivors have poor quality of life (QOL). A greater understanding of how psychological appraisals influence QOL is merited given their potentially modifiable nature. In this study, we considered how elements of survivors' retrospective and prospective appraisals relate to QOL. METHODS: A total of 1229 prostate cancer survivors between 2 and 5 years post-diagnosis, identified from a population-based National Cancer Registry, were asked questions on their socio-demographics, health, treatment received, and adverse-effects using a cross-sectional design. QOL was assessed using the EORTC QLQ-C30. Retrospective appraisals were assessed by asking survivors to reflect on their experience of treatment-related adverse-effects compared with their prior expectations. A fear of recurrence scale assessed prospective appraisals of future disease course. A multiple regression model explored the impact of psychological appraisals on QOL, after controlling for socio-demographic, treatment, and health-related factors. RESULTS: The model was significant explaining 37% of variance in QOL. The strongest associate with QOL was fear of recurrence (ß = -.29; P < .001). Survivors who experienced side effects that were worse than expected had significantly lower QOL (ß = -.10; P = .002). Other significant correlates of lower QOL were presence of comorbidities, having undergone a less invasive treatment, and having more advanced disease. Working at diagnosis and having a higher level of education were significantly associated with higher QOL. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest both retrospective and prospective appraisals are independently related to QOL in prostate cancer. Providing survivors with more information about possible adverse effects of treatment, as well as providing appropriate information regarding future disease progression, may improve QOL.

Financial hardship associated with colorectal cancer survivorship: The role of asset depletion and debt accumulation.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of financial objective stress and subjective strain among colorectal cancer survivors and assess associated financial coping factors in Ireland, which has a mixed public-private health care system. METHODS: Colorectal cancer survivors were identified from the National Cancer Registry, and a sample of 496 respondents were included in the analysis. A postal survey collected information on survivor demographics, socio-economic background, medical characteristics, cancer-related financial hardship, debt accumulation, and asset depletion. Cancer-related financial objective stress and subjective strain were used as dependent variables in logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Approximately 2 in 5 survivors experienced objective stress (40.9%) or subjective strain (39.4%). Depletion of savings (49.1%) was the most prevalent form of financial coping strategy. Factors significantly associated with increased objective stress were having a stoma (OR = 2.1; 95% CI, 1.1-3.9), using savings (OR = 9.4; 95% CI, 4.9-18.0), formally borrowing money (OR = 3.1; 95% CI, 1.0-9.6), and loans from family members/friends (OR = 3.8; 95% CI, 1.9-7.8). Not working (excluding retirees) (OR = 0.44; 95% CI, 0.20-0.96) was associated with decreased objective stress. Significant predictors of subjective strain included having dependents, a stoma, using savings (OR = 5.3; 95% CI, 2.9-9.5), and loans from family members/friends (OR = 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-3.9) but excluded borrowing money. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer-related financial objective stress and subjective strain are common in colorectal cancer survivors, even where all citizens are entitled to publicly funded care, but the financial coping strategies significantly associated with these 2 measures differed. These findings will help inform targeted measures across disparate health care systems and survivor groups to alleviate financial hardship.

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.

Regret and fear in prostate cancer: The relationship between treatment appraisals and fear of recurrence in prostate cancer survivors.

OBJECTIVE: Fear of recurrence (FOR) is a key concern among survivors of all cancers. In prostate cancer, FOR varies with health and treatment type, but little is known about how survivors' appraisals of their treatment, and in particular, their level of regret over treatment decisions may affect this. METHODS: A total of 1229 prostate cancer survivors between 2- and 5-years postdiagnosis were invited to complete a postal questionnaire including a FOR scale, Decisional Regret Scale, and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ C30 health-related quality of life (HRQoL) instrument. Multiple regression analysis explored the impact of 3 blocks of factors on FOR: (1) demographic characteristics and disease extent, (2) primary treatment received and health status (treatment side effects and HRQoL), and (3) treatment appraisals, specifically satisfaction with information received regarding treatment and level of regret experienced over treatment decisions. RESULTS: The final multivariable model explained 27% of variance on FOR. Significant correlates of lower FOR included having localised disease, having undergone an invasive treatment, as well as health status (higher HRQoL and fewer ongoing side effects). Beyond this, appraisals of treatment significantly contributed to the model: More decisional regret and lower satisfaction with information received were associated with higher FOR. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that FOR may be mitigated by providing survivors with more information regarding treatment choices and the treatment itself so that men can make well-informed decisions and experience less future regret. Sensitivity analysis for variables predicting FOR among prostate cancer survivors is not suspected of having a recurrence.

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.

Worry in Head and Neck Cancer Caregivers: The Role of Survivor Factors, Care-Related Stressors, and Loneliness in Predicting Fear of Recurrence.

BACKGROUND: Fear of recurrence (FOR) is a primary concern for both cancer survivors and their caregivers, yet little is known about what care-related factors exacerbate this worry. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to establish the role of care-related stressors-as distinct from survivor characteristics-in predicting FOR in head and neck cancer caregivers. METHODS: HNC survivor-caregiver dyads took part in a mailed survey. Survivors provided information on health and quality of life (using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Questionnaire). Caregivers provided sociodemographic information, impact of caring on their time and finances, as well as their level of social support (Oslo Support Scale), loneliness (3-point loneliness scale), and completed the Worry of Cancer Scale (to measure FOR). RESULTS: Data from 180 dyads were available for analysis. Multiple regression analysis was used to examine the role of caregiver stressors, social support, and loneliness while controlling for caregiver and survivor characteristics. The model explained 28% of the variance in Worry of Cancer scores (FOR). Caregivers who reported more loneliness, spent more time caring, and had greater financial stress from caring had higher scores on Worry of Cancer (FOR). Female caregivers, those caring for younger survivors, and those with survivors who had undergone less extensive forms of surgery also reported higher FOR. DISCUSSION: A combination of factors place caregivers at greater risk of cancer-related worry, paving the way for designing interventions aimed at reducing FOR in caregivers of patients with head and neck cancers.

Projecting productivity losses for cancer-related mortality 2011 - 2030.

BACKGROUND: When individuals stop working due to cancer this represents a loss to society - the loss of productivity. The aim of this analysis was to estimate productivity losses associated with premature mortality from all adult cancers and from the 20 highest mortality adult cancers in Ireland in 2011, and project these losses until 2030. METHODS: An incidence-based method was used to estimate the cost of cancer deaths between 2011 and 2030 using the Human Capital Approach. National data were used for cancer, population and economic inputs. Both paid work and unpaid household activities were included. Sensitivity analyses estimated the impact of assumptions around future cancer mortality rates, retirement ages, value of unpaid work, wage growth and discounting. RESULTS: The 233,000 projected deaths from all invasive cancers in Ireland between 2011 and 2030 will result in lost productivity valued at €73 billion; €13 billion in paid work and €60 billion in household activities. These losses represent approximately 1.4 % of Ireland's GDP annually. The most costly cancers are lung (€14.4 billion), colorectal and breast cancer (€8.3 billion each). However, when viewed as productivity losses per cancer death, testis (€364,000 per death), cervix (€155,000 per death) and brain cancer (€136,000 per death) are most costly because they affect working age individuals. An annual 1 % reduction in mortality reduces productivity losses due to all invasive cancers by €8.5 billion over 20 years. CONCLUSIONS: Society incurs substantial losses in productivity as a result of cancer-related mortality, particularly when household production is included. These estimates provide valuable evidence to inform resource allocation decisions in cancer prevention and control.

Burden and happiness in head and neck cancer carers: the role of supportive care needs.

PURPOSE: Our study aimed to investigate the relationship between unmet supportive care needs and carer burden and happiness, in head and neck cancer (HNC). METHODS: Two hundred eighty-five HNC informal carers were sent a postal questionnaire between January and June 2014, which included the supportive care needs survey for partners and caregivers of cancer survivors (SCNS-P&C) and the CarerQol, which assesses burden and happiness. Multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine the association of (i) carer characteristics, (ii) carer situation, and (iii) unmet supportive care needs, with carer burden and happiness RESULTS: One hundred ninety-seven carers completed the questionnaire (response rate = 69 %), 180 of whom were included in the analysis. The majority were female (76 %), not in paid employment (68 %) and caring for their spouse (67 %). On average, carers reported relatively low levels of burden and relatively high levels of happiness. Carer factors explained 42 % of variance in levels of burden and 24 % of variance in levels of happiness. Healthcare service needs were associated with carer burden (ß = .28, p = .04), while psychological needs (ß = -.38, p = .028), health care service needs (ß = -.30, p = .049), information needs (ß = .29, p = .028), carer comorbidity (ß = -.18, p = .030), and gender (ß = -.16, p = .045) were associated with happiness. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that different aspects of carer characteristics and unmet needs are associated with carer burden and happiness. Efforts directed at reducing unmet healthcare service needs in particular are merited given their associations with both aspects of carer quality of life.

Distress in long-term head and neck cancer carers: a qualitative study of carers' perspectives.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To identify and describe the triggers of emotional distress among long-term caregivers (more than 1 year postdiagnosis) of people with head and neck cancer. BACKGROUND: Limited research has been conducted on the factors that cause head and neck cancer caregivers to become distressed. DESIGN: Qualitative cross-sectional. METHODS: In-depth semi-structured interviews. Interviews were conducted via telephone. The study setting was the Republic of Ireland. RESULTS: Interviews were conducted with 31 long-term caregivers (mean time since diagnosis 5·7 years, SD 2·9 years). Head and neck cancer caregivers experienced significant distress. Six key triggers of emotional distress were identified: understandings and fears of illness, lifestyle restrictions and competing demands, facial disfigurement, financial problems, comorbid health problems and witnessing suffering. Cutting across all of these individual causes of distress was a strong feeling of loss caused by head and neck cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Some head and neck cancer caregivers became considerably distressed by their caring role. Although distress appears to decline with time for many caregivers, some continue to be distressed for years following the patient's diagnosis. It would be useful for future research to explicitly investigate caregivers' experiences of loss. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Health professionals may be able to reduce distress in this group if they can help caregivers to access resources that can be used to buffer financial problems. Health professionals may also be able to reduce distress if they can work with caregivers to help them to obtain something of personal value or significance from their experience of loss and suffering.

Measuring the societal burden of cancer: the cost of lost productivity due to premature cancer-related mortality in Europe.

Every cancer-related death in someone of working age represents an economic loss to society. To inform priorities for cancer control, we estimated costs of lost productivity due to premature cancer-related mortality across Europe, for all cancers and by site, gender, region and country. Cancer deaths in 2008 were obtained from GLOBOCAN for 30 European countries across four regions. Costs were valued using the human capital approach. Years of productive life lost (YPLL) were computed by multiplying deaths between 15 and 64 years by working-life expectancy, then by country-, age- and gender-specific annual wages, corrected for workforce participation and unemployment. Lost productivity costs due to premature cancer-related mortality in Europe in 2008 were €75 billion. Male costs (€49 billion) were almost twice female costs (€26 billion). The most costly sites were lung (€17 billion; 23% of total costs), breast (€7 billion; 9%) and colorectum (€6 billion; 8%). Stomach cancer (in Southern and Central-Eastern Europe) and pancreatic cancer (in Northern and Western Europe) were also among the most costly sites. The average lost productivity cost per cancer death was €219,241. Melanoma had the highest cost per death (€312,798), followed by Hodgkin disease (€306,628) and brain and CNS cancer (€288,850). Premature mortality costs were 0.58% of 2008 European gross domestic product, highest in Central-Eastern Europe (0.81%) and lowest in Northern Europe (0.51%). Premature cancer-related mortality costs in Europe are significant. These results provide a novel perspective on the societal cancer burden and may be used to inform priority setting for cancer control.

Examining the role of subjective and objective burden in carer health-related quality of life: the case of colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: Our aim was to investigate associations between the subjective burden of care and health-related quality of life (both physical and mental) within colorectal cancer patient carers in Ireland, with supplementary analysis of carer objective factors. METHODS: Two hundred twenty-eight colorectal cancer informal carers were sent a postal questionnaire between August 2010 and March 2011 which included the Caregiver Reaction Assessment (CRA) and the SF-12v2. Multiple regression analysis assessed whether five CRA domains (family support, finances, schedule, health and esteem) predicted carer mental or physical health. Between-group comparisons investigated differences in these domains across objective factors. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-three carers (82% female) completed the questionnaire (response rate = 68%). Carers' mean physical component summary (PCS) was 48.56 (SD = 10.38) and mean mental component summary (MCS) was 49.22 (SD = 9.7). Five CRA factors explained 30% of variance in the PCS score and 28% of variance in the MCS score. Health burden (ß = -.76, p < .001) and schedule burden (ß = .28, p = .01) were significant predictors of PCS. MCS was significantly predicated by financial burden (ß = -.24, p = .01) and esteem (ß = -.18, p = .03). Younger carers, spouses, those with a comorbid condition and those with no income change had significantly lower PCS. There were no statistically significant group differences for carer mental health. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate the need to recognise the distinctive aspects of the impact of caring (i.e., physical and mental) on carers and that different domains of subjective carer burden and objective factors impact differently on each of these. This has important implications for those delivering support to carers over the course of the survivorship continuum.

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.

The cost of lost productivity due to premature cancer-related mortality: an economic measure of the cancer burden.

BACKGROUND: Most measures of the cancer burden take a public health perspective. Cancer also has a significant economic impact on society. To assess this economic burden, we estimated years of potential productive life lost (YPPLL) and costs of lost productivity due to premature cancer-related mortality in Ireland. METHODS: All cancers combined and the 10 sites accounting for most deaths in men and in women were considered. To compute YPPLL, deaths in 5-year age-bands between 15 and 64 years were multiplied by average working-life expectancy. Valuation of costs, using the human capital approach, involved multiplying YPPLL by age-and-gender specific gross wages, and adjusting for unemployment and workforce participation. Sensitivity analyses were conducted around retirement age and wage growth, labour force participation, employment and discount rates, and to explore the impact of including household production and caring costs. Costs were expressed in €2009. RESULTS: Total YPPLL was lower in men than women (men = 10,873; women = 12,119). Premature cancer-related mortality costs were higher in men (men: total cost = €332 million, cost/death = €290,172, cost/YPPLL = €30,558; women: total cost = €177 million, cost/death = €159,959, cost/YPPLL = €14,628). Lung cancer had the highest premature mortality cost (€84.0 million; 16.5% of total costs), followed by cancers of the colorectum (€49.6 million; 9.7%), breast (€49.4 million; 9.7%) and brain & CNS (€42.4 million: 8.3%). The total economic cost of premature cancer-related mortality in Ireland amounted to €509.5 million or 0.3% of gross domestic product. An increase of one year in the retirement age increased the total all-cancer premature mortality cost by 9.9% for men and 5.9% for women. The inclusion of household production and caring costs increased the total cost to €945.7 million. CONCLUSION: Lost productivity costs due to cancer-related premature mortality are significant. The higher premature mortality cost in males than females reflects higher wages and rates of workforce participation. Productivity costs provide an alternative perspective on the cancer burden on society and may inform cancer control policy decisions.

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."

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.