Trends and Projections in National United States Health Care Spending for Gastrointestinal Malignancies (1996-2030).

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The management of gastrointestinal (GI) cancers is associated with high health care spending. We estimated trends in United States (US) health care spending for patients with GI cancers between 1996 and 2016 and developed projections to 2030. METHODS: We used economic data, adjusted for inflation, developed by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluations for the Disease Expenditure Project. Corresponding US age-adjusted prevalence of GI cancers was estimated from the Global Burden of Diseases Study. Prevalence-adjusted temporal trends in the US health care spending in patients with GI cancers, stratified by cancer site, age, and setting of care, were estimated using joinpoint regression, expressed as annual percentage change (APC) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Autoregressive integrated moving average models were used to project spending to 2030. RESULTS: In 2016, total spending for GI cancers was primarily attributable to colorectal ($10.50 billion; 95% CI, $9.35-$11.70 billion) and pancreatic cancer ($2.55 billion; 95% CI, $2.23-$2.82 billion), and primarily for inpatient care (64.5%). Despite increased total spending, more recent per-patient spending for pancreatic (APC 2008-2016, -1.4%; 95% CI, -2.2% to -0.7%), gallbladder/biliary tract (APC 2010-2016, -4.3%; 95% CI, -4.8% to -3.8%), and gastric cancer (APC 2011-2016, -4.4%; 95% CI, -5.8% to -2.9%) decreased. Increasing price and intensity of care provision was the largest driver of higher expenditures. By 2030, it is projected more than $21 billion annually will be spent on GI cancer management. CONCLUSIONS: Total spending for GI cancers in the US is substantial and projected to increase. Expenditures are primarily driven by inpatient care for colorectal cancer, although per-capita spending trends differ by GI cancer type.

Application of Value Frameworks to the Design of Clinical Trials: The Canadian Cancer Trials Group Experience.

BACKGROUND: Use of value framework thresholds in the design of clinical trials may increase the proportion of randomized controlled trials that identify clinically meaningful advances for patients. Existing frameworks have not been applied to the research output of a cooperative cancer trials group. We apply value frameworks to the randomized controlled trial output of the Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG). METHODS: Statistical design, study characteristics, and results of all published phase III trials of CCTG were abstracted. We applied the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) and American Society of Clinical Oncology Net Health Benefit to study results and the statistical power calculations to identify the proportion of all trials that were designed to detect a substantial clinical benefit. RESULTS: During 1979 to 2017, CCTG published 113 phase III trials; 52.2% (59 of 113) of these trials were positive. One-half (50.4%, 57 of 113) of the trials were conducted in the palliative setting. In 37.2% (42 of 113) of trials, the primary endpoint was overall survival; disease-free survival or progression-free survival was used in 38.9% (44 of 113) of trials. The ESMO-MCBS could be applied to the power calculation for 69 trials; 73.9% (51 of 69) of these trials were designed to detect an effect size that could meet ESMO-MCBS thresholds for substantial benefit. Among the 51 positive trials for which the ESMO-MCBS could be applied, 41.1% (21 of 51) met thresholds for substantial benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Most CCTG phase III trials were designed to detect clinically meaningful differences in outcome, although less than one-half of positive trials met the threshold for substantial benefit. Application of value frameworks to the design of clinical trials is practical and may improve research efficiency and treatment options for patients.