Evaluating cost-effectiveness in the management of neuroendocrine neoplasms.

The rapid evolution of novel, costly therapies for neuroendocrine neoplasia (NEN) warrants formal high-quality cost-effectiveness evaluation. Costs of individual investigations and therapies are high; and examples are presented. We aimed to review the last ten years of standalone health economic evaluations in NEN. Comparing to published standards, EMBASE, Cochrane library, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), NHS Economic Evaluation Database and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database were searched for health economic evaluations (HEEs) in NEN published between 2010 and October 2019. Of 12 economic evaluations, 11 considered exclusively pharmacological treatment (3 studies of SSAs, 7 studies of sunitinib, everolimus and/or 177Lu-DOTATATE and 1 study of telotristat ethyl) and 1 compared surgery with intraarterial therapy. 7 studies of pharmacological treatment had placebo or best supportive care as the only comparator. There remains a paucity of economic evaluations in NEN with the majority industry funded. Most HEEs reviewed did not meet published health economic criteria used to assess quality. Lack of cost data collected from patient populations remains a significant factor in HEEs where clinical expert opinion is still often substituted. Further research utilizing high-quality effectiveness data and rigorous applied health economic analysis is needed.

EORTC QLU-C10D value sets for Austria, Italy, and Poland.

OBJECTIVE: To develop Austrian, Italian, and Polish general population value sets for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a cancer-specific utility instrument based on the EORTC QLQ-C30, and to descriptively compare their index scores for distinct health states. METHODS: The QLU-C10D descriptive system comprises 10 health attributes and each can take on 4 levels. A standardised and pre-tested methodology has been applied for valuations including a web-based discrete choice experiment (DCE). It was administered in 1000 general population respondents per country recruited via online panels, aiming at representativeness for core socio-demographic variables. RESULTS: In all three countries, the attributes with the largest impact on utility were physical functioning, pain, and role functioning. Cancer-specific dimensions with the largest impact were nausea and fatigue or bowel problems. Utility values of the worst health state (i.e. severe problems on all 10 dimension) were -0.111 (Austria), 0.025 (Italy), and 0.048 (Poland). Country-specific utilities differed for a selection of health states across the continuum. Austrian utilities were systematically lower for moderately and severely impaired health states. CONCLUSION: QLU-C10D cancer-specific utilities can now be calculated in three more countries. Differences between countries indicate that careful consideration is required when using non-country-specific value sets in economic evaluations.

Evaluation of electronic patient-reported outcome assessment with cancer patients in the hospital and at home.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) provide a more comprehensive picture of patients' quality of life than do mere physicians' ratings. Electronic data collection of PRO offers several advantages and allows assessments at patients' homes as well. This study reports on patients' personal internet use, their attitudes towards electronic and web-based PRO assessment (clinic-ePRO and home-ePRO) and the feasibility of these two assessment modes. METHODS: At the Medical University of Innsbruck and Kufstein County Hospital, cancer patients who participated in clinic-ePRO/home-ePRO were asked to complete a comprehensive evaluation form on their personal internet usage, attitudes towards and the feasibility of routine clinic-ePRO/home-ePRO with the Computer-based Health Evaluation System (CHES) software. RESULTS: In total, 113 patients completed the evaluation form for clinic-ePRO (Ø 45 years, SD 14) and 45 patients for home-ePRO (Ø 58 years, SD 10; 33.1 per cent inclusion rate for this sample). Most patients expressed willingness to complete routine clinic-ePRO assessments in the future (94.7 per cent of clinic-ePRO patients and 84.4 per cent of home-ePRO patients) and to discuss their data with attending physicians (82.2 per cent, home-ePRO patients only). Overall, patients preferred the software over paper-pencil questionnaires (67.2 per cent of clinic-ePRO patients and 60 per cent of home-ePRO patients) and experienced it as easy to use. Only a few minor suggestions for improvement were made (e.g. adjustable font sizes). CONCLUSIONS: The use of clinic-ePRO/home-ePRO was in general shown to be feasible and well accepted. However, to be more inclusive in the implementation of clinic-ePRO/home-ePRO, educational programs concerning their particular benefit in oncology practice potentially could enhance patients' attitudes towards, and consequently their acceptance of and compliance with electronic PRO assessments.