Cancer-related costs should be allocated in a comparable way-benchmarking costs of cancer in Nordic countries 2012-2017.

BACKGROUND: High costs of cancer, and especially the increase in treatment costs, have raised concerns about the financial sustainability of publicly funded health care systems around the world. As cancers get more prevalent with age, treatment costs are expected to keep rising with aging populations. The objective of the study is to analyze the changes in cost of cancer care broken down into separate cost components and outcomes of cancer treatment in the Nordic countries 2012-2017. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We estimated direct costs of cancer based on retrospective data from national registers: outpatient care and inpatient care in primary care and specialized care as well as medicine costs. The number of cancer cases and survival data was obtained from NORDCAN. Cancer was defined as ICD-10 codes C00-C97. RESULTS: Healthcare costs of cancer in real terms increased in all countries: CAGR was between 1 and 6% depending on the country. Medicine costs have increased rapidly (37-125%) in all countries during the observation period. In Finland and Denmark, inpatient care costs have decreased, whereas in Iceland, Norway, and Sweden, they have increased, although the number of inpatient days has decreased everywhere. The age-standardized cancer mortality has decreased constantly over time. CONCLUSION: Cancer care in Nordic countries has significant differences in both cost structures and in the development of cost drivers, indicating differences in the organization of care and different focus in health policy. It is important to compare the cancer care costs internationally on a detailed level to understand the reasons for cost development. The registration of cost data, especially medicine costs, should be more standardized to enable better cost and outcomes comparisons between countries in the future.

Is rare cancer care organized at national health system level? Multiple case study in six EU countries.

BACKGROUND: As a system of European Reference Networks (ERNs) emerges, the differences in quality of care for patients with rare cancers may increase at national level. We aimed to elucidate the processes and healthcare planning principles through which the reference centres (RCs) for rare cancers are embedded in national health systems. METHODS: We used a multiple case-study design based on the experiences of Czechia, Finland, France, Italy, Lithuania and Spain. Using sarcoma as an example of rare cancer, 52 semi-structured interviews were conducted during on-site visits, including a multidisciplinary group of professionals, Ministry of Health professionals, patient representatives and European policymakers. RESULTS: The comparative analysis showed substantial heterogeneity in the processes for formalizing RCs' status and in their levels of integration in the different health systems, but two models (centre-based and the network-based) can be envisaged at national level. RCs for rare cancers were legally established only in France and Spain. Expert clinicians cooperate in a structured way, using network mechanisms, in France and Italy, and these countries, plus Finland and Lithuania, had a referral system to facilitate patients' access from non-expert centres to RCs. Seven key healthcare planning principles in instituting RCs at the national level were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The conditions governing patient access to treatment centres-whether RCs or not-are decided at the national level. It is advisable to progressively align the European and national levels so that the RCs that participate in the ERNs also play a significant role at the national level.

Cancer costs and outcomes for common cancer sites in the Finnish population between 2009-2014.

BACKGROUND: The cost of cancer and outcomes of cancer care have been discussed a lot since cancer represents 3-6% of total healthcare costs and cost estimations have indicated growing costs. There are studies considering the cost of all cancers, but studies focusing on the cost of disease and outcomes in most common cancer sites are limited. The objective of this study was to analyze the development of the costs and outcomes in Finland between 2009 and 2014 per cancer site. METHODS: The National cost, episode and outcomes data were obtained from the National register databases based on International Statistical Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 diagnosis codes. Cost data included both the direct and indirect costs. Two hospitals were used to validate the costs of care. The outcome measures included relative survival rate, mortality, sick leave days per patient and number of new disability pensions. FINDINGS: The outcomes of cancer care in most common cancer sites have improved in Finland between 2009-2014. The real costs per new cancer patient decreased in seven out of ten most common cancer sites. The significance of different cost components differ significantly between the different cancer sites. The share of medication costs of the total cost of all cancers increased, but decreased for the five most common cancer sites. INTERPRETATION: The changes in the cost components indicate that the length of stay has shortened in special care and treatment methods have developed towards outpatient care. This partially explains the decrease of costs. Also, at the same time outcomes improved, which indicates that decrease in costs did not come at the expense of treatment quality. As the survival rates increase, the relevance of mortality measures decreases and the relevance of other, patient-relevant outcome measures increases. In the future, the outcomes and costs of health care systems should be assessed routinely for the most common patient groups.

Cancer costs and outcomes in the Finnish population 2004-2014.

INTRODUCTION: The cost of cancer and outcomes of cancer care has been much debated, since cancer represents 3-6% of total healthcare costs. The objective of this study was to analyse the development of the costs and outcomes in Finland between 2004 and 2014. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The national cost, episodes and outcomes data were obtained from the national register databases. Two hospitals were used to validate the costs of care. The outcome measures included relative survival rate, mortality, sick leave days per patient and number of new disability pensions. RESULTS: The total cost of cancer in 2014 was 927 million €. The real costs increased by 1.7% per year over the period studied, while the cost per new cancer patient decreased. The relative survival rate was enhanced by 7%, and the number of sick leave days and new disability pensions per cancer patient was reduced. The share occupied by cancer treatment in total healthcare costs decreased slightly from 3.7% to 3.6%, indicating that cancer care has not become more expensive compared to the treatment of other diseases. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first survey to analyse the change in actual cancer costs and outcomes in the population-level within a 10-year period. Since cancer care outcomes in Finland have been among the best in Europe, the progress in terms of the costs and the conversions in the cost distributions across categories are significant and valuable sources for international comparisons.

The European Code of Cancer Practice.

There are considerable disparities between the quality of cancer care and clinical outcomes for cancer patients in different European countries, regions, hospitals and communities. These have persisted despite the introduction of many European and National Cancer Plans, an extensive portfolio of clinical guidelines and the existence of evidence based guidelines for the good practice in planning cancer healthcare systems. We describe the European Code of Cancer Practice which is a citizen and patient-centred accessible widely disseminated statement of the core requirements for good clinical cancer practice. The Code sets out 10 key overarching Rights of what a patient should expect from their healthcare system each supported by a plain language explanation. The Rights highlight the importance of equal access to affordable and optimal cancer care, good quality information about an individual patient's disease and treatment and about the quality and outcomes of the cancer service they will use. Specialised multidisciplinary cancer care teams, shared decision-making, research and innovation, a focus on quality of life, the integration of supportive and palliative care within oncology are all emphasised. There is a need for a systematic approach to supporting cancer survivors with a survivorship care plan including their rehabilitation, reintegration into society and return to work where appropriate without discrimination. The Code has been co-produced by a team of cancer patients, patient advocates and cancer professionals to bridge the gap between clinical guidelines, healthcare policies and patients' everyday experience. It is robustly evidence-based and supported by a comprehensive review of the medical literature and evidence for good clinical practice. The Code is strongly endorsed by Europe's professional and patient cancer organisations and the European Commission.

Towards a cancer mission in Horizon Europe: recommendations.

A comprehensive translational cancer research approach focused on personalized and precision medicine, and covering the entire cancer research-care-prevention continuum has the potential to achieve in 2030 a 10-year cancer-specific survival for 75% of patients diagnosed in European Union (EU) member states with a well-developed healthcare system. Concerted actions across this continuum that spans from basic and preclinical research through clinical and prevention research to outcomes research, along with the establishment of interconnected high-quality infrastructures for translational research, clinical and prevention trials and outcomes research, will ensure that science-driven and social innovations benefit patients and individuals at risk across the EU. European infrastructures involving comprehensive cancer centres (CCCs) and CCC-like entities will provide researchers with access to the required critical mass of patients, biological materials and technological resources and can bridge research with healthcare systems. Here, we prioritize research areas to ensure a balanced research portfolio and provide recommendations for achieving key targets. Meeting these targets will require harmonization of EU and national priorities and policies, improved research coordination at the national, regional and EU level and increasingly efficient and flexible funding mechanisms. Long-term support by the EU and commitment of Member States to specialized schemes are also needed for the establishment and sustainability of trans-border infrastructures and networks. In addition to effectively engaging policymakers, all relevant stakeholders within the entire continuum should consensually inform policy through evidence-based advice.

What could be a cancer mission objective if we join our forces in the fight against cancer?

The European cancer burden is growing rapidly, with an estimated 2 million deaths a year according to the latest research. As almost half of cancers are diagnosed after the age of 65, and considering the aging European population, a tidal wave of cancer cases will sweep across Europe within the coming decades. Without major action, the additional number of annual cancer cases is expected to rise from 4.2 million to 5.2 million by 2040. If we are to reach plateauing numbers by 2040 (as a minimum goal), this would require 0.75% annual reduction in risk and 1% reduction in risk of death. These challenges call for attack from various angles, coordinated efforts, rational strategies, initiatives throughout the cancer trajectory, activities to reduce inequities, and implementation of evidence-based measures. In order to defeat the societal challenges of cancer through innovation, Europe will need to join forces and connect the European Commission and the member states, politicians and citizens, industries and patient associations. A cancer mission should thus unite the public and patient viewpoint to the perspective of cancer professionals. The authors describe a plan that has been agreed upon among some of the major European Cancer organizations and associations. This plan uses a cancer mission as a tool and must deliver robust medical evidence to patients and doctors through high-quality research delivering sustainable and affordable strategies for prevention, treatment, and follow-up.

Quality control and improvement of cancer care: what is needed? 4th European Roundtable Meeting (ERTM) May 5th, 2017, Berlin, Germany.

PURPOSE: National Cancer Control Plans (NCCPs) often describe structural requirements for high quality cancer care. During the fourth European Roundtable Meeting (ERTM) participants shared learnings from their own national setting to formulate best practice in optimizing communication strategies between parties involved in clinical cancer registries, cancer centers and guideline groups. RESULTS: A decentralized model of data collection close to the patient and caregiver enhances timely completion and the quality of the data captured. Nevertheless, central coordination is necessary to define datasets, indicators, standard settings, education, training and quality control to maintain standards across the network. In particular, interaction of parties in cancer care network has to be established and maintained on a regular basis. CONCLUSION: After establishing the structural requirements of cancer care networks, communication between the different components and parties is required to analyze outcome data, provide regular reporting to all and develop strategies for continuous improvement of quality across the network.

The European Cancer Patient's Bill of Rights, update and implementation 2016.

In this implementation phase of the European Cancer Patient's Bill of Rights (BoR), we confirm the following three patient-centred principles that underpin this initiative:The right of every European citizen to receive the most accurate information and to be proactively involved in his/her care.The right of every European citizen to optimal and timely access to a diagnosis and to appropriate specialised care, underpinned by research and innovation.The right of every European citizen to receive care in health systems that ensure the best possible cancer prevention, the earliest possible diagnosis of their cancer, improved outcomes, patient rehabilitation, best quality of life and affordable health care. The key aspects of working towards implementing the BoR are:Agree our high-level goal. The vision of 70% long-term survival for patients with cancer in 2035, promoting cancer prevention and cancer control and the associated progress in ensuring good patient experience and quality of life.Establish the major mechanisms to underpin its delivery. (1) The systematic and rigorous sharing of best practice between and across European cancer healthcare systems and (2) the active promotion of Research and Innovation focused on improving outcomes; (3) Improving access to new and established cancer care by sharing best practice in the development, approval, procurement and reimbursement of cancer diagnostic tests and treatments.Work with other organisations to bring into being a Europe based centre that will (1) systematically identify, evaluate and validate and disseminate best practice in cancer management for the different countries and regions and (2) promote Research and Innovation and its translation to maximise its impact to improve outcomes.