Search

Background: Adjuvant radiotherapy represents a key component in curative-intent treatment for early-stage breast cancer patients. In recent years, two accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) techniques are preferred for this population in our organization: electron-based Intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) and Linac-based External Beam Radiotherapy, particularly Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Recently published long-term follow-up data evaluating these technologies have motivated a health technology reassessment of IORT compared to IMRT., Methods: We developed a Markov model to simulate health-state transitions from a cohort of women with early-stage breast cancer, after lumpectomy and adjuvant APBI using either IORT or IMRT techniques. The cost-effectiveness from a private health provider perspective was assessed from a disinvestment point of view, using life-years (LYs) and recurrence-free life-years (RFLYs) as measure of benefits, along with their respective quality adjustments. Expected costs and benefits, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were reported. Finally, a sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness using lower IORT local recurrence and metastasis rates in IORT patients, and if equipment maintenance costs are removed., Results: IORT technology was dominated by IMRT in all cases (i.e., fewer benefits with greater costs). Despite small differences were found regarding benefits, especially for LYs, costs were considerably higher for IORT. For sensitivity analyses with lower recurrence and metastasis rates for IORT, and scenario analyses without equipment maintenance costs, IORT was still dominated by IMRT., Conclusions: For this cohort of patients, IMRT was, at least, non-inferior to IORT in terms of expected benefits, with considerably lower costs. As a result, IORT disinvestment should be considered, favoring the use of IMRT in these patients., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests WvH reports grants from Koningin Wilhelmina Fonds (KWF), European Cancer League for European Fair Pricing Network (EFPN) project, and OECI; and consulting fees from Raad voor de Rechtspraak. VPR reports grants from KWF, EFPN, OECI, and the National Health Care Institute. JMV reports grants from EFPN. OSL reports support for attending meetings and travel from the Catalan Institute of Oncology (ICO). EA reports a grant from the Norwegian Directorate of Health; and leadership roles on the scientific board of the Norwegian Cancer Association, the advisory board of the Frisch Centre, and the Faculty of Medicine board elected among academic employees. AE reports support for attending meetings and travel from ICO. NF reports support for the present manuscript and for attending meetings from EFPN and OECI; and a budget-based action grant from EU HORIZON. IK reports a leadership role as a patient advocate at the Institute for Gastroenterological Tumors of Croatia (IGET). SS reports a leadership role at Connect Norway. RS is supported by City Cancer Challenge. SV reports a leadership role at IGET. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To evaluate the health economics evidence based on randomized controlled trials of pharmacist-led medication review in pharmacotherapy managed cardiovascular disease risk factors, specifically, hypertension, type-2 diabetes mellitus and dyslipidaemia in ambulatory settings and to provide recommendations for future evaluations., Methods: A systematic review was carried out according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews. PubMed (Medline), Scopus, Web of Science, National Health System Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Cochrane Library, and Econlit were searched and screened by two independent authors. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was the main outcome. Risk of bias was assessed with the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care tool by the Cochrane Collaboration. Economic evaluation quality was assessed with the he Consensus Health Economic Criteria list (CHEC list)., Results: 5636 records were found, and 174 were retrieved for full-text review yielding 11 articles. Eight articles deemed the intervention as cost effective and two as dominant. Two cost-utility analyses were performed yielding ICERs of $612.7 and $59.8 per QALY. Four articles were considered to perform a high-quality economic evaluation and four had a low risk of bias. Future economic evaluations should consider cost-utility analysis, to describe usual care thoroughly, and use time horizons that capture the effect of cardiovascular disease prevention, a societal perspective and uncertainty analysis., Conclusion: Pharmacist-led medication review has proven to be cost effective in various studies in different settings. Policy decision makers are advised to undertake local economic evaluations reflecting the gaps observed in this systematic review and published literature. If this is not possible, a transferability assessment should be conducted.