Search

36 Background: With improvements in both early detection and cancer treatment, there is a growing population of cancer survivors; with a corresponding increase in acute care use. However, models of inpatient care delivery for cancer survivors differ between hospitals and regions, which may impact resource use and outcomes. Understanding how different models influence outcomes may help define optimal models for cancer inpatient care delivery. Methods: We created a multicenter cohort of all cancer patients admitted to medical wards across 26 hospitals in Ontario, Canada from 2015 to 2022, and deterministically linked population level administrative data including ambulatory oncology data, with each hospital's patient-level electronic information (pharmacy, orders, notes, labs/imaging and results). Multivariable regression models compared characteristics and outcomes between patients admitted on oncology wards vs non-oncology wards adjusting for age, sex, income quintile, rurality, immigrant status, receiving IV systemic therapy within 120 days and comorbidity scores. Results: In total, there were 370,118 hospitalizations from 191,990 unique patients. Among these hospitalizations, 38,075 episodes (10%) were on an oncology ward. Median time from cancer diagnosis to hospitalization was 4 years; 10% received IV systemic therapy within 120 days and 16% within 1 year. The most common disease sites were GU (21%), GI (20%), breast (12%) and lung (10%). The most common discharge diagnoses from oncology wards were inpatient chemotherapy (9%), febrile neutropenia (7%), NHL (4%), AML (4%), myeloma (3%); while for non-oncology wards were heart failure (5%), palliative care (4%), UTI (2%), pneumonia (2%), acute renal failure (2%). In general, cancer patients admitted on oncology wards were younger (64 vs 76), had shorter length of stay (LOS; 9.6 vs 10.1 days), less in-hospital mortality (8% vs 11%), greater 30-day re-admission rates (30% vs 15%) and were more likely to undergo CTs (28% vs 21%), MRIs (11% vs 9%) and interventional procedures (8% vs 6%) (p<0.001, all). Subgroup analysis focusing on the top 5 discharge diagnoses from non-oncology wards, showed that despite no difference in in-hospital mortality rates (aOR 0.92 95% CI [0.58-1.46] p=0.73), admission to a non-oncology ward for those diagnoses was associated with shorter LOS (aOR 0.84 [0.78-0.90] p<0.001), reduced 30-day re-admission rates (aOR 0.60 [0.48-0.75] p<0.001), and reduced use of CTs (aOR 0.60 [0.49-0.74] p<0.001), MRIs (aOR 0.36 [0.25-0.52] p<0.001), and interventional procedures (aOR 0.43 [0.29-0.64] p<0.001). Conclusions: There are differences in resource use and outcomes for cancer survivors hospitalized on oncology versus non-oncology wards, including for patients with the same discharge diagnosis. To optimize inpatient cancer care delivery for hospitalized cancer survivors, further exploration of care models is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: This study aimed to investigate the impact of early versus not-early palliative care among cancer decedents on end-of-life health care costs. METHODS: Using linked administrative databases, we created a retrospective cohort of cancer decedents between 2004 and 2014 in Ontario, Canada. We identified those who received early palliative care (palliative care service used in the hospital or community 12 to 6 months before death [exposure]). We used propensity score matching to identify a control group of not-early palliative care, hard matched on age, sex, cancer type, and stage at diagnosis. We examined differences in average health system costs (including hospital, emergency department, physician, and home care costs) between groups in the last month of life. RESULTS: We identified 144,306 cancer decedents, of which 37% received early palliative care. After matching, we created 36,238 pairs of decedents who received early and not-early (control) palliative care; there were balanced distributions of age, sex, cancer type (24% lung cancer), and stage (25% stage III and IV). Overall, 56.3% of early group versus 66.7% of control group used inpatient care in the last month (P < .001). Considering inpatient hospital costs in the last month of life, the early group used an average (±standard deviation) of $7,105 (±$10,710) versus the control group of $9,370 (±$13,685; P < .001). Overall average costs (±standard deviation) in the last month of life for patients in the early versus control group was $12,753 (±$10,868) versus $14,147 (±$14,288; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Receiving early palliative care reduced average health system costs in the last month of life, especially via avoided hospitalizations [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: As novel hormonal therapies, such as abiraterone and enzalutamide, move into earlier stages of treatment of advanced prostate cancer, there are significant cost implications. We used the ASCO Value Framework (AVF) and European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) to quantify and compare the incremental clinical benefit and costs of these agents in the metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) settings. METHODS: We searched PubMed for randomized phase III trials of abiraterone and enzalutamide in mCRPC and mCSPC. Incremental clinical benefit was quantified using the AVF and ESMO-MCBS by 2 independent assessors. Incremental drug costs were calculated using average wholesale prices (AWPs) from the RED BOOK Online. RESULTS: In mCRPC, 2 abiraterone trials (COU-AA-301 and COU-AA-302) and 2 enzalutamide trials (AFFIRM and PREVAIL) met search criteria. AVF scores ranged from 46.3 to 66.6, suggesting clinical benefit; ESMO-MCBS scores ranged from 3 to 5, with lower clinical benefit in the mCRPC predocetaxel setting. The overall incremental AWP ranged from $83,460.94 to $205,128.85. In mCSPC, 4 trials met criteria (LATITUDE, STAMPEDE, ENZAMET, and ARCHES; AVF scores were 79.8, 33.3, 59, and 17, respectively). All of the studies showed benefit except ARCHES. By ESMO-MCBS, both LATITUDE and STAMPEDE showed benefit (score for 4 for both studies); ENZAMET and ARCHES were not evaluable. The overall cost of treatment was significantly higher in the mCSPC setting. CONCLUSION: The AVF and ESMO-MCBS frameworks generated slightly different results but suggested that abiraterone and enzalutamide show clinical benefit in both mCRPC and mCSPC but trended to lower clinical benefit and increased costs in earlier disease stages. Further refinement of the AVF and ESMO-MCBS is needed to facilitate their use and their ability to inform clinical practice in a rapidly changing treatment landscape. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: End-of-life (EOL) cancer care is costly, with challenges regarding intensity and place of care. We described EOL care and costs for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) in the United States and the province of Ontario, Canada, to inform better care delivery. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with CRC from 2007 to 2013, who died of any cancer from 2007 to 2013 at age ≥ 66 years, were selected from the US SEER cancer registries linked to Medicare claims (n = 16,565) and the Ontario Cancer Registry linked to administrative health data (n = 6,587). We estimated total and resource-specific costs (2015 US dollars) from public payer perspectives over the last 360 days of life by 30-day periods, by stage at diagnosis (0-II, III, IV). RESULTS: In all months, especially 30 days before death, higher percentages of SEER-Medicare than Ontario patients received chemotherapy (15.7% v 8.0%), and imaging tests (39.4% v 31.1%). A higher percentage of Ontario patients were hospitalized (62.5% v 51.0%), but 43.2% of hospitalized SEER-Medicare patients had intensive care unit (ICU) admissions versus 17.9% of hospitalized Ontario patients. Cost differences between cohorts were greater for patients with stage IV disease. In the last 30 days, mean total costs for patients with stage IV disease were $15,881 (SEER-Medicare) and $12,034 (Ontario) versus $19,354 and $17,312 for stage 0-II. Hospitalization costs were higher for SEER-Medicare patients ($11,180 v $9,434), with lower daily hospital costs in Ontario ($1,067 v $2,004). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest opportunities for reducing chemotherapy and ICU use in the United States and hospitalizations in Ontario. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: The development of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells has transformed oncology treatment, with the potential to cure certain cancers. Although shown to be effective in selected populations and studies, CAR T-cell technology requires considerable health care resources, which may lead to additional wait times to access this type of treatment in future. The objective of our study was to estimate the potential impact of increasing wait times on CAR T-cell therapy effectiveness compared with standard chemotherapy for patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. METHODS: A health system–level discrete event simulation model was developed to project the potential impact of wait times on CAR T-cell therapy for patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Waiting queues and health states related to treatment and clinical progression were implemented. Using data from the literature, we evaluated nine scenarios of using CAR T-cell therapy with wait times ranging from 1 to 9 months. The outcome of interest was 1-year all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Increasing the wait time of receiving CAR T-cell therapy from 1 to 9 months increased the predicted 1-year mortality rate from 36.1% to 76.3%. Baseline 1-year mortality was 34.0% in patients receiving CAR T-cell therapy with no wait times and 75.1% in patients treated with chemotherapy. This resulted in an increased relative mortality rate of 6.2% to 124.5% over a 1- to 9-month wait time compared with no wait time. CONCLUSION: We found that modest delays in CAR T-cell therapy significantly hinder its effectiveness. Because CAR T-cell therapy offers a potential cure, it is expected that the uptake rate will be substantially increased once the therapy is regularly funded by a health care system. Wait times may be prolonged if system resource availability does not match the demand. Strategies must be developed to minimize the impact of delays and reduce complications during waiting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To evaluate Canadian medical oncologists' perspectives on how barriers to accessing new expensive cancer drugs have affected their practice and their opinions on the drug approval and funding processes. Methods: Canadian medical oncologists treating colorectal cancer (CRC) were surveyed by means of a self-administered, cross-sectional survey. Results: Of the 164 eligible oncologists, there were 68 respondents (41.4% response rate). Only 29.4% of physicians felt they had been using the ideal first-line chemotherapy regimen for patients with metastatic CRC. Although all considered bevacizumab to be a component of the ideal first-line regimen, only 18% could use bevacizumab routinely, and less than half (44.8%) always discussed its role with their patients. In terms of accessing unfunded drugs, most physicians agreed that private payment should be allowed for drugs to be delivered at their own centers (76.1%) or private infusion clinics (52.2%). Ninety-seven percent of physicians reported major concerns about the drug approval and funding processes, and 85% of physicians supported the establishment of a national drug formulary. Conclusions: Canadian medical oncologists are struggling to provide optimal cancer care for their patients with metastatic CRC as a result of nonuniform access to preferred therapeutic drugs. In face of these challenges, physicians have had to use clinical trials and private infusion clinics and, at times, may avoid discussing drugs with limited access. Many oncologists are dissatisfied with the existing funding mechanism and approval processes and support private payment for unfunded drugs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose As costs of cancer care rise, there has been a shift to focus on value. Drug wastage affects costs to patients and health care systems without adding value. Historically, cost-effectiveness analyses have used models that assume no drug wastage; however, this may not reflect real-world practices. We sought to identify the frequency of drug wastage modeling in economic evaluations of modern parenteral therapies for hematologic malignancies. Methods We conducted a systematic literature review of economic evaluations of new US Food and Drug Administration-approved parenteral chemotherapies with indications for the treatment of hematologic malignancies. The primary outcome of interest was the proportion of studies that modeled drug wastage in base-case analyses. If wastage was considered in primary analyses, we reported the impact of wastage on incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and drug acquisition costs. Results Wastage was considered in base-case analyses in less than one third of all publications reviewed (12 of 38; 32%). Of these, two studies went on to complete sensitivity analyses and reported significant changes in the calculated ICER as a result. In one study, the ICER increased by 32%, and in the second, accounting for wastage changed a positive ICER to a dominant result. Conclusion Potential costs associated with drug wastage are considered in only one third of modern cost-effectiveness models. The impact of wastage on calculated ICERs and drug acquisition costs is potentially substantial. The modeling of wastage in base-case and sensitivity analyses is recommended for future economic evaluations of new intravenous therapies for hematologic malignancies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the authors' comments on the American Society of Clinical Oncology's (ASCO) provisional clinical opinion (PCO) update which summarizes the results of the literature review and analysis completed for the update. According to the authors, the ASCO PCO recommends against screening for anti-Hepatitis B before cancer therapy, which makes sense as the test result should not influence clinical management.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine if clinical benefits of novel anticancer drugs, measured by the ASCO Value Framework and European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale, have increased over time in parallel with increasing costs. Methods: Anticancer drugs from phase III randomized controlled trials cited for clinical efficacy evidence in drug approvals between January 2006 to December 2015 were identified and scored using both frameworks. For each drug, the monthly price and incremental anticancer drug costs were calculated. Relationships between cost and year of approval were examined using generalized linear regressions models. Ordinary least square models were used to evaluate relationships between ASCO and ESMO scores and year of approval. Spearman correlation coefficients between costs and clinical benefit scores were calculated. Results: In total, 42 randomized controlled trials were included. Both monthly prices and incremental anticancer drug costs were significantly associated with year of approval and showed an average annual increase of 9% and 21%, respectively. The predicted mean incremental anticancer drug cost increased from $30,447 in 2006 to $161,141 in 2015 (greater than five-fold increase). Both ASCO and ESMO scores were not statistically associated with year of approval or correlated with monthly prices or incremental anticancer drug costs. Conclusion: Over the past decade, costs of novel oncology drugs have increased, while clinical benefits of these medications have not experienced a proportional positive change. The incremental anticancer drug costs have increased at a much greater rate than monthly prices, indicating that the increase in anticancer drug costs may be higher than commonly reported. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Cancer drug wastage occurs when a parenteral drug within a fixed vial is not administered fully to a patient. This study investigated the extent of drug wastage, the financial impact on the hospital budget, and the cost savings associated with current mitigation strategies. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study in three University of Toronto-affiliated hospitals of various sizes. We recorded the actual amount of drug wasted over a 2-week period while using current mitigation strategies. Single-dose vial cancer drugs with the highest wastage potentials were identified (14 drugs). To calculate the hypothetical drug wastage with no mitigation strategies, we determined how many vials of drugs would be needed to fill a single prescription. Results The total drug costs over the 2weeks ranged from$50,257 to $716,983 in the three institutions. With existing mitigation strategies, the actual drug wastage over the 2 weeks ranged from $928 to $5,472, which was approximately 1% to 2% of the total drug costs. In the hypothetical model with no mitigation strategies implemented, the projected drug cost wastage would have been $11,232 to $149,131, which accounted for 16% to 18% of the total drug costs. As a result, the potential annual savings while using current mitigation strategies range from 15% to 17%. Conclusion The financial impact of drug wastage is substantial. Mitigation strategies lead to substantial cost savings, with the opportunity to reinvest those savings. More research is needed to determine the appropriate methods to minimize risk to patients while using the cost-saving mitigation strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Palliative care inpatient units (PCUs) can improve symptoms, family perception of care, and lower per-diem costs compared with usual care. In March 2013, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions (JHMI) added a PCU to the palliative care (PC) program. We studied the financial impact of the PC program on JHMI from March 2013 to March 2014. Methods This study considered three components of the PC program: PCU, PC consultations, and professional fees. Using 13 months of admissions data, the team calculated the per-day variable cost pre-PCU (ie, in another hospital unit) and after transfer to the PCU. These fees were multiplied by the number of patients transferred to the PCU and by the average length of stay in the PCU. Consultation savings were estimated using established methods. Professional fees assumed a collection rate of 50%. Results The total positive financial impact of the PC program was $3,488,863.17. There were 153 transfers to the PCU, 60% with cancer, and an average length of stay of 5.11 days. The daily loss pretransfer to the PCU of $1,797.67 was reduced to $1,345.34 in the PCU(225%). The PCUsaved JHMI $353,645.17 in variable costs, or $452.33 per transfer. Cost savings for PC consultations in the hospital, 60% with cancer, were estimated at $2,765,218. $370,000 was collected in professional fees savings. Conclusion The PCU and PC program had a favorable impact on JHMI while providing expert patient-centered care. As JHMI moves to an accountable care organization model, value-based patient-centered care and increased intensive care unit availability are desirable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Patients with unresectable wild-type KRAS metastatic colorectal cancer benefit from fluoropyrimidines (FP), oxaliplatin (O), irinotecan (I), bevacizumab (Bev), and epithelial growth factor receptor inhibitors (EGFRI). The most cost-effective regimen remains unclear. Methods A Markov model was constructed to examine the costs and outcomes of three treatment strategies: strategy A (reference strategy): EGFRI monotherapy in third line ([3L]; ie, first-line [1L]: Bev + FOLFIRI [FP + I] or FOLFOX [FP + O]; second line [2L]: FOLFIRI/ FOLFOX; 3L: EGFRI); strategy B: EGFRI and I in 3L (ie, 1L: Bev + FOLFIRI/FOLFOX; 2L: FOLFIRI/FOLFOX; 3L: EGFRI + I); and strategy C: EGFRI in 1L (ie, 1L: EGFRI + FOLFIRI/ FOLFOX; 2L: Bev + FOLFIRI/FOLFOX; 3L: best supportive care). Efficacy data of the treatments were obtained from the literature. Health system resource use information was derived from chart review and the literature. Using Euro-QOL 5 Dimensions, utilities were obtained by surveying medical oncologists and costs from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the literature. The perspective of the Canadian public health care system was used over a 5-year time horizon with a 5% discount in 2012 Canadian dollars. Results Al l three strategies had similar efficacy, but strategy C was most expensive. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for strategies B and C compared with A were 119,623 and 3,176,591, respectively. The model was primarily driven by the acquisition cost of the drugs. Strategy B was most cost effective when the willingness-to-pay threshold was > $130,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Sensitivity analysisshowed that strategy C would be cost-effective only when the progression-free survival of EGFRI is better than Bev in 1Lwith hazard ratio < 0.23 at willingness-to-pay of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Conclusion First-line use of EGFRI in metastatic colorectal cancer is not cost effective at its current pricing relative to Bev. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the impact of early versus not-early palliative care among cancer decedents on end-of-life health care costs., Methods: Using linked administrative databases, we created a retrospective cohort of cancer decedents between 2004 and 2014 in Ontario, Canada. We identified those who received early palliative care (palliative care service used in the hospital or community 12 to 6 months before death [exposure]). We used propensity score matching to identify a control group of not-early palliative care, hard matched on age, sex, cancer type, and stage at diagnosis. We examined differences in average health system costs (including hospital, emergency department, physician, and home care costs) between groups in the last month of life., Results: We identified 144,306 cancer decedents, of which 37% received early palliative care. After matching, we created 36,238 pairs of decedents who received early and not-early (control) palliative care; there were balanced distributions of age, sex, cancer type (24% lung cancer), and stage (25% stage III and IV). Overall, 56.3% of early group versus 66.7% of control group used inpatient care in the last month ( P < .001). Considering inpatient hospital costs in the last month of life, the early group used an average (±standard deviation) of $7,105 (±$10,710) versus the control group of $9,370 (±$13,685; P < .001). Overall average costs (±standard deviation) in the last month of life for patients in the early versus control group was $12,753 (±$10,868) versus $14,147 (±$14,288; P < .001)., Conclusion: Receiving early palliative care reduced average health system costs in the last month of life, especially via avoided hospitalizations., Competing Interests: Lisa C. BarberaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: ElektaNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Purpose Whether the ASCO Value Framework and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) measure similar constructs of clinical benefit is unclear. It is also unclear how they relate to quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and funding recommendations in the United Kingdom and Canada. Methods Randomized clinical trials of oncology drug approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, and Health Canada between 2006 and August 2015 were identified and scored using the ASCO version 1 (v1) framework, ASCO version 2 (v2) framework, and ESMO-MCBS by at least two independent reviewers. Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated to assess construct (between frameworks) and criterion validity (against QALYs from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE] and the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review [pCODR]). Associations between scores and NICE/pCODR recommendations were examined. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients. Results From 109 included randomized clinical trials, 108 ASCOv1, 111 ASCOv2, and 83 ESMO scores were determined. Correlation coefficients for ASCOv1 versus ESMO, ASCOv2 versus ESMO, and ASCOv1 versus ASCOv2 were 0.36 (95% CI, 0.15 to 0.54), 0.17 (95% CI, -0.06 to 0.37), and 0.50 (95% CI, 0.35 to 0.63), respectively. Compared with NICE QALYs, correlation coefficients were 0.45 (ASCOv1), 0.53 (ASCOv2), and 0.46 (ESMO); with pCODR QALYs, coefficients were 0.19 (ASCOv1), 0.20 (ASCOv2), and 0.36 (ESMO). None of the frameworks were significantly associated with NICE/pCODR recommendations. Inter-rater reliability was good for all frameworks. Conclusion The weak-to-moderate correlations of the ASCO frameworks with the ESMO-MCBS, as well as their correlations with QALYs and with NICE/pCODR funding recommendations, suggest different constructs of clinical benefit measured. Construct convergent validity with the ESMO-MCBS did not increase with the updated ASCO framework.