Search

Background The soaring costs of anti‐cancer drugs pose a threat to the sustainability of cancer care. The pricing strategy chosen by manufacturers can impact the costs of oral anti‐cancer drugs during dose modifications, but this issue remains under‐recognized in the literature. In general, with the flat pricing strategy, there is a single fixed price for each tablet regardless of dosage strength, whereas with linear pricing, the price of each tablet increases with its dose. We hypothesize that flat pricing will have increased drug costs compared to linear pricing during dose reductions since the cost remains fixed despite decreased dose requirements. This practice may have significant financial implications considering the high costs, extensive utilization, and frequent occurence of dose reductions with anti‐cancer drugs. Methods Oral anti‐cancer drugs reviewed by the pan‐Canadian Oncology Drug Review program between 2011 and 2018 were identified. The cost per mg and cost per 28‐day cycle were calculated for dose levels −2 to +2. The percent change in cost per mg and cost per cycle during dose modifications from the standard dose were calculated. We conducted Mann‐Whitney U and Fisher‐exact tests to compare the association between drug costs during dose reductions and pricing strategy. Results In this study, 30 oral anti‐cancer drugs for use in 41 indications were analyzed; 44% of drugs used linear pricing and 56% used flat pricing. Dose reductions increased the mean cost per mg for drugs with linear pricing by 14.7% (range: 0%‐50%) at dose level −1 and 17.2% (range: 0%‐50%) at dose level −2 and flat pricing by 60.8% (range: 19%‐100%) at dose level −1 and 99.1% (range: 0%‐300%) at dose level −2. The cost per mg was significantly increased in drugs using flat pricing compared to linear pricing when dose reduction to either level ‐1 (P = 0.010) or level ‐2 (P = 0.006) occurred. The mean cost per cycle was decreased for drugs using linear pricing by 20.9% (range: −40% to 0%) at dose level −1 and 48.7% (range: −60% to −25%) at dose level −2 and flat pricing by 0.8% (range −6% to 0%) at dose level −1 and 11.0% (range: −50% to 100%) at dose level −2. The cost per cycle was significantly decreased in drugs with linear pricing compared to flat pricing when the standard dose is reduced to either dose level ‐1 (P = 0.005) or dose level ‐2 (P = 0.026). Conclusions Overall, flat pricing had significantly greater costs compared to linear pricing during dose reductions of anti‐cancer drugs. While there is a general expectation that the cost of drugs should decrease with dose reduction, drugs with flat pricing were generally found to have increased cost per mg and no change in the cost per cycle. The resultant increased spending on drug acquisition (despite purchasing lower doses) lead to financial wastage, which has significant implications on cost‐effectiveness considerations and budgets. Future economic evaluations should take into consideration the hidden costs associated with dose reductions of flat priced drugs.

BACKGROUND Setting realistic targets for performance is a consistent challenge in quality improvement. In the current study, the authors used administrative data to define achievable targets for a panel of 15 previously developed quality indicators (QIs) focusing on systemic therapy in patients with early-stage breast cancer. METHODS Deterministically linked administrative databases were used to identify patients with TNM stage I to stage III breast cancer who were diagnosed between 2006 and 2010 in Ontario, Canada. For each individual indicator, data-driven empirical benchmarks were calculated using the pared-mean benchmark approach. Variation in institution-level performance for each indicator was examined through the construction of funnel plots. RESULTS A total of 28,303 patients with early-stage breast cancer were identified, 43% of whom received adjuvant chemotherapy. For the 9 QIs for which receiving the service or outcome was desirable (ie, consultation with a medical oncologist), the benchmark varied from 40.9% to 100%. For the 6 indicators for which not receiving the service or outcome was desirable (ie, incidence of febrile neutropenia), the benchmark varied from 0% to 49.0%. There was substantial variation noted with regard to the number of institutions meeting the target and the amount of interinstitution variation between the QIs. Top performing institutions varied by indicator, with no individual institution meeting the benchmark for all indicators. For the majority of indicators, institution size was not found to be correlated with performance. CONCLUSIONS Data-derived benchmarking can be used to facilitate quality improvement by identifying areas of both good as well as suboptimal performance while defining an achievable target for which to strive. Cancer 2017. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

BACKGROUND The objective of this study was to determine the impact of modeling cancer drug wastage in economic evaluations because wastage can result from single-dose vials on account of body surface area– or weight-based dosing. METHODS Intravenous chemotherapy drugs were identified from the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) program as of January 2015. Economic evaluations performed by drug manufacturers and pCODR were reviewed. Cost-effectiveness analyses and budget impact analyses were conducted for no-wastage and maximum-wastage scenarios (ie, the entire unused portion of the vial was discarded at each infusion). Sensitivity analyses were performed for a range of body surface areas and weights. RESULTS Twelve drugs used for 17 indications were analyzed. Wastage was reported (ie, assumptions were explicit) in 71% of the models and was incorporated into 53% by manufacturers; this resulted in a mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio increase of 6.1% (range, 1.3%-14.6%). pCODR reported and incorporated wastage for 59% of the models, and this resulted in a mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio increase of 15.0% (range, 2.6%-48.2%). In the maximum-wastage scenario, there was a mean increase in the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 24.0% (range, 0.0%-97.2%), a mean increase in the 3-year total incremental budget costs of 26.0% (range, 0.0%-83.1%), and an increase in the 3-year total incremental drug budget cost of approximately CaD $102 million nationally. Changing the mean body surface area or body weight caused 45% of the drugs to have a change in the vial size and/or quantity, and this resulted in increased drug costs. CONCLUSIONS Cancer drug wastage can increase drug costs but is not uniformly modeled in economic evaluations. Cancer 2017. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

BACKGROUND The Canadian health care system provides equitable access to equivalent standards of care. The authors investigated to determine whether patients with breast cancer who had different socioeconomic status (SES) received different care and had different overall survival (OS) in Ontario, Canada. METHODS Women who were diagnosed with breast cancer between 2004 and 2009 were identified from the Ontario Cancer Registry and linked to provincial databases to ascertain patient demographics, screening, diagnosis, treatment patterns, and survival. SES was defined as neighborhood income by postal code and was divided into income quintiles (Q1-Q5; with Q5 the highest SES quintile). Univariable and multivariable analyses were used to examine the associations between: 1) SES and mammogram screening and breast cancer treatments, and 2) SES and OS. RESULTS In total, 34,776 patients with breast cancer who had information on disease stage available at diagnosis were identified. Seventy-six percent of women were aged >50 years. Patients with higher SES were more likely to be diagnosed at an earlier stage (Q5 [44.3%] vs Q1 [37.7%]; odds ratio [OR], 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.23-1.41; P < .0001) and also were more likely to receive adjuvant chemotherapy (Q5 vs Q1: OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.10-1.26; P < .0001) and radiotherapy (Q5 vs Q1: OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.15-1.33; P < .0001). The 5-year OS rates for Q1 through Q5 were 80%, 81%, 82.2%, 83.9%, and 85.7%, respectively (P < .0001). After adjusting for patient demographics, cancer stage at diagnosis, adjuvant chemotherapy, trastuzumab, radiotherapy and surgery types, higher SES remained associated with better OS (P = .0017). CONCLUSIONS In a universal health care system, higher SES is associated with greater screening and treatments and with better OS after adjusting for screening, cancer stage at diagnosis, and treatments. Cancer 2015. © 2015 American Cancer Society.

BACKGROUND. Sequential tamoxifen/exemestane therapy reportedly improves disease-free survival in women with primary breast cancer compared with continued tamoxifen therapy. The objective of the current study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of switching to exemestane after 2 to 3 years of tamoxifen versus continued tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with primary breast cancer for a total of 5 years of adjuvant therapy. METHODS. A Markov model based on the Intergroup Exemestane Study (IES) population compared switching to exemestane versus continued tamoxifen for 2.5 years of therapy and 5 years of postadjuvant therapy follow-up. Disease progression and hazards ratios (HR) for recurrence and survival were determined from datasets (IES and the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program of the National Cancer Institute) and from the published literature. An expert panel validated treatment patterns, outcomes, and resource utilization. Direct medical costs were included based on published sources. Cost-effectiveness ratios were determined, and extensive sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS. Exemestane was found to be more effective than tamoxifen alone with regard to disease-free survival (2.6% absolute improvement), life-years gained (0.1028 LY), and quality-adjusted life-years gained (0.1195 QALY), at an additional cost of Can$2889 per person over 7.5 years. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were Can$28,119/LY gained and Can$24,185/QALY gained. The model was most sensitive to distant recurrence HR but was robust to variations in clinical, cost, and utility parameters. CONCLUSIONS. Switching to adjuvant exemestane after 2 to 3 years of tamoxifen is cost-effective in postmenopausal women with primary breast cancer. Cancer 2007. © 2007 American Cancer Society.