Search

Purpose: We determine how stakeholders prioritize the importance of oncologic outcomes, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and cancer-related health care costs., Methods: A survey was distributed to the National Clinical Trials Network Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology cooperative group membership from May 14 to June 30, 2022. Respondents were asked to rate (5-point Likert scale) and rank (1-9) evidence-based value domains: overall survival, treatment toxicities/complications, quality of life (QOL), financial toxicity, access to care, compliance with evidence-based care, health system performance, scientific discovery and innovation, and cost to the health care system., Results: A total of 514 members responded, including researchers (24.7%), nurses (19.5%), medical oncologists (17.9%), administrators (9.3%), surgical and radiation oncologists (9.1%), patient advocates (3.1%), and nonphysician providers (16.4%). Participants represented various practice settings including National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers (29.8%), university-affiliated academic cancer centers (21%), hospital-owned oncology practices (21.8%), and others (27.4%). There was agreement in how respondents prioritized value domains (W = 0.39, P < .001). Respondents ranked patient QOL (mean rank: 2.6 ± 1.9) as most important above all other metrics including survival (mean rank: 3.5 ± 0.3) and access to care (mean rank: 3.5 ± 2.1; P < .001). Members engaged in direct patient care also ranked access to care of higher importance than nonclinicians ( P = .026). Cost to the health care system (mean rank: 7.5 ± 2.1) and health system performance (mean rank: 7 ± 2) were ranked as least important ( P < .001). Inclusion of PROs into therapeutic assessment (59.3%) was the most frequently selected priority of future cooperative group initiatives., Conclusion: Oncology community stakeholders deemed patient-centered value domains as most important and considered patient QOL the highest priority. Inclusion of PROs into clinical trials was endorsed as an important component of therapeutic assessment. These findings can be taken into consideration when creating a value framework for inclusion in cancer clinical trials.

Background Context: Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) represents the most common cause of non-traumatic spinal cord impairment in adults. Surgery has been shown to improve neurologic symptoms and functional status, but it is costly. As sustainability concerns in the field of health care rise, the value of care has come to the forefront of policy decision-making. Evidence for both health-related quality of life outcomes and financial expenditures is needed to inform resource allocation decisions., Purpose: This study aimed to estimate the lifetime incremental cost-utility of surgical treatment for DCM., Design/setting: This is a prospective observational cohort study at a Canadian tertiary care facility., Patient Sample: We recruited all patients undergoing surgery for DCM at a single center between 2005 and 2011 who were enrolled in either the AOSpine Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy (CSM)-North America study or the AOSpine CSM-International study., Outcome Measures: Health utility was measured at baseline and at 6, 12, and 24 months following surgery using the Short Form-6D (SF-6D) health utility score. Resource expenditures were calculated on an individual level, from the hospital payer perspective over the 24-month follow-up period. All costs were obtained from a micro-cost database maintained by the institutional finance department and reported in Canadian dollars, inflated to January 2015 values., Methods: Quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains for the study period were determined using an area under the curve calculation with a linear interpolation estimate. Lifetime incremental cost-to-utility ratios (ICUR) for surgery were estimated using a Markov state transition model. Structural uncertainty arising from lifetime extrapolation and the single-arm cohort design of the study were accounted for by constructing two models. The first included a highly conservative assumption that individuals undergoing nonoperative management would not experience any lifetime neurologic decline. This constraint was relaxed in the second model to permit more general parameters based on the established natural history. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were employed to account for parameter uncertainty. All QALY gains and costs were discounted at a base of 3% per annum. Statistical significance was set at the .05 level., Results: The analysis included 171 patients; follow-up was 96.5%. Mean age was 58.2±12.0 years and baseline health utility was 0.56±0.14. Mean QALY gained over the 24-month study period was 0.139 (95% confidence interval: 0.109-0.170, p<.001) and the mean 2-year cost of treatment was $19,217.82±12,404.23. Cost associated with the operation comprised 65.7% of the total. The remainder was apportioned over presurgical preparation and postsurgical recovery. Three patients required a reoperation over the 2-year follow-up period. The costs of revision surgery represented 1.85% of the total costs. Using the conservative model structure, the estimated lifetime ICUR of surgical intervention was $20,547.84/QALY gained, with 94.7% of estimates falling within the World Health Organization definition of "very cost-effective" ($54,000 CAD). Using the more general model structure, the estimated lifetime ICUR of surgical intervention was $11,496.02/QALY gained, with 97.9% of estimates meeting the criteria to be considered "very cost-effective.", Conclusions: Surgery for DCM is associated with a significant quality of life improvement. The intervention is cost-effective and, from the perspective of the hospital payer, should be supported., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)