Search

BackgroundEconomic evaluations commonly accompany trials of new treatments or interventions; however, regression methods and their corresponding advantages for the analysis of cost-effectiveness data are not widely appreciated.MethodsTo illustrate regression-based economic evaluation, we review a cost-effectiveness analysis conducted by the Canadian Cancer Trials Group's Committee on Economic Analysis and implement net benefit regression.ResultsNet benefit regression offers a simple option for cost-effectiveness analyses of person-level data. By placing economic evaluation in a regression framework, regression-based techniques can facilitate the analysis and provide simple solutions to commonly encountered challenges (e.g., the need to adjust for potential confounders, identify key patient subgroups, and/or summarize "challenging" findings, like when a more effective regimen has the potential to be cost-saving).ConclusionsEconomic evaluations of patient-level data (e.g., from a clinical trial) can use net benefit regression to facilitate analysis and enhance results.

Background This study assessed health care system costs and resource utilization for adult women with breast cancer in Ontario, Canada. The goal was to update costs by stage, age, and phase of care from a health care system perspective. Data and methods A retrospective analysis was conducted using linked population-based administrative data. The study included women diagnosed with breast cancer from 2017 to 2021, with follow-up data until 2022. Cases were matched with controls in a 1:5 ratio using birth year, local health integrative network, income quintile, and resource utilization band at baseline. Incremental costs were estimated using linear regression. The modified income quintile was the neighbourhood- or area-level income quintile. Results Among the 37,133 cases matched with 185,665 controls, the average age at diagnosis was 62 years. For the entire study duration, cases incurred an additional cost of $27,485 per year, compared with controls. Costs rose with disease severity, ranging from $15,588 for stage I to $137,319 for stage IV. The highest incremental costs occurred during the first 12 months after diagnosis (initial: $43,408), followed by the last 12 months before death (terminal: $25,940), and then interim years (continuous: $9,533 per year). Additionally, the incremental cost of breast cancer was higher when diagnosis was before age 70 ($28,415), compared with diagnosis at age 70 and older ($25,254). Interpretation The findings align with previous studies on breast cancer costs for the health care system. Additionally, variations in costs based on disease severity, care phase, and age were emphasized, highlighting higher costs for metastatic breast cancer cases, women younger than 70 years, and the initial 12 months following diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: There is a current gap in understanding the costs and healthcare resources used related to breast cancer risk assessment and screening. Risk-stratified breast screening overcomes various limitations of age-based screening, and participants are classified based on personalized differences in breast cancer risk. The overall goal of the PERSPECTIVE I&I project was to inform the implementation of more effective strategies of risk assessment for risk-stratified screening and earlier detection of breast cancer. This study appears to be the first to examine the healthcare utilization and costs stratified by the three breast cancer risk levels, determining the economic burden and resource needs linked with different risk categories. This study demonstrated that despite higher screening-related costs for high-risk individuals, overall healthcare costs were comparable across risk categories. Background: A prospective cohort study was undertaken within the PERSPECTIVE I&I project to evaluate healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with breast cancer risk assessment and screening and overall costs stratified by risk level, in Ontario, Canada. Methods: From July 2019 to December 2022, 1997 females aged 50 to 70 years consented to risk assessment and received their breast cancer risk level and personalized screening action plan in Ontario. The mean costs for risk-stratified screening-related activities included risk assessment, screening and diagnostic costs. The GETCOST macro from the Institute of Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) assessed the mean overall healthcare system costs. Results: For the 1997 participants, 83.3%, 14.4% and 2.3% were estimated to be average, higher than average, and high risk, respectively (median age (IQR): 60 [56–64] years). Stratification into the three risk levels was determined using the validated multifactorial CanRisk prediction tool that includes family history information, a polygenic risk score (PRS), breast density and established lifestyle/hormonal risk factors. The mean number of genetic counseling visits, mammograms and MRIs per individual increased with risk level. High-risk participants incurred the highest overall mean risk-stratified screening-related costs in 2022 CAD (±SD) at CAD 905 (±269) followed by CAD 580 (±192) and CAD 521 (±163) for higher-than-average and average-risk participants, respectively. Among the breast screening-related costs, the greatest cost burden across all risk groups was the risk assessment cost, followed by total diagnostic and screening costs. The mean overall healthcare cost per participant (±SD) was the highest for the average risk participants with CAD 6311 (±19,641), followed by higher than average risk with CAD 5391 (±8325) and high risk with CAD 5169 (±7676). Conclusion: Although high-risk participants incurred the highest risk-stratified screening-related costs, their costs for overall healthcare utilization costs were similar to other risk levels. Our study underscored the importance of integrating risk stratification as part of the screening pathway to support breast cancer detection at an earlier and more treatable stage, thereby reducing costs and the overall burden on the healthcare system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Quitting smoking after a diagnosis of cancer results in greater response to treatment and decreased risk of disease recurrence and second primary cancers. The objective of this study was to evaluate the potential cost-effectiveness of two smoking cessation approaches: the current basic smoking cessation program consisting of screening for tobacco use, advice, and referral; and a best practice smoking cessation program that includes the current basic program with the addition of pharmacological therapy, counseling, and follow-up. A Markov model was constructed that followed 65-year-old smokers with cancer over a lifetime horizon. Transition probabilities and mortality estimates were obtained from the published literature. Costs were obtained from standard costing sources in Ontario and reports. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted to address parameter uncertainties. For smokers with cancer, the best practice smoking cessation program was more effective and more costly than the basic smoking cessation program. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the best practice smoking cessation program compared to the basic smoking cessation program was $3367 per QALY gained and $5050 per LY gained for males, and $2050 per QALY gained and $4100 per LY gained for females. Results were most sensitive to the hazard ratio of mortality for former and current smokers, the probability of quitting smoking through participation in the program and smoking-attributable costs. The study results suggested that a best practice smoking cessation program could be a cost-effective option. These findings can support and guide implementation of smoking cessation programs.

BackgroundResource and cost issues are a growing concern in health care. Thus, it is important to have an accurate estimate of the economic burden of care. Previous work has estimated the economic burden of cancer care for Canada; however, there is some concern this estimate is too low. The objective of this analysis was to provide a comprehensive revised estimate of this burden.MethodsWe used a case-control prevalence-based approach to estimate direct annual cancer costs from 2005 to 2012. We used patient-level administrative health care data from Ontario to correctly attribute health care costs to cancer. We employed the net cost method (cost difference between patients with cancer and control subjects without cancer) to account for costs directly and indirectly related to cancer and its sequelae. Using average patient-level cost estimates from Ontario, we applied proportions from national health expenditures data to obtain the economic burden of cancer care for Canada. All costs were adjusted to 2015 Canadian dollars.ResultsCosts of cancer care rose steadily over our analysis period, from $2.9 billion in 2005 to $7.5 billion in 2012, mostly owing to the increase in costs of hospital-based care. Most expenditures for health care services increased over time, with chemotherapy and radiation therapy expenditures accounting for the largest increases over the study period. Our cost estimates were larger than those in the Economic Burden of Illness in Canada 2005-2008 report for every year except 2005 and 2006.InterpretationThe economic burden of cancer care in Canada is substantial. Further research is needed to understand how the economic burden of cancer compares to that of other diseases.

BackgroundThe utilization and costs of home care services provided for people with colorectal cancer is not well-known. We conducted an analysis to determine the utilization and costs of such services associated with each stage of colorectal cancer among patients in the province of Ontario.MethodsWe included cases of colorectal cancer diagnosed in Ontario between Jan. 1, 2005, and Dec. 31, 2009. Data were extracted from the Ontario Cancer Registry and linked to data from a home care administrative database. The types of services used were stratified by stage of disease and by phase of care (initial phase = 180 d after diagnosis, terminal phase = 180 d before death, continuing phase = interval between initial and terminal phases). Overall utilization rates and costs were determined, and regression analysis was used to examine associated factors.ResultsA total of 36 195 patients had colorectal cancer diagnosed during the study period; the median age was 71 (interquartile range 61-79) years. Home care services were provided to 24 641 patients (68.1%). The number of services per patient-year was 27.5, at a cost of $2180 per patient-year. The number of services provided per patient-year increased with increasing disease severity at diagnosis (15.5 at stage I, 25.5 at stage II, 32.5 at stage III and 62.5 at stage IV; 22.6 for unstaged disease). The cost of services per patient-year also increased with disease severity at diagnosis ($1170 at stage I, $1995 at stage II, $2727 at stage III and $5541 at stage IV). Publicly funded home care services and associated costs decreased with increasing income group, but they increased among patients who had a history of high health resource utilization. The mean 30-day cost of home care services decreased from the initial phase of care ($323) to the continuing phase ($160) but increased during the terminal phase ($616).InterpretationMore than two-thirds of the patients with colorectal cancer in this study used home care services. Those who received home care services used about 2 services per month in a one-year period, at a cost of about $2000 per year. This information can aid policy-makers in future decisions regarding resource allocations.