Search

BACKGROUND: This study shows how dynamic simulation modeling can be applied in the context of the nationwide implementation of Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) to inform organizational decisions regarding the use of complex and disruptive health technologies and how these decisions affect their potential value. METHODS: Using the case of the nationwide implementation of WGS into clinical practice in lung cancer in the Dutch healthcare system, we developed a simulation model to show that including service delivery features across the diagnostic pathway can provide essential insight into the affordability and accessibility of care at the systems level. The model was implemented as a hybrid Agent-Based Model and Discrete-Event Simulation model in AnyLogic and included 78 hospital agents, 7 molecular tumor board agents, 1 WGS facility agent, and 5313 patient agents each year in simulation time. RESULTS: The model included patient and provider heterogeneity, including referral patterns, capacity constraints, and diagnostic workflows. Patient preference and adoption by healthcare professionals were also modeled. The model was used to analyze a scenario in which only academic hospitals have implemented WGS. To prevent delays in the diagnostic pathway, the capacity to sequence at least 1600 biopsies yearly should be present. There is a two-fold increase in mean diagnostic pathway duration between no patients referred or all patients referred for further diagnostics. CONCLUSIONS: The systems model can complement conventional health economic evaluations to investigate how the organization of the workflow can influence the actual use and impact of WGS. Insufficient capacity to provide WGS and referral patterns can substantially impact the duration of the diagnostic pathway and thus should be considered in the implementation of WGS.

The continued introduction of biomarkers and innovative testing methods makes already complex diagnosis in patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) even more complex. This study primarily analyzed variations in biomarker testing in clinical practice in patients referred to a comprehensive cancer center in the Netherlands. The secondary aim was to compare the cost of biomarker testing with the cost of whole-genome sequencing. The cohort included 102 stage IV NSCLC patients who received biomarker testing in 2017 or 2018 at the comprehensive cancer center. The complete biomarker testing history of the cohort was identified using linked data from the comprehensive cancer center and the nationwide network and registry of histopathology and cytopathology in the Netherlands. Unique biomarker-test combinations, costs, turnaround times, and test utilization were examined. The results indicate substantial variation in test utilization and sequences. The mean cost per patient of biomarker testing was 2259.92 ± 1217.10 USD, or 1881.23 ± 1013.15 EUR. Targeted gene panels were most frequently conducted, followed by IHC analysis for programmed cell death protein ligand 1. Typically, the most common biomarkers were assessed within the first tests, and emerging biomarkers were tested further down the test sequence. At the cost of current biomarker testing, replacing current testing with whole-genome sequencing would have led to cost-savings in only two patients (2%).

Objectives: To evaluate the effects of exercise interventions on sleep disturbances and sleep quality in patients with mixed cancer diagnoses, and identify demographic, clinical, and intervention-related moderators of these effects. Methods: Individual patient data (IPD) and aggregated meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Using data from the Predicting OptimaL cAncer RehabIlitation and Supportive care project, IPD of 2173 adults (mean age = 54.8) with cancer from 17 RCTs were analyzed. A complementary systematic search was conducted (until November 2018) to study the overall effects and test the representativeness of analyzed IPD. Effect sizes of exercise effects on self-reported sleep outcomes were calculated for all included RCTs. Linear mixed-effect models were used to evaluate the effects of exercise on post-intervention outcome values, adjusting for baseline values. Moderator effects were studied by testing interactions for demographic, clinical and intervention-related characteristics. Results: For all 27 eligible RCTs from the updated search, exercise interventions significantly decreased sleep disturbances in adults with cancer (g = −0.09, 95% CI [−0.16; −0.02]). No significant effect was obtained for sleep quality. RCTs included in IPD analyses constituted a representative sample of the published literature. The intervention effects on sleep disturbances were not significantly moderated by any demographic, clinical, or intervention-related factor, nor by sleep disturbances. Conclusions: This meta-analysis provides some evidence that, compared to control conditions, exercise interventions may improve sleep disturbances, but not sleep quality, in cancer patients, although this effect is of a small magnitude. Among the investigated variables, none was found to significantly moderate the effect of exercise interventions on sleep disturbances.

Recently, NICE was given the task of governing the Cancer Drug Fund (CDF) in the UK as the latter was criticized for allowing too many insufficiently tested drugs to be covered [1, 2]. The CDF was initiated in 2012, but immediately received criticism from several health economists because of the rather strict coverage criteria that are commonly used by NICE for most other health services in the NHS. This led to questions about the use of different reimbursement criteria (why have a different fund otherwise?) for expensive cancer drugs. Such a separate fund would potentially take away large amounts of the collective health budget. This led to questions about the use of different reimbursement criteria (why have a different fund otherwise?) for expensive cancer drugs compared to other technologies. This is just one example of discussions that are taking place in many countries on the issue of drug coverage policies. This development takes place against a background of increasingly intense discussion on pricing and affordability of (new) cancer drugs, the responsible behavior of pharmaceutical companies that spend public resources for R&D, and the lack of transparency in pricing and R&D expenditure in combination with profit margins of sometimes up to 20%. We argue that Real-World Evidence (RWE) may play a much greater and, on occasion, pivotal role in developing sustainable cancer care, because it allows much better estimates of actual drug use and costs and increases transparency in health outcomes.

Comprehensive Cancer Centres (CCCs) serve as critical drivers for improving cancer survival. In Europe, we have developed an Excellence Designation System (EDS) consisting of criteria to assess "excellence" of CCCs in translational research (bench to bedside and back), with the expectation that many European CCCs will aspire to this status. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Federation of European Biochemical Societies.

The 2014 OECI Oncology Days was held at the 'Prof. Dr. Ion Chiricuta' Oncology Institute in Cluj, Romania, from 12 to 13 June. The focus of this year's gathering was on developments in personalised medicine and other treatment advances which have made the cost of cancer care too high for many regions throughout Europe.

Cancer care is undergoing an important paradigm shift from a disease-focused management to a patient-centred approach, in which increasingly more attention is paid to psychosocial aspects, quality of life, patients' rights and empowerment and survivorship. In this context, multidisciplinary teams emerge as a practical necessity for optimal coordination among health professionals and clear communication with patients. The European Partnership for Action Against Cancer (EPAAC), an initiative launched by the European Commission in 2009, addressed the multidisciplinary care from a policy perspective in order to define the core elements that all tumour-based multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) should include. To that effect, a working group conference was held in January 2013 within the EPAAC Work Package 7 (on Healthcare) framework.