The Economic Burden of Cancer

Background: Cancer is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in the world. Its growing incidence and prevalence, as well as the advances in diagnostic and treatment tools, motivate an open debate about the economic burden it may place on health systems and have raised concerns about access to this technological innovation. There is a lack of information on the detailed costs of pharmacological treatment of cancer in our health setting. In this context, it is necessary to know the use of drugs in cancer treatment in conditions of real clinical practice. A real-word, evidence-based retrospective cohort study was conducted at Vall d’Hebron University Hospital (VHUH), the largest hospital complex in Catalonia, Spain, in order to determine the use of drugs and the associated cost in real clinical practice for the treatment of solid tumors in adult patients attended at this institution over 10 years (2010–2019). Methods: This was a single-center retrospective cohort study of adult cancer patients attended in clinical practice at the Medical Oncology Department of VHUH between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2019. Data of prescription, preparation, and cost of antineoplastic treatments were analyzed by pharmacological class (cytotoxic drugs, immunotherapy, targeted therapy, radiopharmaceuticals, and others), by antineoplastic agent, and by type of tumor. The number of patients and the pharmaceutical expenditure corresponding to all these subgroups were recorded. The cost per patient in each tumor location was also calculated. Results: The study population included 13,209 patients with an overall pharmaceutical antineoplastic expenditure of EUR 120,396,097, increasing from 7.67% in relation to the total HUVH pharmaceutical expenditure in 2010 to 12.82% in 2019. By pharmacological class, the specific weight of the cost of targeted therapy is relevant (75.22% of pharmaceutical antineoplastic expenditure, 21.3% of patients) compared to the group of conventional cytotoxics (17.25% of pharmaceutical antineoplastic expenditure, 76.37% of patients), while immunotherapy has represented the largest relative increase, from 5% in 2014 to 12% in 2019. Eight targeted therapy drugs represented 50% of the costs of the targeted therapy drug class (palbociclib, trastuzumab, pertuzumab, bevacizumab, nivolumab, cetuximab, pembrolizumab, and trastuzumab emtansine). Eleven tumor sites accounted for 90% of the expenditure in 71% of all patients. Breast cancer had the highest expenditure during the study period (EUR 34,332,210) and at each individual year. Melanoma showed the highest increase, with 9.7% of total pharmaceutical antineoplastic expenditure in 2019 (2% of patients), representing a paradigm of the rising costs of cancer treatment due to the incorporation of new high-cost therapies. The average annual cost per patient was highly variable depending on the pathology. There was a growing increase in costs per patient in most tumor locations, particularly in patients with melanoma (from EUR 1922 in 2010 to EUR 37,020 in 2019), prostate cancer (from EUR 2992 in 2010 to EUR 14,118 in 2019), and non-small cell lung cancer (from EUR 3545 in 2010 to EUR 8371 in 2019). The relevance of the difference in monthly cost per patient that has been identified for the different intrinsic subtypes in breast cancer patients during 2019 (HER2+ EUR 2661/month, Luminal EUR 881/month, Triple negative EUR 386/month) makes us consider suggesting differentiated reimbursement rates for certain clinical conditions. Finally, support treatment with antiemetic drugs, erythropoietin stimulating agents, granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), and bone resorption inhibitors has involved a cost of EUR 5,751,910, which represents 4.6% of the overall pharmacological cost of cancer treatment. Conclusion: This study provides detailed insights on the oncological pharmaceutical expenditure for the treatment for solid tumors in the VHUH, based on real cost information from our hospital practice and for all antineoplastic therapies and types of solid tumors. This type of information on all the different types of cancer can be useful to better understand the economic burden of the disease and can be decisive for allocating public resources and funds for research, especially in those areas where information is scarce and therefore where further studies are needed. The contribution to knowledge of the cost of oncology therapy is of great value due to its realism and scope. Full article

Background: Breast cancer (BC) treatment is rapidly evolving with new and costly therapeutics. Existing costing models have a limited ability to capture current treatment costs. We used an Activity-Based Costing (ABC) method to determine a per-case cost for BC treatment by stage and molecular subtype. Methods: ABC was used to proportionally integrate multidisciplinary evidence-based patient and provider treatment options for BC, yielding a per-case cost for the total duration of treatment by stage and molecular subtype. Diagnostic imaging, pathology, surgery, radiation therapy, systemic therapy, inpatient, emergency, home care and palliative care costs were included. Results: BC treatment costs were higher than noted in previous studies and varied widely by molecular subtype. Cost increased exponentially with the stage of disease. The per-case cost for treatment (2023C$) for DCIS was C$ 14,505, and the mean costs for all subtypes were C$ 39,263, C$ 76,446, C$ 97,668 and C$ 370,398 for stage I, II, III and IV BC, respectively. Stage IV costs were as high as C$ 516,415 per case. When weighted by the proportion of molecular subtype in the population, case costs were C$ 31,749, C$ 66,758, C$ 111,368 and C$ 289,598 for stage I, II, III and IV BC, respectively. The magnitude of cost differential was up to 10.9 times for stage IV compared to stage I, 4.4 times for stage III compared to stage I and 35.6 times for stage IV compared to DCIS. Conclusion: The cost of BC treatment is rapidly escalating with novel therapies and increasing survival, resulting in an exponential increase in treatment costs for later-stage disease. We provide real-time, case-based costing for BC treatment which will allow for the assessment of health system economic impacts and an accurate understanding of the cost-effectiveness of screening. Full article

The evidence base to support reimbursement decision making for oncology drugs is often based on short-term follow-up trial data, and attempts to address this uncertainty are not typically undertaken once a reimbursement decision is made. To address this gap, we sought to conduct a reassessment of an oncology drug (pembrolizumab) for patients with advanced melanoma which was approved based on interim data with a median 7.9 months of follow-up and for which long-term data have since been published. We developed a three-health-state partitioned survival model based on the phase 3 KEYNOTE-006 clinical trial data using patient-level data reconstruction techniques based on an interim analysis. We used a standard survival analysis and parametric curve fitting techniques to extrapolate beyond the trial follow-up time, and the model structure and inputs were derived from the literature. Five-year long-term follow-up data from the trial were then used to re-evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab for treatment of advanced melanoma. The best fitting parametric curves and corresponding survival extrapolations for reconstructed interim data and long-term data reconstructed from KEYNOTE-006 were different. An analysis of the 5 year long-term follow-up data generated a base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) that was 28% higher than the ICER based on interim trial data. Our findings suggest that there may be a trade-off between certainty and the ICER. Conducting health technology re-assessments of certain oncology products on the basis of longer-term data availability, especially for those health technology adoption decisions made based on immature clinical data, may be of value to decision makers. Full article

Background: Continuous oral targeted therapies (OTT) represent a major economic burden on the Canadian healthcare system, due to their high cost and administration until disease progression/toxicity. The recent introduction of venetoclax-based fixed-duration combination therapies has the potential to reduce such costs. This study aims to estimate the prevalence and the cost of CLL in Canada with the introduction of fixed OTT. Methods: A state transition Markov model was developed and included five health states: watchful waiting, first-line treatment, relapsed/refractory treatment, and death. The number of CLL patients and total cost associated with CLL management in Canada for both continuous- and fixed-treatment-duration OTT were projected from 2020 to 2025. Costs included drug acquisition, follow-up/monitoring, adverse event, and palliative care. Results: The CLL prevalence in Canada is projected to increase from 15,512 to 19,517 between 2020 and 2025. Annual costs were projected at C$880.7 and C$703.1 million in 2025, for continuous and fixed OTT scenarios, respectively. Correspondingly, fixed OTT would provide a total cost reduction of C$213.8 million (5.94%) from 2020 to 2025, compared to continuous OTT. Conclusions: Fixed OTT is expected to result in major reductions in cost burden over the 5-year projection, compared to continuous OTT. Full article