Health-care cost growth is unsustainable, and the current level of spending is harming our economy and our patients. This commentary describes the scope of the health-care spending problem and the particular factors in cancer care that contribute to the problem, reflecting in part presentations and discussions from an Institute of Medicine National Cancer Policy Forum Workshop held in October 2012. Presenters at the workshop identified a number of steps that the oncology community can take to reduce the rate of growth in cancer-care costs while maintaining or improving upon the quality of care. This commentary aims to highlight opportunities for the oncology community to take a leadership role in delivering affordable, high-quality cancer care.

Purpose

Information is limited about adherence to practice guidelines in patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), or HIV infection receiving anticancer treatment.

Methods

Newly diagnosed adult cancer patients were enrolled in a multicenter, prospective cohort study (SWOG S1204) during 2013-2017 to evaluate the prevalence of HBV, HCV, or HIV in patients initiating anticancer treatment. At 6 months, records of virus-positive patients were reviewed for antiviral therapy use; anticancer treatment dose reduction; and HBV reactivation (elevated viral load). Categorical variables were compared using chi-square or Fisher's exact test.

Results

Of 3055 enrolled patients with viral testing, 230 had chronic or past HBV, HCV, or HIV with 6-month follow-up data (chronic HBV, 15 patients; past HBV, 158; HCV, 49; HIV, 30). Twenty percent (3/15) of chronic HBV and 11% (17/158) of past HBV patients were co-infected with HCV and/or HIV. Rates of antiviral therapy use by 6 months were as follows: chronic HBV, 85% (11/13); past HBV receiving anti-B cell therapy, 60% (3/5); past HBV receiving systemic anticancer therapy without anti-B cell therapy, 8% (8/105); HCV, 6% (2/35); and HIV, 90% (19/21). Among patients with available data, anticancer treatment dose was reduced in 1 of 145 patients with past HBV and 1 of 42 with HCV. HBV reactivation occurred in 1 of 15 patients with chronic HBV; this patient was not receiving antiviral therapy.

Conclusion

Many patients with cancer and viral infections either do not receive guideline-recommended antiviral treatment or receive antiviral treatment that is not recommended in guidelines. Further education is needed to improve adherence to guidelines.

Purpose

We sought to compare the economic impact of treatment-related adverse events (AEs) in patients with metastatic breast cancer (mBC) using taxane- or capecitabine-based treatment regimens as either first- or second-line (FL or SL) therapy in the US.

Methods

We used healthcare claims data from the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan® Commercial Databases to conduct a retrospective cohort study comparing the economic impact of AEs amongst taxane- and capecitabine-treated mBC patients in the US. We selected women diagnosed with mBC between 2008-2010 who received a taxane or capecitabine as first- or second-line (FL or SL) chemotherapy. Costs related to hospitalization, outpatient services, emergency department visits, chemotherapy and other medications were tabulated and combined to determine total healthcare costs. The incremental monthly costs associated with the presence of AEs compared to no AEs were estimated using generalized linear models, controlling for age and Charlson Comorbidity Index.

Results

We identified 15,443 mBC patients meeting inclusion criteria. Adjusted total monthly costs were significantly higher in those who experienced AEs than in those without AEs in both lines of treatment (FL incremental cost: taxanes $1,142, capecitabine $1,817; SL incremental cost: taxanes $1,448, capecitabine $4,437). Total costs increased with the number of AEs and were primarily driven by increased hospitalization amongst those with AEs.

Conclusions

Adverse events in taxane- or capecitabine-treated mBC patients are associated with significant increases in costs. Selecting treatment options associated with fewer AEs may reduce costs and improve outcomes in these patients.

Health-related social needs are prevalent among cancer patients; associated with substantial negative health consequences; and drive pervasive inequities in cancer incidence, severity, treatment choices and decisions, and outcomes. To address the lack of clinical trial evidence to guide health-related social needs interventions among cancer patients, the National Cancer Institute Cancer Care Delivery Research Steering Committee convened experts to participate in a clinical trials planning meeting with the goal of designing studies to screen for and address health-related social needs among cancer patients. In this commentary, we discuss the rationale for, and challenges of, designing and testing health-related social needs interventions in alignment with the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 5As framework. Evidence for food, housing, utilities, interpersonal safety, and transportation health-related social needs interventions is analyzed. Evidence regarding health-related social needs and delivery of health-related social needs interventions differs in maturity and applicability to cancer context, with transportation problems having the most maturity and interpersonal safety the least. We offer practical recommendations for health-related social needs interventions among cancer patients and the caregivers, families, and friends who support their health-related social needs. Cross-cutting (ie, health-related social needs agnostic) recommendations include leveraging navigation (eg, people, technology) to identify, refer, and deliver health-related social needs interventions; addressing health-related social needs through multilevel interventions; and recognizing that health-related social needs are states, not traits, that fluctuate over time. Health-related social needs-specific interventions are recommended, and pros and cons of addressing more than one health-related social needs concurrently are characterized. Considerations for collaborating with community partners are highlighted. The need for careful planning, strong partners, and funding is stressed. Finally, we outline a future research agenda to address evidence gaps.

Approaches to reduce the global burden of cancer include two major strategies: screening and early detection and active preventive intervention. The latter is the topic of this Commentary and spans a broad range of activities. The genetic heterogeneity and complexity of advanced cancers strongly support the rationale for early interruption of the carcinogenic process and an enhanced focus on prevention as a priority strategy to reduce the burden of cancer; however, the focus of cancer prevention management should be on individuals at high risk and on primary localized disease in which screening and detection should also play a vital role. The timing and dose of (chemo-)preventive intervention also affects response. The intervention may be ineffective if the target population is very high risk or already presenting with preneoplastic lesions with cellular changes that cannot be reversed. The field needs to move beyond general concepts of carcinogenesis to targeted organ site prevention approaches in patients at high risk, as is currently being done for breast and colorectal cancers. Establishing the benefit of new cancer preventive interventions will take years and possibly decades, depending on the outcome being evaluated. We also propose that comparative effectiveness research designs and the value of information obtained from large-scale prevention studies are necessary in order for preventive interventions to become a routine part of cancer management.

Background

Donors are deferred for multiple reasons. Losses related to disease marker rates are well established. Donor and donation losses for other reasons, however, have not been extensively quantified.

Study design and methods

To quantify these losses, three data sets from the Blood Centers of the Pacific were combined, permitting detailed analysis of year 2000 allogeneic whole-blood donations.

Results

During 2000, 13.6 percent of 116,165 persons who presented for donation were deferred at presentation. Short-term deferral accounted for 68.5 percent (hematocrit was most common at 60%); long-term deferral accounted for 21 percent (travel to a malarial area and tattoo or other nonintravenous drug use needle exposure were most common at 59 and 29%, respectively); and multiple-year or permanent deferral accounted for 10.5 percent (UK travel [variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease] risk and emigration from a malarial area were most common at 38 and 11%, respectively). Disease-marker-reactive donations represented 0.9 percent of donor outcomes. The prevalence of deferral and also miscollection (under- and overweight units) varied by age, sex, and first-time versus repeat donor status. Overall, miscollection led to a loss of 3.8 percent of 100,141 collections, ranging from 1.9 percent in repeat male donors 40 to 54 years of age to 10.7 percent in first-time female donors 16 to 24 years of age.

Conclusion

Loss of units from both first-time and repeat donors due to temporary deferral and loss of units from miscollection are more common events than losses due to disease marker testing. Some of these losses may be avoidable and could increase the blood supply without having to recruit new donors.

Recommendations for universal screening of patients with cancer for hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) are inconsistent. A recent multisite screening study (S1204) from the SWOG Cancer Research Network found that a substantial number of patients with newly diagnosed cancer had previously unknown viral infections. The objective of this study was to determine the cost-efficiency of universal screening of patients with newly diagnosed cancer. We estimated the cost-efficiency of universal screening of new cancer cases for HBV, HCV, or HIV, expressed as cost per virus detected, from the health care payer perspective. The prevalence of each virus among this cohort was derived from S1204. Direct medical expenditures included costs associated with laboratory screening tests. Costs per case detected were estimated for each screening strategy. Secondary analysis examined the cost-efficiency of screening patients whose viral status at cancer diagnosis was unknown. Among the possible options for universal screening, screening for HBV alone ($581), HCV alone ($782), HBV and HCV ($631) and HBV, HCV, and HIV ($841) were most efficient in terms of cost per case detected. When screening was restricted to patients with unknown viral status, screening for HBV alone ($684), HBV and HCV ($872), HBV and HIV ($1,157), and all three viruses ($1,291) were most efficient in terms of cost per newly detected case. Efficient viral testing strategies represent a relatively modest addition to the overall cost of managing a patient with cancer. Screening for HBV, HCV, and HIV infections may be reasonable from both a budget and clinical standpoint.

Significance

Screening patients with cancer for HBV, HCV, and HIV is inconsistent in clinical practice despite national recommendations and known risks of complications from viral infection. Our study shows that while costs of viral screening strategies vary by choice of tests, they present a modest addition to the cost of managing a patient with cancer.

Study objectives

We conducted an economic analysis of the HomePAP study, a multicenter randomized clinical trial that compared home-based versus laboratory-based testing for the diagnosis and management of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).

Design

A cost-minimization analysis from the payer and provider perspectives was performed, given that 3-mo clinical outcomes were equivalent.

Setting

Seven academic sleep centers.

Participants

There were 373 subjects at high risk for moderate to severe OSA.

Interventions

Subjects were randomized to either home-based limited channel portable monitoring followed by unattended autotitration with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), versus a traditional pathway of in-laboratory sleep study and CPAP titration.

Measurements and results

From the payer perspective, per subject costs for the laboratory-based pathway were $1,840 (95% confidence interval [CI] $1,660, $2,015) compared to $1,575 (95% CI $1,439, $1,716) for the home-based pathway under the base case. Costs were $264 (95% CI $39, $496, P = 0.02) in favor of the home arm. From the provider perspective, per subject costs for the laboratory arm were $1,697 (95% CI $1,566, $1,826) compared to $1,736 (95% CI $1,621, $1,857) in the home arm, for a difference of $40 (95% CI -$213, $142, P = 0.66) in favor of the laboratory arm under the base case. The provider operating margin was $142 (95% CI $85, $202,P < 0.01) in the laboratory arm, compared to a loss of -$161 (95% CI -$202, -$120, P < 0.01) in the home arm.

Conclusions

For payers, a home-based diagnostic pathway for obstructive sleep apnea with robust patient support incurs fewer costs than a laboratory-based pathway. For providers, costs are comparable if not higher, resulting in a negative operating margin.

Clinicaltrialsgov identifier

NCT00642486.

Purpose

To evaluate the effectiveness of combined biennial digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening, compared with biennial digital mammography screening alone, among women with dense breasts.

Materials and methods

An established, discrete-event breast cancer simulation model was used to estimate the comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of biennial screening with both digital mammography and tomosynthesis versus digital mammography alone among U.S. women aged 50-74 years with dense breasts from a federal payer perspective and a lifetime horizon. Input values were estimated for test performance, costs, and health state utilities from the National Cancer Institute Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, Medicare reimbursement rates, and medical literature. Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the implications of varying key model parameters, including combined screening sensitivity and specificity, transient utility decrement of diagnostic work-up, and additional cost of tomosynthesis.

Results

For the base-case analysis, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained by adding tomosynthesis to digital mammography screening was $53 893. An additional 0.5 deaths were averted and 405 false-positive findings avoided per 1000 women after 12 rounds of screening. Combined screening remained cost-effective (less than $100 000 per quality-adjusted life year gained) over a wide range of incremental improvements in test performance. Overall, cost-effectiveness was most sensitive to the additional cost of tomosynthesis.

Conclusion

Biennial combined digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening for U.S. women aged 50-74 years with dense breasts is likely to be cost-effective if priced appropriately (up to $226 for combined examinations vs $139 for digital mammography alone) and if reported interpretive performance metrics of improved specificity with tomosynthesis are met in routine practice.

Background

SWOG initiated a cancer care delivery research study of virus infection rates among newly diagnosed cancer patients. This study will inform viral screening guidelines in oncology clinics.

Methods

In a first step 'vanguard' phase, we evaluated the feasibility of multiple study procedures. Site investigators were surveyed to obtain feedback on study implementation.

Results

Much higher enrollment occurred at sites where all physicians participated and viral testing was performed as routine practice. These procedures will be required going forward. Additional protocol changes based on site investigator input were implemented.

Conclusion

This multistep protocol design process illustrates how cancer care delivery research studies can adapt to real-world strategies and procedures that exist at community clinics where the predominance of cancer patients are treated.