Dataset Information

Understanding the costs of cancer care before and after diagnosis for the 21 most common cancers in Ontario: a population-based descriptive study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The first year after cancer diagnosis is a period of intensive treatment and high cost. We sought to estimate costs for the 21 most common cancers in Ontario in the 3-month period before and the first year after diagnosis.

Methods

We used the Ontario Cancer Registry to select patients who received diagnoses between 1997 and 2007 at 19 years of age or older, with valid International Classification of Diseases for Oncology (ICD-O) and histology codes, who survived 30 days or longer after diagnosis and had no second cancer within 90 days of the initial cancer (n = 402 399). We used linked administrative data to calculate mean costs for each cancer during the pre- and postdiagnosis periods for patients who died within 1 year after diagnosis and patients who survived beyond 1 year after diagnosis.

Results

Mean prediagnosis costs were $2060 (95% confidence interval [CI] $2023-$2098) for all patients with cancer. Costs ranged from $890 (95% CI $795-$985) for melanoma to $4128 (95% CI $3591-$4664) for liver cancer among patients who survived beyond 1 year after diagnosis, and ranged from $2188 (95% CI $2040-$2336) for esophageal cancer to $5142 (95% CI $4664-$5620) for multiple myeloma among patients who died within 1 year. The mean postdiagnosis cost for our cohort was $25 914 (95% CI $25 782-$26 046). Mean costs were lowest for melanoma ($8611 [95% CI $8221-$9001]) and highest for esophageal cancer ($50 620 [95% CI $47 677-$53 562] among patients who survived beyond 1 year after diagnosis, and ranged from $27 560 (95% CI $25 747-$29 373) for liver cancer to $81 655 (95% CI $58 361-$104 949) for testicular cancer among patients who died within 1 year.

Interpretation

Our research provides cancer-related cost estimates for the pre- and postdiagnosis phases and offers insight into the economic burden incurred by the Ontario health care system. These estimates can help inform policy-makers' decisions regarding resource allocation for cancer prevention and control, and can serve as important input for economic evaluations.

SUBMITTER: de Oliveira C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3985946 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Previous costing and resource estimates for cancer have not been complete owing to lack of comprehensive data on cancer-related medication and radiation treatment. Our objective was to calculate the mean overall costs per patient of cancer-related medications and radiation, as well as by disease subtype and stage, in the first year after diagnosis for the 4 most prevalent cancers in Ontario. METHODS:We conducted a retrospective cohort study using provincial health administrative databases to identify population health system resources and costs for all patients diagnosed with breast, colorectal, lung or prostate cancer between Jan. 1, 2010, and Dec. 31, 2015 in Ontario. The primary outcome measure was the overall average cost per patient in the 365 days after diagnosis for cancer-related medications and radiation treatment, calculated with the use of 2 novel costing algorithms. We determined the cost by disease, disease subtype and stage as secondary outcomes. RESULTS:There were 168 316 Ontarians diagnosed with cancer during the study period, 50 141 with breast cancer, 38 108 with colorectal cancer, 34 809 with lung cancer and 45 258 with prostate cancer. The mean per-patient cost for cancer-related medications was $8167 (95% confidence interval [CI] $8023-$8311), $6568 (95% CI $6446-$6691), $2900 (95% CI $2816-$2984) and $1211 (95% CI $1175-$1247) for breast, colorectal, lung and prostate cancer, respectively. The corresponding mean radiation treatment costs were $18 529 (95% CI $18 415-$18 643), $15 177 (95% CI $14 899-$15 456), $10 818 (95% CI $10 669-$10 966) and $16 887 (95% CI $16 648-$17 125). In general, stage III and IV cancers were the most expensive stages for both medications and radiation across all 4 disease sites. INTERPRETATION:Our work updates previous costing estimates to help understand costs and resources critical to health care system planning in a single-payer system. More refined costing estimates are useful as inputs to allow for more robust health economic modelling and health care system planning.

Project description:Importance:Increasing value requires improving quality or decreasing costs. In surgery, estimates for the cost of 1 minute of operating room (OR) time vary widely. No benchmark exists for the cost of OR time, nor has there been a comprehensive assessment of what contributes to OR cost. Objectives:To calculate the cost of 1 minute of OR time, assess cost by setting and facility characteristics, and ascertain the proportion of costs that are direct and indirect. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis examined annual financial disclosure documents from all comparable short-term general and specialty care hospitals in California from fiscal year (FY) 2005 to FY2014 (N = 3044; FY2014, n = 302). The analysis focused on 2 revenue centers: (1) surgery and recovery and (2) ambulatory surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures:Mean cost of 1 minute of OR time, stratified by setting (inpatient vs ambulatory), teaching status, and hospital ownership. The proportion of cost attributable to indirect and direct expenses was identified; direct expenses were further divided into salary, benefits, supplies, and other direct expenses. Results:In FY2014, a total of 175 of 302 facilities (57.9%) were not for profit, 78 (25.8%) were for profit, and 49 (16.2%) were government owned. Thirty facilities (9.9%) were teaching hospitals. The mean (SD) cost for 1 minute of OR time across California hospitals was $37.45 ($16.04) in the inpatient setting and $36.14 ($19.53) in the ambulatory setting (P = .65). There were no differences in mean expenditures when stratifying by ownership or teaching status except that teaching hospitals had lower mean (SD) expenditures than nonteaching hospitals in the inpatient setting ($29.88 [$9.06] vs $38.29 [$16.43]; P = .006). Direct expenses accounted for 54.6% of total expenses ($20.40 of $37.37) in the inpatient setting and 59.1% of total expenses ($20.90 of $35.39) in the ambulatory setting. Wages and benefits accounted for approximately two-thirds of direct expenses (inpatient, $14.00 of $20.40; ambulatory, $14.35 of $20.90), with nonbillable supplies accounting for less than 10% of total expenses (inpatient, $2.55 of $37.37; ambulatory, $3.33 of $35.39). From FY2005 to FY2014, expenses in the OR have increased faster than the consumer price index and medical consumer price index. Teaching hospitals had slower growth in costs than nonteaching hospitals. Over time, the proportion of expenses dedicated to indirect costs has increased, while the proportion attributable to salary and supplies has decreased. Conclusions and Relevance:The mean cost of OR time is $36 to $37 per minute, using financial data from California's short-term general and specialty hospitals in FY2014. These statewide data provide a generalizable benchmark for the value of OR time. Furthermore, understanding the composition of costs will allow those interested in value improvement to identify high-yield targets.

Project description:BackgroundRecruiting study participants for clinical research is a challenging yet essential task. Social media platforms, such as Facebook, offer the opportunity to recruit participants through paid advertisements. These ad campaigns may be a cost-effective approach to reaching and recruiting participants who meet specific study criteria. However, little is known about the extent to which clicks on social media advertisements translate to the actual consent and enrollment of participants who meet the study criteria. Understanding this is especially important for clinical trials conducted remotely, such as telehealth-based studies, which open the possibility to recruit over large geographical areas and are becoming more common for the treatment of chronic health conditions, such as osteoarthritis (OA).ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to report on the conversion of clicks on a Facebook advertisement campaign to consent to enrollment in an ongoing telehealth physical therapy study for adults with knee OA, and the costs associated with recruitment.MethodsThis was a secondary analysis using data collected over the first 5 months of an ongoing study of adults with knee OA. The Delaware Physical Exercise and Activity for Knee Osteoarthritis program compares a virtually delivered exercise program to a control group receiving web-based resources among adults with knee OA. Advertisement campaigns were configured on Facebook to reach an audience who could be potentially eligible. Clicking on the advertisement directed potential participants to a web-based screening form to answer 6 brief questions related to the study criteria. Next, a research team member called individuals who met the criteria from the screening form and verbally asked additional questions related to the study criteria. Once considered eligible, an electronic informed consent form (ICF) was sent. We described the number of potential study participants who made it through each of these steps and then calculated the cost per participant who signed the ICF.ResultsIn sum, between July and November 2021, a total of 33,319 unique users saw at least one advertisement, 9879 clicks were made, 423 web-based screening forms were completed, 132 participants were successfully contacted, 70 were considered eligible, and 32 signed the ICF. Recruitment costed an average of US $51.94 per participant.ConclusionsWhile there was a low conversion from clicks to actual consent, 32% (32/100) of the total sample required for the study were expeditiously consented over 5 months with a per-subject cost well below traditional means of recruitment, which ranges from US $90 to US $1000 per participant.Trial registrationClinicaltrails.gov NCT04980300; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04980300.

Project description:BackgroundThe persistence of diagnostic errors, despite advances in medical knowledge and diagnostics, highlights the importance of understanding atypical disease presentations and their contribution to mortality and morbidity. Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly generative pre-trained transformers like GPT-4, holds promise for improving diagnostic accuracy, but requires further exploration in handling atypical presentations.ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of ChatGPT in generating differential diagnoses for atypical presentations of common diseases, with a focus on the model's reliance on patient history during the diagnostic process.MethodsWe used 25 clinical vignettes from the Journal of Generalist Medicine characterizing atypical manifestations of common diseases. Two general medicine physicians categorized the cases based on atypicality. ChatGPT was then used to generate differential diagnoses based on the clinical information provided. The concordance between AI-generated and final diagnoses was measured, with a focus on the top-ranked disease (top 1) and the top 5 differential diagnoses (top 5).ResultsChatGPT's diagnostic accuracy decreased with an increase in atypical presentation. For category 1 (C1) cases, the concordance rates were 17% (n=1) for the top 1 and 67% (n=4) for the top 5. Categories 3 (C3) and 4 (C4) showed a 0% concordance for top 1 and markedly lower rates for the top 5, indicating difficulties in handling highly atypical cases. The χ2 test revealed no significant difference in the top 1 differential diagnosis accuracy between less atypical (C1+C2) and more atypical (C3+C4) groups (χ²1=2.07; n=25; P=.13). However, a significant difference was found in the top 5 analyses, with less atypical cases showing higher accuracy (χ²1=4.01; n=25; P=.048).ConclusionsChatGPT-4 demonstrates potential as an auxiliary tool for diagnosing typical and mildly atypical presentations of common diseases. However, its performance declines with greater atypicality. The study findings underscore the need for AI systems to encompass a broader range of linguistic capabilities, cultural understanding, and diverse clinical scenarios to improve diagnostic utility in real-world settings.