Dataset Information

Survival in stage I-III breast cancer patients by surgical treatment in a publicly funded health care system.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Recent investigations of breast cancer survival in the United States suggest that patients who receive mastectomy have poorer survival than those who receive breast-conserving surgery (BCS) plus radiotherapy, despite clinically established equivalence. This study investigates breast cancer survival in the publicly funded health care system present in Alberta, Canada.

Patients and methods

Surgically treated stage I-III breast cancer cases diagnosed in Alberta from 2002 to 2010 were included. Demographic, treatment and mortality information were collected from the Alberta Cancer Registry. Unadjusted overall and breast cancer-specific mortality was assessed using Kaplan-Meier and cumulative incidence curves, respectively. Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate stage-specific mortality hazard estimates associated with surgical treatment received.

Results

A total of 14 939 cases of breast cancer (14 633 patients) were included in this study. The unadjusted 5-year all-cause survival probabilities for patients treated with BCS plus radiotherapy, mastectomy, and BCS alone were 94% (95% CI 93% to 95%), 83% (95% CI 82% to 84%) and 74% (95% CI 70% to 78%), respectively. Stage II and III patients who received mastectomy had a higher all-cause (stage II HR = 1.36, 95% CI 1.13-1.48; stage III HR = 1.74, 95% CI 1.24-2.45) and breast cancer-specific (stage II HR = 1.39, 95% CI 1.09-1.76; stage III HR = 1.79, 95% CI 1.21-2.65) mortality hazard compared with those who received BCS plus radiotherapy, adjusting for patient and clinical characteristics. BCS alone was consistently associated with poor survival.

Conclusions

Stage II and III breast cancer patients diagnosed in Alberta, Canada, who received mastectomy had a significantly higher all-cause and breast cancer-specific mortality hazard compared with those who received BCS plus radiotherapy. We suggest greater efforts toward educating and encouraging patients to receive BCS plus radiotherapy rather than mastectomy when it is medically feasible and appropriate.

SUBMITTER: Fisher S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4516043 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Survival in stage I-III breast cancer patients by surgical treatment in a publicly funded health care system.

Fisher S S Gao H H Yasui Y Y Dabbs K K Winget M M

Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology 20150223 6

<h4>Background</h4>Recent investigations of breast cancer survival in the United States suggest that patients who receive mastectomy have poorer survival than those who receive breast-conserving surgery (BCS) plus radiotherapy, despite clinically established equivalence. This study investigates breast cancer survival in the publicly funded health care system present in Alberta, Canada.<h4>Patients and methods</h4>Surgically treated stage I-III breast cancer cases diagnosed in Alberta from 2002 t ...[more]

PMID: 25712459

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere is little systematic assessment of how total health expenditure is distributed across diseases and comorbidities. The objective of this study was to use statistical methods to disaggregate all publicly funded health expenditure by disease and comorbidities in order to answer three research questions: (1) What is health expenditure by disease phase for noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) in New Zealand? (2) Is the cost of having two NCDs more or less than that expected given the independent costs of each NCD? (3) How is total health spending disaggregated by NCDs across age and by sex?Methods and findingsWe used linked data for all adult New Zealanders for publicly funded events, including hospitalisation, outpatient, pharmaceutical, laboratory testing, and primary care from 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2014. These data include 18.9 million person-years and $26.4 billion in spending (US$ 2016). We used case definition algorithms to identify if a person had any of six NCDs (cancer, cardiovascular disease [CVD], diabetes, musculoskeletal, neurological, and a chronic lung/liver/kidney [LLK] disease). Indicator variables were used to identify the presence of any of the 15 possible comorbidity pairings of these six NCDs. Regression was used to estimate excess annual health expenditure per person. Cause deletion methods were used to estimate total population expenditure by disease. A majority (59%) of health expenditure was attributable to NCDs. Expenditure due to diseases was generally highest in the year of diagnosis and year of death. A person having two diseases simultaneously generally had greater health expenditure than the expected sum of having the diseases separately, for all 15 comorbidity pairs except the CVD-cancer pair. For example, a 60-64-year-old female with none of the six NCDs had $633 per annum expenditure. If she had both CVD and chronic LLK, additional expenditure for CVD separately was $6,443/$839/$9,225 for the first year of diagnosis/prevalent years/last year of life if dying of CVD; additional expenditure for chronic LLK separately was $6,443/$1,291/$9,051; and the additional comorbidity expenditure of having both CVD and LLK was $2,456 (95% confidence interval [CI] $2,238-$2,674). The pattern was similar for males (e.g., additional comorbidity expenditure for a 60-64-year-old male with CVD and chronic LLK was $2,498 [95% CI $2,264-$2,632]). In addition to this, the excess comorbidity costs for a person with two diseases was greater at younger ages, e.g., excess expenditure for 45-49-year-old males with CVD and chronic LLK was 10 times higher than for 75-79-year-old males and six times higher for females. At the population level, 23.8% of total health expenditure was attributable to higher costs of having one of the 15 comorbidity pairs over and above the six NCDs separately; of the remaining expenditure, CVD accounted for 18.7%, followed by musculoskeletal (16.2%), neurological (14.4%), cancer (14.1%), chronic LLK disease (7.4%), and diabetes (5.5%). Major limitations included incomplete linkage to all costed events (although these were largely non-NCD events) and missing private expenditure.ConclusionsThe costs of having two NCDs simultaneously is typically superadditive, and more so for younger adults. Neurological and musculoskeletal diseases contributed the largest health system costs, in accord with burden of disease studies finding that they contribute large morbidity. Just as burden of disease methodology has advanced the understanding of disease burden, there is a need to create disease-based costing studies that facilitate the disaggregation of health budgets at a national level.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Many LMICs have implemented Publicly Funded Health Insurance (PFHI) programmes to improve access and financial protection. The national PFHI scheme implemented in India for a decade has been recently modified and expanded to cover free hospital care for 500 million persons. Since increase in annual cover amount is one of the main design modifications in the new programme, the relevant policy question is whether such design change can improve financial protection for hospital care. An evaluation of state-specific PFHI programmes with vertical cover larger than RSBY can help answer this question. Three states in Southern India - Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu have been pioneers in implementing PFHI with a large insurance cover. METHODS:The current study was meant to evaluate the PFHI in above three states in improving utilisation of hospital services and financial protection against expenses of hospitalization. Two cross-sections from National Sample Survey's health rounds, the 60th round done in 2004 and the 71st round done in 2014 were analysed. Instrumental Variable method was applied to address endogeneity or the selection problem in insurance. RESULTS:Enrollment under PFHI was not associated with increase in utilisation of hospital care in the three states. Private hospitals dominated the empanelment of facilities under PFHI as well as utilisation. Out of Pocket Expenditure and incidence of Catastrophic Health Expenditure did not decrease with enrollment under PFHI in the three states. The size of Out of Pocket Expenditure was significantly greater for utilisation in private sector, irrespective of insurance enrollment. CONCLUSION:PFHI in the three states used substantially larger vertical cover than national scheme in 2014. The three states are known for their good governance. Yet, the PFHI programmes in all three states failed in fulfilling their fundamental purpose. Increasing vertical cover of PFHI and using either 'Trusts' or Insurance-companies as purchasers may not give desired results in absence of adequate regulation. The study raises doubts regarding effectiveness of contracting under PFHIs to influence provider-behavior in the Indian context. Further research is required to find solutions for addressing gaps that contribute to poor financial outcomes for patients under PFHI.

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare spending has grown over the last decades in all developed countries. Making hard choices for investments in a rational, evidence-informed, systematic, transparent and legitimate manner constitutes an important objective. Yet, most scientific work in this area has focused on developing/improving prescriptive approaches for decision making and presenting case studies. The present work aimed to describe existing practices of priority setting and resource allocation (PSRA) within the context of publicly funded health care systems of high-income countries and inform areas for further improvement and research.MethodsAn online qualitative survey, developed from a theoretical framework, was administered with decision-makers and academics from 18 countries. 450 individuals were invited and 58 participated (13% of response rate).ResultsWe found evidence that resource allocation is still largely carried out based on historical patterns and through ad hoc decisions, despite the widely held understanding that decisions should be based on multiple explicit criteria. Health technology assessment (HTA) was the tool most commonly indicated by respondents as a formal priority setting strategy. Several approaches were reported to have been used, with special emphasis on Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA), but limited evidence exists on their evaluation and routine use. Disinvestment frameworks are still very rare. There is increasing convergence on the use of multiple types of evidence to judge the value of investment options.ConclusionsEfforts to establish formal and explicit processes and rationales for decision-making in priority setting and resource allocation have been still rare outside the HTA realm. Our work indicates the need of development/improvement of decision-making frameworks in PSRA that: 1) have well-defined steps; 2) are based on multiple criteria; 3) are capable of assessing the opportunity costs involved; 4) focus on achieving higher value and not just on adoption; 5) engage involved stakeholders and the general public; 6) make good use and appraisal of all evidence available; and 6) emphasize transparency, legitimacy, and fairness.

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate impacts of a residency-based waiting period for health insurance coverage on lived experiences of health and settlement for im/migrant women in British Columbia, Canada.DesignThe IRIS study is a mixed-methods, community-based, qualitative evaluation of recently arrived im/migrant women's access to sexual and reproductive care. In-depth, semistructured interviews were conducted by trained multilingual and multicultural interviewers with lived migration experience in the participant's preferred language.SettingMetro Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada from July 2018 to January 2020.ParticipantsData collected from community focus groups (four groups, n=29) of both service providers and im/migrant women was used. Following this, qualitative interviews with service providers (n=10) and im/migrant women (n=47) were conducted. Eligible participants self-identified as women; were aged 18-49 and had arrived in Canada from another country. Eligible providers were employed in the health, social or legal sectors working with im/migrant women.ResultsThe wait period resulted in mistrust and internalised stigma for racialised im/migrant women, for whom the policy resulted in feeling 'undeserving' of care. Resulting administrative burden produced delays and unmet need for care, particularly related to sexual and reproductive healthcare and children's health. Unexpected costs meant difficult choices between survival and care. Negative health outcomes included the inability to family plan, difficulties during pregnancy, as well as hardships related not being able to seek help for sick children. Community-based organisations provided support in many areas but could not fill all gaps produced by this policy.ConclusionsFindings highlight severe, yet commonly overlooked, health inequities produced by a mandatory health coverage wait period within a purportedly 'universal' healthcare system. Health system policies such as mandatory 'waiting periods' produce discriminatory and inequitable outcomes for im/migrant women. Policy reforms towards full 'healthcare for all' are urgently needed to affirm the health and human rights of all im/migrants.

Project description:BackgroundThe Health and Health Services Research Fund (HHSRF) is dedicated to support research related to all aspects of health and health services in Hong Kong. We evaluated the fund's outcomes and explored factors associated with the translation of research findings to changes in health policy and provider behaviour.MethodsA locally suitable questionnaire was developed based on the "payback" evaluation framework and was sent to principal investigators of the completed research projects supported by the fund since 1993. Research "payback" in six outcome areas was surveyed, namely knowledge production, use of research in the research system, use of research project findings in health system policy/decision making, application of the research findings through changed behaviour, factors influencing the utilization of research, and health/health service/economic benefits.ResultsPrincipal investigators of 178 of 205 (87%) completed research projects returned the questionnaire. Investigators reported research publications in 86.5% (mean = 5.4 publications per project), career advancement 34.3%, acquisition of higher qualifications 38.2%, use of results in policy making 35.4%, changed behaviour in light of findings 49.4%, evidence of health service benefit 42.1% and generated subsequent research in 44.9% of the projects. Payback outcomes were positively associated with the amount of funding awarded. Multivariate analysis found participation of investigators in policy committees and liaison with potential users were significantly associated with reported health service benefit (odds ratio [OR]participation = 2.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.28-6.40; ORliaison = 2.03, 95% CI 1.05-3.91), policy and decision-making (ORparticipation = 10.53, 95% CI 4.13-26.81; ORliaison = 2.52, 95% CI 1.20-5.28), and change in behavior (ORparticipation = 3.67, 95% CI 1.53-8.81).ConclusionThe HHSRF has produced substantial outcomes and compared favourably with similar health research funds in other developed economies. Further studies are needed to better understand the factors and pathways associated with the translation of research findings into practice.

Dataset Information

Survival in stage I-III breast cancer patients by surgical treatment in a publicly funded health care system.

Background

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Survival in stage I-III breast cancer patients by surgical treatment in a publicly funded health care system.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets