Dataset Information

Global treatment costs of breast cancer by stage: A systematic review.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Published evidence on treatment costs of breast cancer varies widely in methodology and a global systematic review is lacking. OBJECTIVES:This study aimed to conduct a systematic review to compare treatment costs of breast cancer by stage at diagnosis across countries at different levels of socio-economic development, and to identify key methodological differences in costing approaches. DATA SOURCES:MEDLINE, EMBASE, and NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) before April 2018. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA:Studies were eligible if they reported treatment costs of breast cancer by stage at diagnosis using patient level data, in any language. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS:Study characteristics and treatment costs by stage were summarised. Study quality was assessed using the Drummond Checklist, and detailed methodological differences were further compared. RESULTS:Twenty studies were included, 15 from high-income countries and five from low- and middle-income countries. Eleven studies used the FIGO staging system, and the mean treatment costs of breast cancer at Stage II, III and IV were 32%, 95%, and 109% higher than Stage I. Five studies categorised stage as in situ, local, regional and distant. The mean treatment costs of regional and distant breast cancer were 41% and 165% higher than local breast cancer. Overall, the quality of studies ranged from 50% (lowest quality) to 84% (highest). Most studies used regression frameworks but the choice of regression model was rarely justified. Few studies described key methodological issues including skewness, zero values, censored data, missing data, and the inclusion of control groups to estimate disease-attributable costs. CONCLUSIONS:Treatment costs of breast cancer generally increased with the advancement of the disease stage at diagnosis. Methodological issues should be better handled and properly described in future costing studies.

SUBMITTER: Sun L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6258130 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Global treatment costs of breast cancer by stage: A systematic review.

Sun Li L Legood Rosa R Dos-Santos-Silva Isabel I Gaiha Shivani Mathur SM Sadique Zia Z

PloS one 20181126 11

<h4>Background</h4>Published evidence on treatment costs of breast cancer varies widely in methodology and a global systematic review is lacking.<h4>Objectives</h4>This study aimed to conduct a systematic review to compare treatment costs of breast cancer by stage at diagnosis across countries at different levels of socio-economic development, and to identify key methodological differences in costing approaches.<h4>Data sources</h4>MEDLINE, EMBASE, and NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) ...[more]

PMID: 30475890

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere has been a widely documented and recognized increase in diabetes prevalence, not only in high-income countries (HICs) but also in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), over recent decades. The economic burden associated with diabetes, especially in LMICs, is less clear.ObjectiveWe provide a systematic review of the global evidence on the costs of type 2 diabetes. Our review seeks to update and considerably expand the previous major review of the costs of diabetes by capturing the evidence on overall, direct and indirect costs of type 2 diabetes worldwide that has been published since 2001. In addition, we include a body of economic evidence that has hitherto been distinct from the cost-of-illness (COI) work, i.e. studies on the labour market impact of diabetes.MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, EconLit and IBSS (without language restrictions) for studies assessing the economic burden of type 2 diabetes published from January 2001 to October 2014. Costs reported in the included studies were converted to international dollars ($) adjusted for 2011 values. Alongside the narrative synthesis and methodological review of the studies, we conduct an exploratory linear regression analysis, examining the factors behind the considerable heterogeneity in existing cost estimates between and within countries.ResultsWe identified 86 COI and 23 labour market studies. COI studies varied considerably both in methods and in cost estimates, with most studies not using a control group, though the use of either regression analysis or matching has increased. Direct costs were generally found to be higher than indirect costs. Direct costs ranged from $242 for a study on out-of-pocket expenditures in Mexico to $11,917 for a study on the cost of diabetes in the USA, while indirect costs ranged from $45 for Pakistan to $16,914 for the Bahamas. In LMICs-in stark contrast to HICs-a substantial part of the cost burden was attributed to patients via out-of-pocket treatment costs. Our regression analysis revealed that direct diabetes costs are closely and positively associated with a country's gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, and that the USA stood out as having particularly high costs, even after controlling for GDP per capita. Studies on the labour market impact of diabetes were almost exclusively confined to HICs and found strong adverse effects, particularly for male employment chances. Many of these studies also took into account the possible endogeneity of diabetes, which was not the case for COI studies.ConclusionsThe reviewed studies indicate a large economic burden of diabetes, most directly affecting patients in LMICs. The magnitude of the cost estimates differs considerably between and within countries, calling for the contextualization of the study results. Scope remains large for adding to the evidence base on labour market effects of diabetes in LMICs. Further, there is a need for future COI studies to incorporate more advanced statistical methods in their analysis to account for possible biases in the estimated costs.

Project description:BackgroundPreclinical and retrospective studies suggest that beta-blockers are active against breast cancer. We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the impact of beta-blockers on the outcomes of patients with early-stage breast cancer.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed to identify studies comparing outcomes of patients with early-stage breast cancer according to beta-blocker use (yes versus no). The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival (RFS), defined as the occurrence of breast cancer recurrence or death. Secondary objectives were pathologic complete response (pCR), breast cancer recurrence, breast cancer-specific mortality and overall survival (OS). Hazard ratios (HRs) or odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were extracted from each study and a pooled analysis with the random-effect model was conducted. The Higgins' I-squared test was used to quantify heterogeneity. Egger's test was applied to assess publication bias. All P values were two-sided and considered significant if ≤0.05.ResultsOverall, 13 studies were included as follows: RFS (6), pCR (2), breast cancer recurrence (6), breast cancer-specific mortality (7) and OS (5). The use of beta-blockers was associated with a significant RFS improvement in the overall population (N = 21 570; HR 0.73; 95% CI, 0.56-0.96; P = 0.025) and in patients with triple-negative disease (N = 1212; HR 0.53; 95% CI, 0.35-0.81; P = 0.003). No significant differences in terms of pCR (N = 1554; OR 0.77; 95% CI, 0.44-1.36; P = 0.371), breast cancer recurrence (N = 37 957; OR 0.66; 95% CI, 0.42-1.03; P = 0.065), breast cancer-specific mortality (N = 64 830; HR 0.77; 95% CI, 0.56-1.08; P = 0.130) or OS (N = 103 065; HR 1.03; 95% CI, 0.87-1.23; P = 0.692) were observed according to beta-blocker use.DiscussionIn this meta-analysis, beta-blocker use was associated with a longer RFS in patients with early-stage breast cancer, with a more pronounced effect observed in those with triple-negative disease. Beta-blockers arise as an interesting option to be explored in prospective studies for patients with early-stage breast cancer.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Using a standardised diagnostic and generic treatment path for breast cancer, and the molecular subtype perspective, we aim to measure the impact of several patient and disease characteristics on the overall treatment cost for patients. Additionally, we aim to generate insights into the drivers of cost variability within one medical domain. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:We conducted a retrospective study at a breast clinic in Belgium. We used 14 anonymous patient files for conducting our analysis. RESULTS:Significant cost variations within each molecular subtype and across molecular subtypes were found. For the luminal A classification, the cost differential amounts to roughly 166%, with the greatest treatment cost amounting to US$29 780 relative to US$11 208 for a patient requiring fewer medical activities. The major driver for these cost variations relates to disease characteristics. For the luminal B classification, a cost difference of roughly 242% exists due to both disease-related and patient-related factors. The average treatment cost for triple negative patients amounted to US$26 923, this is considered to be a more aggressive type of cancer. The overall cost for HER2-enriched is driven by the inclusion of Herceptin, thus this subtype is impacted by disease characteristics. Cost variability across molecular classifications is impacted by the severity of the disease, thus disease-related factors are the major drivers of cost. CONCLUSIONS:Given the cost challenge in healthcare, the need for greater cost transparency has become imperative. Through our analysis, we generate initial insights into the drivers of cost variability for breast cancer. We found evidence that disease characteristics such as severity and more aggressive cancer forms such as HER2-enriched and triple negative have a significant impact on treatment cost across the different subtypes. Similarly, patient factors such as age and presence of gene mutation contribute to differences in treatment cost variability within molecular subtypes.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess surgical, oncologic, and pregnancy outcomes in patients undergoing radical vaginal, abdominal, or laparoscopic trachelectomy for the treatment of early-stage cervical cancer, using a methodic review of published literature.Data sourcesPubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library sources, including ClinicalTrials.gov, were searched from 1990-2019 with terms "cervical cancer" and "(vaginal, abdominal, open, minimally invasive, or laparoscopic) radical trachelectomy." Grey literature and unpublished data were omitted.Methods of study selectionAfter removal of duplicates from a combined EndNote library of results, 490 articles were reviewed using Covidence software. Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts, and then screened full texts. Selection criteria included articles that reported radical trachelectomy with lymph node assessment as primary therapy for cervical carcinoma, with stated follow-up intervals and recurrences.Tabulation, integration, and resultsVariables of interest were manually extracted into an electronic database. A total 47 articles that reported on 2,566 women met inclusion criteria. Most tumors were of squamous histology (68.5%), stage IB1 (74.8%), 2 cm or less (69.2%), and without lymphovascular invasion (68.8%). Of planned trachelectomies, 9% were converted intraoperatively to hysterectomy. Separated by route of trachelectomy, 58.1%, 37.2%, and 4.7% were performed using radical vaginal, abdominal, and laparoscopic approaches, respectively. With median follow-up of 48 months (range 2-202 months) across studies, median recurrence rate was 3.3% (range 0-25%); median time to recurrence was 26 months (range 8-44 months). Median 5-year recurrence-free and overall survival were 94.6% (range 88-97.3%) and 97.4% (range 95-99%), respectively. The posttrachelectomy pregnancy rate was 23.9%, with a live-birth rate of 75.1%.ConclusionRadical trachelectomy for fertility-preserving treatment of cervical cancer is widely reported in the literature, though publications are mainly limited to case reports and case series. Reported follow-up periods infrequently meet standard oncologic parameters but show encouraging recurrence-free and overall survival rates and pregnancy outcomes. Higher-level evidence needed for meta-analysis is lacking.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO, CRD42019132443.

Dataset Information

Global treatment costs of breast cancer by stage: A systematic review.

Publications

Global treatment costs of breast cancer by stage: A systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets