Dataset Information

Association Between Clinical Value and Financial Cost of Cancer Treatments: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The cost of cancer treatment has increased significantly in recent decades, but it is unclear whether these costs have been associated with commensurate improvement in clinical value. This study aimed to assess the association between the cost of cancer treatment and 4 of the 5 NCCN Evidence Blocks (EB) measures of clinical value: efficacy of regimen/agent, safety of regimen/agent, quality of evidence, and consistency of evidence.

Methods

This is a cross-sectional, observational study. We obtained NCCN EB ratings for all recommended, first-line, and/or maintenance treatments for the 30 most prevalent cancers in the United States and calculated direct pharmacologic treatment costs (drug acquisition, administration fees, guideline-concordant supportive care medications) using Medicare reimbursement rates in January 2019. We used generalized estimating equations to estimate the association between NCCN EB measures and treatment cost with clustering at the level of the treatment indication.

Results

A total of 1,386 treatments were included. Among time-unlimited treatments (those administered on an ongoing basis without a predetermined stopping point), monthly cost was positively associated with efficacy ($3,036; 95% CI, $1,782 to $4,289) and quality of evidence ($1,509; 95% CI, $171 to $2,847) but negatively associated with safety (-$1,470; 95% CI, -$2,790 to -$151) and consistency of evidence (-$2,003; 95% CI, -$3,420 to -$586). Among time-limited treatments (those administered for a predetermined interval or number of cycles), no NCCN EB measure was significantly associated with treatment cost.

Conclusions

An association between NCCN EB measures and treatment cost was inconsistent, and the magnitude of the association was small compared with the degree of cost variation among treatments with the same EB scores. The clinical value of cancer treatments does not seem to be a primary determinant of treatment cost.

SUBMITTER: Mitchell AP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8354655 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThough financial hardship is a well-documented adverse effect of standard-of-care cancer treatment, little is known about out-of-pocket costs and their impact on patients participating in cancer clinical trials. This study explored the financial effects of cancer clinical trial participation.MethodsThis cross-sectional analysis used survey data collected in December 2022 and May 2023 from individuals with cancer previously served by Patient Advocate Foundation, a nonprofit organization providing social needs navigation and financial assistance to US adults with a chronic illness. Surveys included questions on cancer clinical trial participation, trial-related financial hardship, and sociodemographic data. Descriptive and bivariate analyses were conducted using Cramer's V to estimate the in-sample magnitude of association. Associations between trial-related financial hardship and sociodemographics were estimated using adjusted relative risks (aRR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) from modified Poisson regression models with robust standard errors.ResultsOf 650 survey respondents, 18% (N = 118) reported ever participating in a cancer clinical trial. Of those, 47% (n = 55) reported financial hardship as a result of their trial participation. Respondents reporting trial-related financial hardship were more often unemployed or disabled (58% vs. 43%; V = 0.15), Medicare enrolled (53% vs. 40%; V = 0.15), and traveled >1 h to their cancer provider (45% vs. 17%; V = 0.33) compared to respondents reporting no hardship. Respondents who experienced trial-related financial hardship most often reported expenses from travel (reported by 71% of respondents), medical bills (58%), dining out (40%), or housing needs (40%). Modeling results indicated that respondents traveling >1 h vs. ≤30 min to their cancer provider had a 2.2× higher risk of financial hardship, even after adjusting for respondent race, income, employment, and insurance status (aRR = 2.2, 95% CI 1.3-3.8). Most respondents (53%) reported needing $200-$1000 per month to compensate for trial-related expenses. Over half (51%) of respondents reported less willingness to participate in future clinical trials due to incurred financial hardship. Notably, of patients who did not participate in a cancer clinical trial (n = 532), 13% declined participation due to cost.ConclusionCancer clinical trial-related financial hardship, most often stemming from travel expenses, affected almost half of trial-enrolled patients. Interventions are needed to reduce adverse financial participation effects and potentially improve cancer clinical trial participation.

Project description:BackgroundFinancial relationships between organizations that produce clinical practice guidelines and biomedical companies are vulnerable to conflicts of interest. We sought to determine whether organizations that produce clinical practice guidelines have financial relationships with biomedical companies and whether there are associations between organizations' conflict of interest policies and recommendations and disclosures provided in guidelines.Methods and findingsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey and review of websites of 95 national/international medical organizations that produced 290 clinical practice guidelines published on the National Guideline Clearinghouse website from January 1 to December 31, 2012. Survey responses were available for 68% (65/95) of organizations (167/290 guidelines, 58%), and websites were reviewed for 100% (95/95) of organizations (290/290 guidelines, 100%). In all, 63% (60/95) of organizations producing clinical practice guidelines reported receiving funds from a biomedical company; 80% (76/95) of organizations reported having a policy for managing conflicts of interest. Disclosure statements (disclosing presence or absence of financial relationships with biomedical companies) were available in 65% (188/290) of clinical practice guidelines for direct funding sources to produce the guideline, 51% (147/290) for financial relationships of the guideline committee members, and 1% (4/290) for financial relationships of the organizations producing the guidelines. Among all guidelines, 6% (18/290) disclosed direct funding by biomedical companies, 40% (117/290) disclosed financial relationships between committee members and biomedical companies (38% of guideline committee members, 773/2,043), and 1% (4/290) disclosed financial relationships between the organizations producing the guidelines and biomedical companies. In the survey responses, 60 organizations reported the procedures that they included in their conflict of interest policies (158 guidelines): guidelines produced by organizations reporting more comprehensive conflict of interest policies (per additional procedure, range 5-17) included fewer positive (rate ratio [RR] 0.91, 95% CI 0.86-0.95) and more negative (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.09-1.60) recommendations regarding patented biomedical products. The clinical practice guidelines produced by organizations reporting more comprehensive conflict of interest policies were also more likely to include disclosure statements for direct funding sources (odds ratio [OR] 1.31, 95% CI 1.10-1.56) and financial relationships of guideline committee members (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.09-1.79), but not financial relationships of the organizations (0 disclosures). Limitations of the study include the use of the National Guideline Clearinghouse as the single source of clinical practice guidelines and the self-report of survey responses and organizations' website postings.ConclusionsFinancial relationships between organizations that produce clinical practice guidelines and biomedical companies are common and infrequently disclosed in guidelines. Our study highlights the need for an effective policy to manage organizational conflicts of interest and disclosure of financial relationships.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Applications for surgical training have declined over the last decade, and anecdotally the costs of training at the expense of the surgical trainee are rising. We aimed to quantify the costs surgical trainees are expected to cover for postgraduate training. DESIGN:Prospective, cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS:A non-mandatory online questionnaire for UK-based trainees was distributed nationally. A similar national questionnaire was distributed for Ireland, taking into account differences between the healthcare systems. Only fully completed responses were included. RESULTS:There were 848 and 58 fully completed responses from doctors based in the UK and Ireland, respectively. Medical students in the UK reported a significant increase in debt on graduation by 55% from £17?892 (2000-2004) to £27?655 (2010-2014) (p<0.01). 41% of specialty trainees in the UK indicated that some or all of their study budget was used to fund mandatory regional teaching. By the end of training, a surgical trainee in the UK spends on average £9105 on courses, £5411 on conferences and £4185 on exams, not covered by training budget. Irish trainees report similarly high costs. Most trainees undertake a higher degree during their postgraduate training. The cost of achieving the mandatory requirements for completion of training ranges between £20 000 and £26?000 (dependent on specialty), except oral and maxillofacial surgery, which is considerably higher (£71 431). CONCLUSIONS:Medical students are graduating with significantly larger debt than before. Surgical trainees achieve their educational requirements at substantial personal expenditure. To encourage graduates to pursue and remain in surgical training, urgent action is required to fund the mandatory requirements and annual training costs for completion of training and provide greater transparency to inform doctors of what their postgraduate training costs will be. This is necessary to increase diversity in surgery, reduce debt load and ensure surgery remains a popular career choice.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the clinical benefit and actionability of molecular targets for genome targeted cancer drugs recommended for clinical practice by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).DesignCross sectional study.Participants/settingGenome targeted cancer drugs recommended by NCCN guidelines in the advanced setting.Main outcome measuresMolecular target actionability was assessed using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT). Clinical benefit of genome targeted oncology therapies was evaluated using the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Molecular targets at ESCAT category level I associated with studies showing substantial clinical benefit by ESMO-MCBS (grades 4-5) were designated as high benefit, and those linked to studies achieving an ESMO-MCBS grade of 3 were categorized as being of promising but unproven benefit.Results411 recommendations related to 74 genome targeted drugs targeting 50 driver alterations were examined. Most recommendations (346/411; 84%) were associated with clinical trials of various phases, but 16% (65/411) relied on only case reports or pre-clinical studies. However, clinical trials mostly comprised phase I or phase II (271/346; 78%), single arm (262/346; 76%) studies. The primary endpoint assessed in most trials was overall response rate (271/346; 78%) rather than survival. ESCAT tier I targetability encompassed 60% (246/411) of target recommendations, 35% (142/411) were classified as tier II or III, and 6% (23/411) had their relevance yet to be determined (tiers IV to X). When ESMO-MCBS was applied to 267 scorable trials, only 12% (32/267) showed substantial clinical benefit (grades 4-5) and 45% (121/267) were grade 3. When both frameworks were combined, 12% (32/267) of trials supported a determination of high benefit and 33% (88/267) indicated promising but unproven benefit. Of the 118 interventions endorsed by NCCN authors as preferred, 62 (53%) applied to treatments with high or promising but unproven benefit.ConclusionAccording to the ESCAT and ESMO-MCBS frameworks, about one eighth of genome based treatments for solid cancer were rated as likely to offer a high benefit to patients, whereas around a third were identified as offering a promising but unproven substantial benefit. Ensuring that NCCN recommendations are aligned with expected clinical benefits is crucial for promoting informed, evidence based, genomic guided treatment decisions.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To investigate the nature and extent of financial relationships between leaders of influential professional medical associations in the United States and pharmaceutical and device companies. DESIGN:Cross sectional study. SETTING:Professional associations for the 10 costliest disease areas in the US according to the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Financial data for association leadership, 2017-19, were obtained from the Open Payments database. POPULATION:328 leaders, such as board members, of 10 professional medical associations: American College of Cardiology, Orthopaedic Trauma Association, American Psychiatric Association, Endocrine Society, American College of Rheumatology, American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Thoracic Society, North American Spine Society, Infectious Diseases Society of America, and American College of Physicians. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Proportion of leaders with financial ties to industry in the year of leadership, the four years before and the year after board membership, and the nature and extent of these financial relationships. RESULTS:235 of 328 leaders (72%) had financial ties to industry. Among 293 leaders who were medical doctors or doctors of osteopathy, 235 (80%) had ties. Total payments for 2017-19 leadership were almost $130m (£103m; €119m), with a median amount for each leader of $31 805 (interquartile range $1157 to $254 272). General payments, including those for consultancy and hospitality, were $24.8m and research payments were $104.6m-predominantly payments to academic institutions with association leaders named as principle investigators. Variation was great among the associations: median amounts varied from $212 for the American Psychiatric Association leaders to $518 000 for the American Society of Clinical Oncology. CONCLUSIONS:Financial relationships between the leaders of influential US professional medical associations and industry are extensive, although with variation among the associations. The quantum of payments raises questions about independence and integrity, adding weight to calls for policy reform.

Project description:BackgroundThe association between handgrip strength and depression in cancer survivors has been unexplored until now. We aim to examine the association between handgrip strength and depression in cancer survivors by using publicly available data (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey).MethodsTwo waves of data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, from 2011-2012 and 2013-2014, were extracted and combined to explore this important issue. We extracted maximum patient handgrip strength value (from both hands). The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) was used to evaluate depression with a cut-off > = 10 points indicating that patients had depressive symptoms. Other basic characteristics and health-related variables were also collected. We used Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) regression to select potential confounding factors. Multivariable linear or logistic regression models were adopted to explore whether handgrip strength as a continuous variable, or low handgrip strength, was associated with depressive symptoms.ResultsThere were 876 cancer survivors in our present total sample, with 403 (46.0%) males and 473 females (54.0%). The mean (SD) age of the entire group was 64.67 (13.81) years. The prevalence of depression and low handgrip strength was 12.90% and 16.7%, respectively. The results showed that handgrip strength was negatively associated with depressive symptoms in cancer survivors (OR = 0.95, 95%CI:0.92-0.99; P = 0.024). In addition, after adjusting for age, gender, race; marital status, polypharmacy, sleep disorder, arthritis, congestive heart failure, history of stroke, type of cancer, chronic coronary bronchitis and being overweight, cancer survivors with low handgrip strength had a 2.02-fold risk of depression, compared to those with normal handgrip strength (OR = 2.02,95%CI:1.07-3.81; P = 0.028).ConclusionsOur present study suggests that low handgrip strength, as a simple and modifiable parameter, is associated with a higher risk of depression in cancer survivors. Therefore, future larger-scale prospective cohort studies are warranted to determine this association.