At a threshold of £20,000/QALY, RFA was the treatment with highest median rank for net benefit, with MOCA second, EVLA third, HL/S fourth, CAE fifth, and CONS and UGFS sixth. Further evidence on effectiveness and health-related quality of life for MOCA and CAE is needed. At current prices, CAE is not a cost-effective option because it is costlier but has not been shown to be more effective than other options.
When someone dies prematurely from cancer this represents a loss of productivity for society. This loss can be valued and provides a measure of the cancer burden. We estimated paid and unpaid productivity lost due to cancer‐related premature mortality in 31 European countries in 2018. Lost productivity was estimated for all cancers combined and 23 cancer sites, overall, by region and country. Deaths aged 15 to 64 were abstracted from GLOBOCAN 2018. Unpaid time lost (housework, caring, volunteering) was derived from Eurostat. Paid and unpaid productivity losses were valued using the human capital approach. In total, 347,149 premature cancer deaths occurred (60% male). The total value of cancer‐related lost productivity was €104.6 billion. Of this, €52.9 billion (50.6%) was due to lost paid work, and €51.7 billion (49.4%) to unpaid work. Females accounted for 36.7% of paid work costs but half (51.1%) of the unpaid work costs. Costs were highest in Western Europe (€52.0 billion). The most costly cancer was lung (€21.7 billion), followed by breast (€10.6 billion). The average loss per premature death was highest for Hodgkin's lymphoma (€506 345), melanoma (€450 694), brain cancer (€428 449) and leukaemia (€378 750). Cancer‐related lost productivity costs are significant. Almost half are due to unpaid work losses, indicating the importance of considering both paid and unpaid labour in assessing the cancer economic burden. The high cost per premature death of some less common cancers illustrates the potential benefits that could accrue from investment in prevention and control of these cancers.
EVLA and RFA result in comparable and significant gains in quality of life and clinical improvements at 6 months, compared with baseline values. EVLA is more likely to be cost-effective than RFA but absolute differences in costs and HRQOL are small.
Informal care varies greatly between stages of the treatment depending on the clinical and sociodemographic factors. Significant caring time and societal costs are associated with such care in blood cancer patients.
Informal care is a substantial source of support for people with cancer. However, various studies have predicted its disappearance in the near future. The aim of this study is to analyse the catastrophic effect resulting from the substitution of informal care with formal care in patients with blood cancer throughout the different stages of treatment. A total of 139 haematological neoplasm patients who underwent stem cell transplantation in Spain, completed a longitudinal questionnaire according to the three phases of treatment between 2012 and 2013. The economic value of informal care was estimated using proxy good, opportunity cost, and contingent valuation methods. Catastrophic health expenditure measures with thresholds ranging from 5 to 100% were used to value the financial burden derived from substitution. A total of 88.5% of patients reported having received informal care. In 85.37%, 80.49%, and 33.33% of households, more than 40% of their monthly income would have to be devoted to the replacement with formal care, with monthly amounts of €2105.22, €1790.86, and €1221.94 added to the 40% in the short, medium, and long-term, respectively (proxy good method, value = 9 €/h). Informal caregivers are a structural support for patients with blood cancer, assuming significant care time and societal costs. The substitution of informal care with formal care would be financially unaffordable by the families of people with blood cancer.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.