Economic evaluations of follow-up strategies for cancer survivors: a systematic review and quality appraisal of the literature

Meregaglia, Michela; Cairns, John

doi:10.1586/14737167.2015.1087316

Cited by 18 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The determinants of the cost‐effectiveness of BCS were split into two stages indicated in the conceptual framework, the screening costs, and the breast cancer costs, with the later including the costs related to the diagnosis, treatment, and follow‐up. Breast cancer costs were affected by the disease characteristics (eg, stage and incidence), patients’ characteristics (eg, age), health provider characteristics (eg, nurse vs general practitioner follow‐up), and health system characteristics (eg, discard of dispensed prescriptions and lack of societal insurance) . There was not enough evidence to evaluate how the impact of these factors on breast cancer cost would differ between high‐ and low‐income countries.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…37,[39][40][41] Six reviews, mainly based on the same original evidence, reported resource use or costs of breast cancer follow-up (Appendix 5). 22,30,35,[42][43][44] The highest rate of resource use was for follow-up visits and follow-up mammography, 44 while the frequency of visits decreased twice in the initial 4 years after F I G U R E 2 The conceptual framework of the review treatment. 43 The follow-up costs could be affected by poor continuity of the doctor-patient relationship, with patients seeing multiple doctors during the follow-up and doing almost twice the recommended number of visits.…”

Section: The Determinants Of Breast Cancer Costsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…43 The cost of intensive follow-up was 2-5 times higher than minimal follow-up while not having an impact on survival 22,35,42,43 ; the cost of follow-up was lower if it was in the primary vs secondary setting, 22,30,35,43 nurse-led, 44 or nurse-led phone follow-up combined with an educational program, 30 or phone or through mobile application technologies. 22,35 Even though no impact on clinical outcomes was recorded with follow-up in the primary setting, patients' satisfaction was much higher with specialist follow-up. 22,30 Seven reviews concluded that breast cancer has a significant impact on the productivity of women in all the countries considered, 24,36,[38][39][40][41]45 affecting the unemployment rate of breast cancer survivors and causing financial hardship for families of cancer patients.…”

Section: The Determinants Of Breast Cancer Costsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Systematic reviews as a “lens of evidence”: Determinants of cost‐effectiveness of breast cancer screening

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Systematic reviews with economic components are important decision tools for stakeholders seeking to evaluate technologies, such as breast cancer screening (BCS) programs. This overview of systematic reviews explores the determinants of the cost‐effectiveness of BCS and assesses the quality of secondary evidence. The search identified 30 systematic reviews that reported on the determinants of the cost‐effectiveness of BCS, including the costs of breast cancer and BCS. While the quality of the reviews varied widely, only four out of 30 papers were considered to be of a high quality. We did not identify publication bias in the original evidence on the cost‐effectiveness of mammography screening; however, we highlight a need for improved clarity in both reporting and data verification. The reviews consisted mainly of studies from high‐income countries. Breast cancer costs varied widely among the studies. Factors leading to higher costs included: time (diagnosis and last months before death), later stage or metastases, recurrence of the disease, age below 64 years and type of follow‐up (more intensive or more specialized). Overall, screening with mammography was considered cost‐effective in the age range 50‐69 years in Western European and Northern American countries but not for older or younger women. Its cost‐effectiveness was questionable for low‐income settings and Asia. Mammography screening was more cost‐effective with biennial screening compared to annual screening and single reading using computer‐aided detection vs double reading. No information on the cost‐effectiveness of ultrasonography was found, and there is much uncertainty on the cost‐effectiveness of CBE because of methodological limitations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Determinants Of Breast Cancer Costsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Determinants Of Breast Cancer Costsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Systematic reviews as a “lens of evidence”: Determinants of cost‐effectiveness of breast cancer screening

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Due to the variety of health state definitions and valuation techniques across the studies, we were not able to perform a quantitative synthesis of the results [ 3 ]. Moreover, unlike cost-effectiveness studies where structured guidelines exist to support authors and reviewers in assessing their quality [ 75 , 76 ], recommendations for valuation studies specifically aimed at measuring HSUVs are more fragmented or method-specific [ 10 ]. In this review, the assessment of study quality was based on a set of generic recommendations elaborated by a previous study [ 26 ] and arbitrarily modified to allow a quantitative scoring of the studies adopting direct and indirect techniques to estimate HSUVs; for mapping studies, we relied instead on recent ISPOR guidelines [ 19 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic literature review of health state utility values in head and neck cancer

Meregaglia

Cairns

2017

Health Qual Life Outcomes

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundHealth state utility values (HSUVs) are essential parameters in model-based economic evaluations. This study systematically identifies HSUVs in head and neck cancer and provides guidance for selecting them from a growing body of health-related quality of life studies.MethodsWe systematically reviewed the published literature by searching PubMed, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library using a pre-defined combination of keywords. The Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry and the School of Health and Related Research Health Utilities Database (ScHARRHUD) specifically containing health utilities were also queried, in addition to the Health Economics Research Centre database of mapping studies. Studies were considered for inclusion if reporting original HSUVs assessed using established techniques. The characteristics of each study including country, design, sample size, cancer subsite addressed and demographics of responders were summarized narratively using a data extraction form. Quality scoring and critical appraisal of the included studies were performed based on published recommendations.ResultsOf a total 1048 records identified by the search, 28 studies qualified for data extraction and 346 unique HSUVs were retrieved from them. HSUVs were estimated using direct methods (e.g. standard gamble; n = 10 studies), multi-attribute utility instruments (MAUIs; n = 13) and mapping techniques (n = 3); two studies adopted both direct and indirect approaches. Within the MAUIs, the EuroQol 5-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) was the most frequently used (n = 11), followed by the Health Utility Index Mark 3 (HUI3; n = 2), the 15D (n = 2) and the Short Form-Six Dimension (SF-6D; n = 1). Different methods and types of responders (i.e. patients, healthy subjects, clinical experts) influenced the magnitude of HSUVs for comparable health states. Only one mapping study developed an original algorithm using head and neck cancer data. The identified studies were considered of intermediate quality.DiscussionThis review provides a dataset of HSUVs systematically retrieved from published studies in head and neck cancer. There is currently a lack of research for some disease phases including recurrent and metastatic cancer, and treatment-related complications. In selecting HSUVs for cost-effectiveness modeling purposes, preference should be given to EQ-5D utility values; however, mapping to EQ-5D is a potentially valuable technique that should be further developed in this cancer population.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12955-017-0748-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…We present in Additional file 1 : Table C the quality assessment of the included studies based on the CHEERS checklist. It shows that seven out of the nine studies reviewed can be considered high quality studies, following an existing approach to determining quality in cancer scholarship [ 20 ], with an average proportion of 84.8% of checklist criteria fulfilled.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic evaluation of patient navigation programs in colorectal cancer care, a systematic review

Gervès-Pinquié

Girault²,

Phillips

et al. 2018

Health Econ Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patient navigation has expanded as a promising approach to improve cancer care coordination and patient adherence. This paper addresses the need to identify the evidence on the economic impact of patient navigation in colorectal cancer, following the Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines. Articles indexed in Medline, Cochrane, CINAHL, and Web of Science between January 2000 and March 2017 were analyzed. We conducted a systematic review of the literature using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The quality assessment of the included studies was based on the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. Inclusion criteria indicated that the paper’s subject had to explicitly address patient navigation in colorectal cancer and the study had to be an economic evaluation. The search yielded 243 papers, 9 of which were finally included within this review. Seven out of the nine studies included met standards for high-quality based on CHEERS criteria. Eight concluded that patient navigation programs were unequivocally cost-effective for the health outcomes of interest. Six studies were cost-effectiveness analyses. All studies computed the direct costs of the program, which were defined a minima as the program costs. Eight of the reviewed studies adopted the healthcare system perspective. Direct medical costs were usually divided into outpatient and inpatient visits, tests, and diagnostics. Effectiveness outcomes were mainly assessed through screening adherence, quality of life and time to diagnostic resolution. Given these outcomes, more economic research is needed for patient navigation during cancer treatment and survivorship as well as for patient navigation for other cancer types so that decision makers better understand costs and benefits for heterogeneous patient navigation programs.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13561-018-0196-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Economic evaluations of follow-up strategies for cancer survivors: a systematic review and quality appraisal of the literature

Cited by 18 publications

References 55 publications

Systematic reviews as a “lens of evidence”: Determinants of cost‐effectiveness of breast cancer screening

Systematic reviews as a “lens of evidence”: Determinants of cost‐effectiveness of breast cancer screening

A systematic literature review of health state utility values in head and neck cancer

Economic evaluation of patient navigation programs in colorectal cancer care, a systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About