Cost-Utility Analysis of Cancer Prevention, Treatment, and Control A Systematic Review

被引:41
作者
Winn, Aaron N. [1 ,2 ]
Ekwueme, Donatus U. [3 ]
Guy, Gery P., Jr. [3 ]
Neumann, Peter J. [1 ]
机构
[1] Tufts Med Ctr, Inst Clin Res & Hlth Policy Studies, Ctr Evaluat Value & Risk Hlth, Boston, MA 02111 USA
[2] Univ N Carolina, Dept Hlth Policy & Management, Chapel Hill, NC USA
[3] CDC, Div Canc Prevent & Control, Atlanta, GA 30333 USA
关键词
COLORECTAL-CANCER; CARE; ONCOLOGY; HEALTH; DRUGS; MEDICARE; GUIDANCE; SERVICES;
D O I
10.1016/j.amepre.2015.08.009
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Context: Substantial innovation related to cancer prevention and treatment has occurred in recent decades. However, these innovations have often come at a significant cost. Cost-utility analysis provides a useful framework to assess if the benefits from innovation are worth the additional cost. This systematic review on published cost-utility analyses related to cancer care is from 1988 through 2013. Analyses were conducted in 2013-2015. Evidence acquisition: This review analyzed data from the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry (www.cearegistry.org), a comprehensive registry with detailed information on 4,339 original cost-utility analyses published in the peer-reviewed medical and economic literature through 2013. Evidence synthesis: There were 721 cancer-related cost-utility analyses published from 1998 through 2013, with roughly 12% of studies focused on primary prevention and 17% focused on secondary prevention. The most often studied cancers were breast cancer (29%); colorectal cancer (11%); and prostate cancer (8%). The median reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (in 2014 U.S. dollars) were $25,000 for breast cancer, $24,000 for colorectal cancer, and $34,000 for prostate cancer. Conclusions: The current evidence indicates that there are many interventions that are cost effective across cancer sites and levels of prevention. However, the results highlight the relatively small number of cancer cost-utility analyses devoted to primary prevention compared with secondary or tertiary prevention. (C) 2016 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:241 / 248
页数:8
相关论文
共 31 条
  • [1] Systematic review of the cost effectiveness of radiation therapy for prostate cancer from 2003 to 2013
    Amin N.P.
    Sher D.J.
    Konski A.A.
    [J]. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 2014, 12 (4) : 391 - 408
  • [2] [Anonymous], 2008, COST EFFECT RESOUR A, DOI DOI 10.1186/1478-7547-6-9
  • [3] Limits on Medicare's Ability to Control Rising Spending on Cancer Drugs
    Bach, Peter B.
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2009, 360 (06) : 626 - 633
  • [4] Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: systematic review
    Bell, CM
    Urbach, DR
    Ray, JG
    Bayoumi, A
    Rosen, AB
    Greenberg, D
    Neumann, PJ
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2006, 332 (7543): : 699 - 701
  • [5] Providing guidance to the NHS: The Scottish Medicines Consortium and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence compared
    Cairns, J
    [J]. HEALTH POLICY, 2006, 76 (02) : 134 - 143
  • [6] Clegg A, 2001, Health Technol Assess, V5, P1
  • [7] Does preventive care save money? Health economics and the presidential candidates
    Cohen, Joshua T.
    Neumann, Peter J.
    Weinstein, Milton C.
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2008, 358 (07) : 661 - 663
  • [8] European perspective on the costs and cost-effectiveness of cancer therapies
    Drummond, Michael F.
    Mason, Anne R.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2007, 25 (02) : 191 - 195
  • [9] How Much Is Life Worth: Cetuximab, Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer, and the $440 Billion Question
    Fojo, Tito
    Grady, Christine
    [J]. JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2009, 101 (15): : 1044 - 1048
  • [10] When is Cancer Care Cost-Effective? A Systematic Overview of Cost-Utility Analyses in Oncology
    Greenberg, Dan
    Earle, Craig
    Fang, Chi-Hui
    Eldar-Lissai, Adi
    Neumann, Peter J.
    [J]. JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2010, 102 (02): : 82 - 88