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
[21]   Medicare and cost-effectiveness analysis [J].
Neumann, PJ ;
Rosen, AB ;
Weinstein, MC .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2005, 353 (14) :1516-1522
[22]   Growth and quality of the cost-utility literature, 1976-2001 [J].
Neumann, PJ ;
Greenberg, D ;
Olchanski, NV ;
Stone, PW ;
Rosen, AB .
VALUE IN HEALTH, 2005, 8 (01) :3-9
[23]   Cost-effectiveness analyses of colorectal cancer screening: A systematic review for the US preventive services task force [J].
Pignone, M ;
Saha, S ;
Hoerger, T ;
Mandelblatt, J .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2002, 137 (02) :96-104
[24]   Paying for costly pharmaceuticals: regulation of new drugs in Australia, England and New Zealand [J].
Raftery, James P. .
MEDICAL JOURNAL OF AUSTRALIA, 2008, 188 (01) :26-28
[25]   The role of economic evidence in Canadian oncology reimbursement decision-making: To lambda and beyond [J].
Rocchi, Angela ;
Menon, Devidas ;
Verma, Shailendra ;
Miller, Elizabeth .
VALUE IN HEALTH, 2008, 11 (04) :771-783
[26]   Value and Cancer Care: Toward an Equitable Future [J].
Schnipper, Lowell E. ;
Meropol, Neal J. ;
Brock, Dan W. .
CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH, 2010, 16 (24) :6004-6008
[27]   The price tag on progress - Chemotherapy for colorectal cancer [J].
Schrag, D .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2004, 351 (04) :317-319
[28]  
Shemer J, 2006, ISRAEL MED ASSOC J, V8, P646
[29]   Economic evaluations of medical care interventions for cancer patients: How, why, and what does it mean? [J].
Shih, Ya-Chen Tina ;
Halpern, Michael T. .
CA-A CANCER JOURNAL FOR CLINICIANS, 2008, 58 (04) :231-244
[30]  
U.S. Public Health Service Panel on Costeffectiveness in Health and Medicine United States, 1996, COST EFF HLTH MED RE, pxviii