BACKGROUND: This study examined the interaction between natural history, current practice patterns in diagnosis, monitoring and treatment of oesophageal cancer, and associated health resource utilization and costs. METHODS: A cost analysis of a prospective population-based cohort of 1100 patients with a primary diagnosis of oesophageal cancer was performed using chart review from the Australian Cancer Study Clinical Follow-Up Study. The analysis enabled estimation of healthcare resources and associated costs in 2009 euros by stage of disease and treatment pathway. RESULTS: Most patients (88·5 per cent) presented with stage II, III or IV cancer; 61·1 per cent (672 of 1100) were treated surgically. Overall mean costs were €37,195 (median €29,114) for patients undergoing surgery and €17,281 (median €13,066) for those treated without surgery. Surgery contributed 66·4 per cent of the total costs (mean €24,697 per patient) in the surgical group. In the non-surgical group, use of chemotherapy was more prevalent (81·9 per cent of patients) and contributed 61·1 per cent of the total costs. Other important cost determinants were gastro-oesophageal junction tumours, treatment location and tumour stage. Mean costs of those monitored for Barrett's oesophagus (7·3 per cent of patients) were lower, although about one-third still presented with advanced-stage cancer. CONCLUSION: Overall costs for managing oesophageal cancer were high and dominated by surgery costs in patients treated surgically and by chemotherapy costs in patients treated without surgery. Radiotherapy, treatment location and cancer subtype were also important. Monitoring for Barrett's oesophagus and earlier-stage detection were associated with lower management costs, but the potential net benefit from surveillance strategies needs further investigation.
BACKGROUND: This study examined the interaction between natural history, current practice patterns in diagnosis, monitoring and treatment of oesophageal cancer, and associated health resource utilization and costs. METHODS: A cost analysis of a prospective population-based cohort of 1100 patients with a primary diagnosis of oesophageal cancer was performed using chart review from the Australian Cancer Study Clinical Follow-Up Study. The analysis enabled estimation of healthcare resources and associated costs in 2009 euros by stage of disease and treatment pathway. RESULTS: Most patients (88·5 per cent) presented with stage II, III or IV cancer; 61·1 per cent (672 of 1100) were treated surgically. Overall mean costs were €37,195 (median €29,114) for patients undergoing surgery and €17,281 (median €13,066) for those treated without surgery. Surgery contributed 66·4 per cent of the total costs (mean €24,697 per patient) in the surgical group. In the non-surgical group, use of chemotherapy was more prevalent (81·9 per cent of patients) and contributed 61·1 per cent of the total costs. Other important cost determinants were gastro-oesophageal junction tumours, treatment location and tumour stage. Mean costs of those monitored for Barrett's oesophagus (7·3 per cent of patients) were lower, although about one-third still presented with advanced-stage cancer. CONCLUSION: Overall costs for managing oesophageal cancer were high and dominated by surgery costs in patients treated surgically and by chemotherapy costs in patients treated without surgery. Radiotherapy, treatment location and cancer subtype were also important. Monitoring for Barrett's oesophagus and earlier-stage detection were associated with lower management costs, but the potential net benefit from surveillance strategies needs further investigation.
Authors: Louisa G Gordon; Nicholas G Hirst; George C Mayne; David I Watson; Timothy Bright; Wang Cai; Andrew P Barbour; Bernard M Smithers; David C Whiteman; Simon Eckermann Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2012-05-30 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Douglas Adamson; Jane Blazeby; Catharine Porter; Christopher Hurt; Gareth Griffiths; Annmarie Nelson; Bernadette Sewell; Mari Jones; Martina Svobodova; Deborah Fitzsimmons; Lisette Nixon; Jim Fitzgibbon; Stephen Thomas; Anthony Millin; Tom Crosby; John Staffurth; Anthony Byrne Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2021-05 Impact factor: 4.014