Literature DB >> 26087260

The economic burden of cancer in the UK: a study of survivors treated with curative intent.

Joachim Marti1, Peter S Hall1,2, Patrick Hamilton1, Claire T Hulme1, Helen Jones3, Galina Velikova3, Laura Ashley4, Penny Wright3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We aim to describe the economic burden of UK cancer survivorship for breast, colorectal and prostate cancer patients treated with curative intent, 1 year post-diagnosis.
METHODS: Patient-level data were collected over a 3-month period 12-15 months post-diagnosis to estimate the monthly societal costs incurred by cancer survivors. Self-reported resource utilisation data were obtained via the electronic Patient-reported Outcomes from Cancer Survivors system and included community-based health and social care, medications, travel costs and informal care. Hospital costs were retrieved through data linkage. Multivariate regression analysis was used to examine cost predictors.
RESULTS: Overall, 298 patients were included in the analysis, including 136 breast cancer, 83 colorectal cancer and 79 prostate cancer patients. The average monthly societal cost was $ US 409 (95%CI: $ US 316-$ US 502) [mean: £ 260, 95%CI: £ 198-£ 322] and was incurred by 92% of patients. This was divided into costs to the National Health Service (mean: $ US 279, 95%CI: $ US 207-$ US 351) [mean: £ 177, 95%CI: £ 131-£ 224], patients' out-of-pocket (OOP) expenses (mean: $ US 40, 95%CI: $ US 15-$ US 65) [mean: £ 25, 95%CI: £ 9-£ 42] and the cost of informal care (mean: $ US 110, 95%CI: $ US 57-$ US 162) [mean: £ 70, 95%CI: £ 38-£ 102]. The distribution of costs was skewed with a small number of patients incurring very high costs. Multivariate analyses showed higher societal costs for breast cancer patients. Significant predictors of OOP costs included age and socioeconomic deprivation.
CONCLUSIONS: This study found the economic burden of cancer survivorship is unevenly distributed in the population and that cancer survivors may still incur substantial costs over 1 year post-diagnosis. In addition, this study illustrates the feasibility of using an innovative online data collection platform to collect patient-reported resource utilisation information.
Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26087260     DOI: 10.1002/pon.3877

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychooncology        ISSN: 1057-9249            Impact factor:   3.894


  15 in total

Review 1.  An Educational Review About Using Cost Data for the Purpose of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Authors:  Matthew Franklin; James Lomas; Simon Walker; Tracey Young
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Accurate Measurement of Financial Toxicity Is a Prerequisite to Finding a Remedy.

Authors:  Adam Martin; Peter S Hall
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2017-04-26       Impact factor: 2.860

Review 3.  The Out-of-Pocket Cost Burden of Cancer Care-A Systematic Literature Review.

Authors:  Nicolas Iragorri; Claire de Oliveira; Natalie Fitzgerald; Beverley Essue
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2021-03-15       Impact factor: 3.677

4.  Financial toxicity associated with a cancer diagnosis in publicly funded healthcare countries: a systematic review.

Authors:  Christopher J Longo; Margaret I Fitch; Laura Banfield; Paul Hanly; K Robin Yabroff; Linda Sharp
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2020-07-11       Impact factor: 3.603

5.  Ultrasound imaging of splenomegaly as a proxy to monitor colon tumor development in Apc(min716/+) mice.

Authors:  Andrea Hodgson; Eric M Wier; Kai Fu; Xin Sun; Fengyi Wan
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2016-08-03       Impact factor: 4.452

6.  The Suspected CANcer (SCAN) pathway: protocol for evaluating a new standard of care for patients with non-specific symptoms of cancer.

Authors:  Brian D Nicholson; Jason Oke; Claire Friedemann Smith; Julie-Ann Phillips; Jennifer Lee; Lucy Abel; Sadie Kelly; Isabella Gould; Toni Mackay; Zoe Kaveney; Suzie Anthony; Shelley Hayles; Daniel Lasserson; Fergus Gleeson
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-01-21       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Self-reported and routinely collected electronic healthcare resource-use data for trial-based economic evaluations: the current state of play in England and considerations for the future.

Authors:  Matthew Franklin; Joanna Thorn
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2019-01-09       Impact factor: 4.615

8.  Realist evaluation of cancer rehabilitation services in South Wales (REEACaRS): a mixed methods study protocol.

Authors:  Judit Katalin Csontos; Deborah Fitzsimmons; Mari Jones; Wendy M Wilkinson; Joanne Horton; Lisa Love-Gould; Anna Tee; Tessa Watts
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-04-23       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  Regional multidisciplinary team intervention programme to improve colorectal cancer outcomes: study protocol for the Yorkshire Cancer Research Bowel Cancer Improvement Programme (YCR BCIP).

Authors:  John Taylor; Penny Wright; Hannah Rossington; Jackie Mara; Amy Glover; Nick West; Eva Morris; Phillip Quirke
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-11-26       Impact factor: 2.692

10.  Core Items for a Standardized Resource Use Measure: Expert Delphi Consensus Survey.

Authors:  Joanna C Thorn; Sara T Brookes; Colin Ridyard; Ruth Riley; Dyfrig A Hughes; Sarah Wordsworth; Sian M Noble; Gail Thornton; William Hollingworth
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 5.725

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.