Chun-Ru Chien1,2, Daniel M Geynisman3, Bumyang Kim4, Ying Xu4, Ya-Chen Tina Shih5. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan. 2. School of Medicine, College of Medicine, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan. 3. Department of Medical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Temple Health, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 4. Section of Cancer Economics and Policy, Department of Health Services Research, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 1444, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. 5. Section of Cancer Economics and Policy, Department of Health Services Research, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 1444, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. yashih@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The economic burden of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) had been reported to be significant in a previous review published in 2011. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to perform an updated review by synthesizing economic studies related to the treatment of RCC that have been published since the previous review. METHODS: We performed a literature search in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, covering English-language studies published between June 2010 and August 2018. We categorized these articles by type of analyses [cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), cost analysis, and cost of illness (COI)] and treatment setting (cancer status and treatment), discussed findings from these articles, and synthesized information from each article in summary tables. RESULTS: We identified 52 studies from 2317 abstracts/titles deemed relevant from the initial search, including 21 CEA, 23 cost analysis, and 8 COI studies. For localized RCC, costs were found to be positively associated with the aggressiveness of the local treatment. For metastatic RCC (mRCC), pazopanib was reported to be cost effective in the first-line setting. We also found that the economic burden of RCC has increased over time. CONCLUSION: RCC continues to impose a substantial economic burden to the healthcare system. Despite the large number of treatment alternatives now available for advanced RCC, the cost effectiveness and budgetary impact of many new agents remain unknown and warrant greater attention in future research.
BACKGROUND: The economic burden of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) had been reported to be significant in a previous review published in 2011. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to perform an updated review by synthesizing economic studies related to the treatment of RCC that have been published since the previous review. METHODS: We performed a literature search in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, covering English-language studies published between June 2010 and August 2018. We categorized these articles by type of analyses [cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), cost analysis, and cost of illness (COI)] and treatment setting (cancer status and treatment), discussed findings from these articles, and synthesized information from each article in summary tables. RESULTS: We identified 52 studies from 2317 abstracts/titles deemed relevant from the initial search, including 21 CEA, 23 cost analysis, and 8 COI studies. For localized RCC, costs were found to be positively associated with the aggressiveness of the local treatment. For metastatic RCC (mRCC), pazopanib was reported to be cost effective in the first-line setting. We also found that the economic burden of RCC has increased over time. CONCLUSION:RCC continues to impose a substantial economic burden to the healthcare system. Despite the large number of treatment alternatives now available for advanced RCC, the cost effectiveness and budgetary impact of many new agents remain unknown and warrant greater attention in future research.
Authors: Robert J Motzer; Bernard Escudier; Piotr Tomczak; Thomas E Hutson; M Dror Michaelson; Sylvie Negrier; Stephane Oudard; Martin E Gore; Jamal Tarazi; Subramanian Hariharan; Connie Chen; Brad Rosbrook; Sinil Kim; Brian I Rini Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2013-04-16 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Robert J Motzer; Thomas E Hutson; David Cella; James Reeves; Robert Hawkins; Jun Guo; Paul Nathan; Michael Staehler; Paul de Souza; Jaime R Merchan; Ekaterini Boleti; Kate Fife; Jie Jin; Robert Jones; Hirotsugu Uemura; Ugo De Giorgi; Ulrika Harmenberg; Jinwan Wang; Cora N Sternberg; Keith Deen; Lauren McCann; Michelle D Hackshaw; Rocco Crescenzo; Lini N Pandite; Toni K Choueiri Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-08-22 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Robert J Motzer; Bernard Escudier; David F McDermott; Saby George; Hans J Hammers; Sandhya Srinivas; Scott S Tykodi; Jeffrey A Sosman; Giuseppe Procopio; Elizabeth R Plimack; Daniel Castellano; Toni K Choueiri; Howard Gurney; Frede Donskov; Petri Bono; John Wagstaff; Thomas C Gauler; Takeshi Ueda; Yoshihiko Tomita; Fabio A Schutz; Christian Kollmannsberger; James Larkin; Alain Ravaud; Jason S Simon; Li-An Xu; Ian M Waxman; Padmanee Sharma Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-09-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Simon P Kim; Bradley C Leibovich; Nilay D Shah; Christopher J Weight; Bijan J Borah; Leona C Han; Stephen A Boorjian; R Houston Thompson Journal: BJU Int Date: 2012-05-07 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Nicholas J Vogelzang; Sumanta K Pal; Sameer R Ghate; Elyse Swallow; Nanxin Li; Miranda Peeples; Miriam L Zichlin; Mark K Meiselbach; Jose Ricardo Perez; Neeraj Agarwal Journal: Adv Ther Date: 2017-10-26 Impact factor: 3.845