Ya-Chen Tina Shih1, Ying Xu2, Chun-Ru Chien3,4, Bumyang Kim2, Yu Shen5, Liang Li5, Daniel M Geynisman6. 1. Section of Cancer Economics and Policy, Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd. Univ 1444, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. yashih@mdanderson.org. 2. Section of Cancer Economics and Policy, Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd. Univ 1444, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, China Medical University Hsinchu Hospital, Hsinchu, Taiwan. 4. School of Medicine, College of Medicine, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan. 5. Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 6. Department of Hematology/Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Temple Health, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The influx of new oncologic technologies has changed the treatment landscape of renal cell carcincoma (RCC) in the last decade. This study updated a previously published paper on the economic burden of RCC in the USA by using more recent data to examine the impact of various forms of new oncologic technologies on the economic burden of RCC. METHODS: Using the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database, we employed prevalence and incidence costing approaches to estimate RCC costs from the payer's perspective. We conducted a longitudinal analysis of cost data per patient per month for a prevalence cohort of patients with RCC to determine which category of new technology (surgery, radiation, or cancer drugs) was the major cost driver for RCC. We then applied the incidence costing approach to estimate costs related to RCC by care phase (initial, continuing, and terminal) and compared costs between two incidence cohorts to examine how new technology affected the economic burden of RCC over time. RESULTS: After controlling for demographic factors, clinical characteristics, neighborhood socioeconomic status, and time trend, we found that rising per patient per month costs were driven by new technologies in cancer drugs. Incidence-based analysis showed the annual net cost (2018 US$) for patients with distant-stage RCC diagnosed between 2002 and 2006 was $51,639, $19,025, $76,603, and $29,045 for the initial, continuing (year 1), terminal (died from RCC), and terminal (died from other causes) care phases, respectively. Costs increased to $70,703, $34,716, $107,989, and $47,538, respectively, for the incidence cohort diagnosed between 2007 and 2011. CONCLUSION: The rising economic burden of RCC was most pronounced among patients with distant-stage RCC, and driven primarily by new cancer drugs.
BACKGROUND: The influx of new oncologic technologies has changed the treatment landscape of renal cell carcincoma (RCC) in the last decade. This study updated a previously published paper on the economic burden of RCC in the USA by using more recent data to examine the impact of various forms of new oncologic technologies on the economic burden of RCC. METHODS: Using the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database, we employed prevalence and incidence costing approaches to estimate RCC costs from the payer's perspective. We conducted a longitudinal analysis of cost data per patient per month for a prevalence cohort of patients with RCC to determine which category of new technology (surgery, radiation, or cancer drugs) was the major cost driver for RCC. We then applied the incidence costing approach to estimate costs related to RCC by care phase (initial, continuing, and terminal) and compared costs between two incidence cohorts to examine how new technology affected the economic burden of RCC over time. RESULTS: After controlling for demographic factors, clinical characteristics, neighborhood socioeconomic status, and time trend, we found that rising per patient per month costs were driven by new technologies in cancer drugs. Incidence-based analysis showed the annual net cost (2018 US$) for patients with distant-stage RCC diagnosed between 2002 and 2006 was $51,639, $19,025, $76,603, and $29,045 for the initial, continuing (year 1), terminal (died from RCC), and terminal (died from other causes) care phases, respectively. Costs increased to $70,703, $34,716, $107,989, and $47,538, respectively, for the incidence cohort diagnosed between 2007 and 2011. CONCLUSION: The rising economic burden of RCC was most pronounced among patients with distant-stage RCC, and driven primarily by new cancer drugs.
Authors: Clinton D Bahler; Maria Francesca Monn; Chandra K Flack; Alec R Gramm; Thomas A Gardner; Chandru P Sundaram Journal: J Endourol Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: David M Golombos; Bilal Chughtai; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Dominique Thomas; Jialin Mao; Alexis Te; Padraic O'Malley; Douglas S Scherr; Joseph Del Pizzo; Jim C Hu; Art Sedrakyan Journal: World J Urol Date: 2017-05-05 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Angela B Mariotto; K Robin Yabroff; Yongwu Shao; Eric J Feuer; Martin L Brown Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-01-12 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Fabrice Smieliauskas; Daniel M Geynisman; Ronan J Kelly; Thomas J Smith Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-05-18 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: K Robin Yabroff; Elizabeth B Lamont; Angela Mariotto; Joan L Warren; Marie Topor; Angela Meekins; Martin L Brown Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2008-04-29 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Lisa P Spees; Stephanie B Wheeler; Bradford E Jackson; Christopher D Baggett; Lauren E Wilson; Melissa A Greiner; Deborah R Kaye; Tian Zhang; Daniel George; Charles D Scales; Jessica E Pritchard; Michael Leapman; Cary P Gross; Michaela A Dinan Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2021-09-04 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Hannah S Thomas; Austin W Lee; Behnam Nabavizadeh; Nikan K Namiri; Nizar Hakam; Patrick Martin-Tuite; Natalie Rios; Anthony Enriquez; Nnenaya A Mmonu; Andrew J Cohen; Benjamin N Breyer Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2021-06-08 Impact factor: 4.452