Objective: To measure the economic and humanistic burden of cervical cancer in the United States. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data (2006-2015). Cervical cancer cases were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code "180" or clinical classification software code "26". The control group included women without any cancer diagnosis. Study outcomes included health care resource use (institutional inpatient and outpatient, emergency room, and physician office visits), costs, limitations in activities of daily living, and quality of life (general health status, 12-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF-12] physical and mental component summary [MCS], EuroQol-5D and Short-Form Six-Dimension health utility, and Patient Health Questionnaire-2 depression severity). Generalized linear models, controlling for sociodemographic and clinical covariates, were conducted to compare outcomes between cases and controls. Results: The analytic cohort included 275,246 cervical cancer cases and 146,061,609 noncancer controls. Cases were significantly older (mean age [years]: 42.03 vs. 36.98) and had a higher Charlson comorbidity burden (mean score: 1.06 vs. 0.46) versus controls. Multivariate analyses suggested that compared to controls, cancer cases had significantly higher costs: institutional outpatient ($1,610 vs. $502), physician visit ($2,422 vs. $1,321), and total health care ($10,031 vs. $4,913). Cases were 1.99 (odds ratio [OR]: 1.991; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.23-3.22) and 2.56 (OR: 2.562; 95% CI: 1.78-3.68) times as likely to report activity limitations and poor general health versus controls. Cervical cancer patients had significantly lower SF-12 physical and MCS score, health utility, and higher depression severity. Conclusions: Cervical cancer is associated with significant economic burden, activity limitations, and quality of life impairment among ambulatory women in the United States.
Objective: To measure the economic and humanistic burden of cervical cancer in the United States. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data (2006-2015). Cervical cancer cases were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code "180" or clinical classification software code "26". The control group included women without any cancer diagnosis. Study outcomes included health care resource use (institutional inpatient and outpatient, emergency room, and physician office visits), costs, limitations in activities of daily living, and quality of life (general health status, 12-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF-12] physical and mental component summary [MCS], EuroQol-5D and Short-Form Six-Dimension health utility, and Patient Health Questionnaire-2 depression severity). Generalized linear models, controlling for sociodemographic and clinical covariates, were conducted to compare outcomes between cases and controls. Results: The analytic cohort included 275,246 cervical cancer cases and 146,061,609 noncancer controls. Cases were significantly older (mean age [years]: 42.03 vs. 36.98) and had a higher Charlson comorbidity burden (mean score: 1.06 vs. 0.46) versus controls. Multivariate analyses suggested that compared to controls, cancer cases had significantly higher costs: institutional outpatient ($1,610 vs. $502), physician visit ($2,422 vs. $1,321), and total health care ($10,031 vs. $4,913). Cases were 1.99 (odds ratio [OR]: 1.991; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.23-3.22) and 2.56 (OR: 2.562; 95% CI: 1.78-3.68) times as likely to report activity limitations and poor general health versus controls. Cervical cancerpatients had significantly lower SF-12 physical and MCS score, health utility, and higher depression severity. Conclusions: Cervical cancer is associated with significant economic burden, activity limitations, and quality of life impairment among ambulatory women in the United States.
Authors: Jaimie Z Shing; Marie R Griffin; Rachel S Chang; Alicia Beeghly-Fadiel; Staci L Sudenga; James C Slaughter; Manideepthi Pemmaraju; Edward F Mitchel; Pamela C Hull Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2021-10-29 Impact factor: 5.043