Alan Ó Céilleachair

Cost of care for colorectal cancer in Ireland: a health care payer perspective

ObjectiveManagement options for colorectal cancer have expanded in recent years. We estimated average lifetime cost of care for colorectal cancer in Ireland in 2008, from the health care payer perspective.MethodA decision tree model was developed in Microsoft EXCEL. Site and stage-specific treatment pathways were constructed from guidelines and validated by expert clinical opinion. Health care resource use associated with diagnosis, treatment and follow-up were obtained from the National Cancer Registry Ireland (n=1,498 cancers diagnosed during 2004–2005) and three local hospital databases (n=155, 142 and 46 cases diagnosed in 2007). Unit costs for hospitalisation, procedures, laboratory tests and radiotherapy were derived from DRG costs, hospital finance departments, clinical opinion and literature review. Chemotherapy costs were estimated from local hospital protocols, pharmacy departments and clinical opinion. Uncertainty was explored using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.ResultsIn 2008, the average (stage weighted) lifetime cost of managing a case of colorectal cancer was €39,607. Average costs were 16% higher for rectal (€43,502) than colon cancer (€37,417). Stage I disease was the least costly (€23,688) and stage III most costly (€48,835). Diagnostic work-up and follow-up investigations accounted for 4 and 5% of total costs, respectively. Cost estimates were most sensitive to recurrence rates and prescribing of biological agents.ConclusionThis study demonstrates the value of using existing data from national and local databases in contributing to estimating the cost of managing cancer. The findings illustrate the impact of biological agents on costs of cancer care and the potential of strategies promoting earlier diagnosis to reduce health care resource utilisation and care costs.

Inter-relationships between the economic and emotional consequences of colorectal cancer for patients and their families: a qualitative study

BackgroundWhile the evidence-base concerning the economic impact of cancer for patients and their families/carers has grown in recent years, there is little known about how emotional responses to cancer influence this economic impact. We investigated the economic costs of cancer in the context of patients’ emotions and how these both shaped the patient and family burden.MethodsHealth professionals from six hospitals invited patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer (ICD10 C18-C20) within the previous year to take part in the study. Semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with patients and, where available, a family member. Interviews covered medical and non-medical costs incurred as a result of cancer and the impact of these on the lives of the patient and their family. Interviews were audio-recorded. Recordings were transcribed verbatim and these data were analysed qualitatively using thematic content analysis.ResultsTwenty-two patients with colorectal cancer (17 colon and 5 rectal; 14 women and 8 men) were interviewed; 6 were accompanied by a family member. Important cancer-related financial outlays included: travel and parking associated with hospital appointments; costs of procedures; increased household bills; and new clothing. Cancer impacted on employed individuals’ ability to work and depressed their income. The opportunity cost of informal care for carers/family members, especially immediately post-diagnosis, was a strong theme. All patients spoke of the emotional burden of colorectal cancer and described how this burden could lead to further costs for themselves and their families by limiting work and hindering their ability to efficiently manage their expenses. Some patients also spoke of how economic and emotional burdens could interact with each other. Support from employers, family/carers and the state/health services and patients’ own attitudes influenced this inter-relationship.ConclusionsThe economic impact of colorectal cancer on patients and their families is complex. This study suggests that the economic costs and the emotional impact of cancer are often related and can exacerbate each other, but that various factors can meditate this inter-relationship.

Inequity in colorectal cancer treatment and outcomes: a population-based study

Several uncertainties surround optimal management of colorectal cancer. We investigated treatment patterns and factors influencing treatment receipt and mortality in routine clinical practice. We included 15 249 individuals, recorded by the National Cancer Registry (Ireland), with primary invasive colon or rectal tumours, diagnosed during 1994–2002. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards were used to determine factors associated with treatment receipt within 1 year of diagnosis and with mortality, respectively. A total of 78% had colorectal resection, 31% chemotherapy, and 13% radiotherapy (4% colon; 28% rectum). Half of stage IV patients underwent resection. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy use increased by at least 10% per annum. There was a notable increase in pre-operative radiotherapy from 2000 onwards. Patient-related factors were significantly associated with treatment receipt. Patients who were male, older, not married, or smokers had significantly higher risks of death. Chemotherapy was significantly associated with lower mortality for stage III, but not stage II, colon cancer. For rectal cancer, pre-operative radiotherapy was associated with reduced mortality. Surgery and chemotherapy were associated with longer survival for stage IV patients. The observed inequities in treatment and outcomes suggest that there is potential for further dissemination of therapies in routine practice. Improving treatment availability overall, and equity, has the potential to reduce mortality.

Work-related Productivity Losses in an Era of Ageing Populations: The Case of Colorectal Cancer

Objective: We investigated patterns and costs of lost productivity due to colorectal cancer in Ireland and examined how rising pension ages affect these costs. Methods: Data from a postal survey of colorectal cancer survivors (6 to 30 months after diagnosis; n = 159), taken from March 2010 to January 2011, were combined with population-level survival estimates and national wage data to calculate temporary and permanent disability, and premature mortality, costs using the human capital approach. Results: Almost 40% of respondents left the workforce permanently after diagnosis and 90% took temporary time off work. Total costs of lost productivity per person were &OV0556;205,847 in 2008 assuming retirement at the age of 65. When the retirement age was raised to 70, productivity costs increased by almost a half. Conclusions: Our study demonstrated the considerable productivity costs associated with colorectal cancer and highlighted the effect of rising retirement ages on costs.

Cost comparisons and methodological heterogeneity in cost-of-illness studies: the example of colorectal cancer.

Background:Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide with over 1 million new cases diagnosed each year. Advances in treatment and survival are likely to have increased lifetime costs of managing the disease. Cost-of-illness (COI) studies are key building blocks in economic evaluations of interventions and comparative effectiveness research. We systematically reviewed and critiqued the COI literature on CRC. Methods:We searched several databases for CRC COI studies published in English, between January 2000 and February 2011. Information was abstracted on: setting, patient population, top-down/bottom-up costing, incident/prevalent approach, payer perspective, time horizon, costs included, cost source, and per-person costs. We developed a framework to compare study methodologies and assess homogeneity/heterogeneity. Results:A total of 26 papers met the inclusion criteria. There was extensive methodological heterogeneity. Studies included case-control studies based on claims/reimbursement data (10), examinations of patient charts (5), and analysis of claims data (4). Epidemiological approaches varied (prevalent, 6; incident, 8; mixed, 10; unclear, 4). Time horizons ranged from 1 year postdiagnosis to lifetime. Seventeen studies used top-down costing. Twenty-five studies included healthcare-payer direct medical costs; 2 included indirect costs; 1 considered patient costs. There was broad agreement in how studies accounted for time, but few studies described costs in sufficient detail to allow replication. In general, costs were not comparable between studies. Conclusions:Methodological heterogeneity and lack of transparency made it almost impossible to compare CRC costs between studies or over time. For COI studies to be more useful and robust there is need for clear and rigorous guidelines around methodological and reporting “best practice.”

Using resource modelling to inform decision making and service planning: the case of colorectal cancer screening in Ireland

BackgroundOrganised colorectal cancer screening is likely to be cost-effective, but cost-effectiveness results alone may not help policy makers to make decisions about programme feasibility or service providers to plan programme delivery. For these purposes, estimates of the impact on the health services of actually introducing screening in the target population would be helpful. However, these types of analyses are rarely reported. As an illustration of such an approach, we estimated annual health service resource requirements and health outcomes over the first decade of a population-based colorectal cancer screening programme in Ireland.MethodsA Markov state-transition model of colorectal neoplasia natural history was used. Three core screening scenarios were considered: (a) flexible sigmoidoscopy (FSIG) once at age 60, (b) biennial guaiac-based faecal occult blood tests (gFOBT) at 55–74 years, and (c) biennial faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) at 55–74 years. Three alternative FIT roll-out scenarios were also investigated relating to age-restricted screening (55–64 years) and staggered age-based roll-out across the 55–74 age group. Parameter estimates were derived from literature review, existing screening programmes, and expert opinion. Results were expressed in relation to the 2008 population (4.4 million people, of whom 700,800 were aged 55–74).ResultsFIT-based screening would deliver the greatest health benefits, averting 164 colorectal cancer cases and 272 deaths in year 10 of the programme. Capacity would be required for 11,095-14,820 diagnostic and surveillance colonoscopies annually, compared to 381–1,053 with FSIG-based, and 967–1,300 with gFOBT-based, screening. With FIT, in year 10, these colonoscopies would result in 62 hospital admissions for abdominal bleeding, 27 bowel perforations and one death. Resource requirements for pathology, diagnostic radiology, radiotherapy and colorectal resection were highest for FIT. Estimates depended on screening uptake. Alternative FIT roll-out scenarios had lower resource requirements.ConclusionsWhile FIT-based screening would quite quickly generate attractive health outcomes, it has heavy resource requirements. These could impact on the feasibility of a programme based on this screening modality. Staggered age-based roll-out would allow time to increase endoscopy capacity to meet programme requirements. Resource modelling of this type complements conventional cost-effectiveness analyses and can help inform policy making and service planning.

Comprehensive cancer control-research & development: knowing what we do and doing what we know

Comprehensive cancer control is defined as an integrated and coordinated approach to reducing cancer incidence, morbidity, and mortality across the cancer control continuum from primary prevention to end-of-life care. This approach assumes that when the public sector, non-governmental organizations, academia, and the private sector share with each other their skills, knowledge, and resources, a country can take advantage of all its talents and resources to more quickly reduce the burden of cancer for all its population. One critical issue for comprehensive cancer control is the extent to which the private sector can contribute to cancer prevention and control programs and policies that have historically been lead by the public health sector, and similarly how can the public sector increase its investment and involvement in clinical research and practice issues that are largely driven by the private sector worldwide? In addition, building capacity to integrate research that is appropriate to the culture and context of the population will be important in different settings, in particular research related to cancer control interventions that have the capacity to influence outcomes. To whatever extent cancer control research is ultimately funded through the private and public sectors, if investments in research discoveries are ultimately to benefit the populations that bear the greatest burden of disease, then new approaches to integrating the lessons learned from science with the lessons learned from service (public health, clinical, and public policy) must be found to close the gap between what we know and what we do. Communities of practice for international cancer control, like the ones fostered by the first three International Cancer Control Congresses, represent an important forum for knowledge exchange opportunities to accelerate the translation of new knowledge into action to reduce the burden of cancer worldwide.

Financial Impact of Colorectal Cancer and Its Consequences: Associations Between Cancer-Related Financial Stress and Strain and Health-Related Quality of Life

BACKGROUND: The financial impact and consequences of cancer on the lives of survivors remain poorly understood. This is especially true for colorectal cancer. OBJECTIVE: We investigated objective cancer-related financial stress, subjective cancer-related financial strain, and their association with health-related quality of life in colorectal cancer survivors. DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional postal survey. SETTINGS: The study was conducted in Ireland, which has a mixed public–private healthcare system. PATIENTS: Colorectal cancer survivors, diagnosed 6 to 37 months prior, were identified from the population-based National Cancer Registry. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cancer-related financial stress was assessed as impact of cancer on household ability to make ends meet and cancer-related financial strain by feelings about household financial situation since cancer diagnosis. Health-related quality of life was based on European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 global health status. Logistic regression was used to identify associations between financial stress and strain and low health-related quality of life (lowest quartile, score ⩽50). RESULTS: A total of 493 survivors participated. Overall, 41% reported cancer-related financial stress and 39% cancer-related financial strain; 32% reported both financial stress and financial strain. After adjustment for sociodemographic and clinical variables, the odds of low health-related quality of life were significantly higher in those who reported cancer-related financial stress postdiagnosis compared with those who reported no change in financial stress postcancer (OR = 2.54 (95% CI, 1.62–3.99)). The odds of low health-related quality of life were also significantly higher in those with worse financial strain postdiagnosis (OR =1.73 (95% CI, 1.09–2.72)). The OR for those with both cancer-related financial stress and financial strain was 2.59 (95% CI, 1.59–4.22). LIMITATIONS: Survey responders were younger, on average, than nonresponders. Responders and nonresponders may have differed in cancer-related financial stress and strain or health-related quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Four in 10 colorectal cancer survivors reported an adverse financial impact of cancer. Cancer-related financial stress and strain were significantly associated with low health-related quality of life. To inform support strategies, additional research is needed to better understand how both objective and subjective financial distress influence survivors’ health-related quality of life. See Video Abstract http://links.lww.com/DCR/A447.

Financial hardship associated with colorectal cancer survivorship: the role of asset depletion and debt accumulation

To estimate the prevalence of financial objective stress and subjective strain among colorectal cancer survivors and assess associated financial coping factors in Ireland, which has a mixed public‐private health care system.

Colorectal cancer survivors: an investigation of symptom burden and influencing factors

BackgroundColorectal cancer is a significant issue internationally, with over 1.3 million people diagnosed annually. Survival rates are increasing as treatments improve, although physical symptoms can persist despite eradication of the tumour. In order to optimize survivorship care, further research is warranted in relation to symptom burden. Therefore, the objectives of this study are to (i) investigate frequency of physical symptoms in colorectal cancer survivors (ii) identify which symptoms occur together (iii) examine the associations between demographic and clinical variables, and symptoms.MethodsParticipants nine months to three years post diagnosis were identified from the population-based National Cancer Registry Ireland. Respondents completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-CR29. Reported physical symptom frequencies were transformed into continuous scale variables, which were then analysed using one way analysis of variance, general linear modelling and Spearman rank correlations.ResultsThere were 496 participants. Fatigue, insomnia and flatulence were the most frequent symptoms, with ≥20% of respondents reporting these to be often present in the previous week. Eight other symptoms were experienced often by 10–20% of respondents. At least one of these eleven most common symptoms was experienced frequently by almost every respondent (99%). 66% of respondents experienced at least two of these symptoms together, and 16% experienced five or more together. Current stoma was the single most common variable associated with increased symptom scores, although statistically significant relationships (p ≤ 0.05) between symptom frequency scores and clinical/demographic variables were generally weak (R-sq value ≤0.08).ConclusionFindings may inform targeted interventions during the nine month to three year post diagnosis timeframe, which would enable supported self-management of symptoms.