Cost-Utility Analysis of Cancer Prevention, Treatment, and Control: A Systematic Review

Substantial innovation related to cancer prevention and treatment has occurred in recent decades. However, these innovations have often come at a significant cost. Cost-utility analysis provides a useful framework to assess if the benefits from innovation are worth the additional cost. This systemat...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:American journal of preventive medicine 2016-02, Vol.50 (2), p.241-248
Hauptverfasser: Winn, Aaron N, Ekwueme, Donatus U, Guy, Jr, Gery P, Neumann, Peter J
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 248
container_issue 2
container_start_page 241
container_title American journal of preventive medicine
container_volume 50
creator Winn, Aaron N
Ekwueme, Donatus U
Guy, Jr, Gery P
Neumann, Peter J
description Substantial innovation related to cancer prevention and treatment has occurred in recent decades. However, these innovations have often come at a significant cost. Cost-utility analysis provides a useful framework to assess if the benefits from innovation are worth the additional cost. This systematic review on published cost-utility analyses related to cancer care is from 1988 through 2013. Analyses were conducted in 2013-2015. This review analyzed data from the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry (www.cearegistry.org), a comprehensive registry with detailed information on 4,339 original cost-utility analyses published in the peer-reviewed medical and economic literature through 2013. There were 721 cancer-related cost-utility analyses published from 1998 through 2013, with roughly 12% of studies focused on primary prevention and 17% focused on secondary prevention. The most often studied cancers were breast cancer (29%); colorectal cancer (11%); and prostate cancer (8%). The median reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (in 2014 U.S. dollars) were $25,000 for breast cancer, $24,000 for colorectal cancer, and $34,000 for prostate cancer. The current evidence indicates that there are many interventions that are cost effective across cancer sites and levels of prevention. However, the results highlight the relatively small number of cancer cost-utility analyses devoted to primary prevention compared with secondary or tertiary prevention.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.amepre.2015.08.009
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5846573</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1760894336</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-p336t-db10095e338739a83b3d9874aee40bc64f0ba900a92a2ba17894c315482439dc3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVkMFq3DAQhkVJaDZp36AUHXNYOyNLtqQeAotJk0AgoU3o0Yzt2UTBtraSdsu-fQ1NSnIahvn5_o9h7IuAXICozp5zHGkTKC9AlDmYHMB-YAthtMyKCvQBW4BWNpPa6iN2HOMzAGgj7Ed2VFRKg4FqwX7VPqbsIbnBpT1fTTjso4vcr3mNU0eB3wXa0ZScn5b8PhCmcd6WHKee135KwQ_f-Ir_3MdEIybX8R-0c_TnEztc4xDp88s8YQ_fL-7rq-zm9vK6Xt1kGymrlPWtmLVLknLWtmhkK3trtEIiBW1XqTW0aAHQFli0KLSxqpOiVKZQ0vadPGHn_7ibbTtS381yAYdmE9yIYd94dM37y-Semke_a0qjqlLLGXD6Agj-95ZiakYXOxoGnMhvYyN0BXPpbDtHv77t-l_y-k35F8xyeXA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1760894336</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Cost-Utility Analysis of Cancer Prevention, Treatment, and Control: A Systematic Review</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>ScienceDirect Freedom Collection (Elsevier)</source><creator>Winn, Aaron N ; Ekwueme, Donatus U ; Guy, Jr, Gery P ; Neumann, Peter J</creator><creatorcontrib>Winn, Aaron N ; Ekwueme, Donatus U ; Guy, Jr, Gery P ; Neumann, Peter J</creatorcontrib><description>Substantial innovation related to cancer prevention and treatment has occurred in recent decades. However, these innovations have often come at a significant cost. Cost-utility analysis provides a useful framework to assess if the benefits from innovation are worth the additional cost. This systematic review on published cost-utility analyses related to cancer care is from 1988 through 2013. Analyses were conducted in 2013-2015. This review analyzed data from the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry (www.cearegistry.org), a comprehensive registry with detailed information on 4,339 original cost-utility analyses published in the peer-reviewed medical and economic literature through 2013. There were 721 cancer-related cost-utility analyses published from 1998 through 2013, with roughly 12% of studies focused on primary prevention and 17% focused on secondary prevention. The most often studied cancers were breast cancer (29%); colorectal cancer (11%); and prostate cancer (8%). The median reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (in 2014 U.S. dollars) were $25,000 for breast cancer, $24,000 for colorectal cancer, and $34,000 for prostate cancer. The current evidence indicates that there are many interventions that are cost effective across cancer sites and levels of prevention. However, the results highlight the relatively small number of cancer cost-utility analyses devoted to primary prevention compared with secondary or tertiary prevention.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0749-3797</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-2607</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2015.08.009</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26470806</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands</publisher><subject>Breast Neoplasms - prevention &amp; control ; Breast Neoplasms - therapy ; Colorectal Neoplasms - prevention &amp; control ; Colorectal Neoplasms - therapy ; Cost-Benefit Analysis ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Neoplasms - prevention &amp; control ; Neoplasms - therapy ; Preventive Health Services - economics ; Preventive Health Services - organization &amp; administration ; Prostatic Neoplasms - prevention &amp; control ; Prostatic Neoplasms - therapy</subject><ispartof>American journal of preventive medicine, 2016-02, Vol.50 (2), p.241-248</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2016 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26470806$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Winn, Aaron N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ekwueme, Donatus U</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guy, Jr, Gery P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Neumann, Peter J</creatorcontrib><title>Cost-Utility Analysis of Cancer Prevention, Treatment, and Control: A Systematic Review</title><title>American journal of preventive medicine</title><addtitle>Am J Prev Med</addtitle><description>Substantial innovation related to cancer prevention and treatment has occurred in recent decades. However, these innovations have often come at a significant cost. Cost-utility analysis provides a useful framework to assess if the benefits from innovation are worth the additional cost. This systematic review on published cost-utility analyses related to cancer care is from 1988 through 2013. Analyses were conducted in 2013-2015. This review analyzed data from the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry (www.cearegistry.org), a comprehensive registry with detailed information on 4,339 original cost-utility analyses published in the peer-reviewed medical and economic literature through 2013. There were 721 cancer-related cost-utility analyses published from 1998 through 2013, with roughly 12% of studies focused on primary prevention and 17% focused on secondary prevention. The most often studied cancers were breast cancer (29%); colorectal cancer (11%); and prostate cancer (8%). The median reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (in 2014 U.S. dollars) were $25,000 for breast cancer, $24,000 for colorectal cancer, and $34,000 for prostate cancer. The current evidence indicates that there are many interventions that are cost effective across cancer sites and levels of prevention. However, the results highlight the relatively small number of cancer cost-utility analyses devoted to primary prevention compared with secondary or tertiary prevention.</description><subject>Breast Neoplasms - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - therapy</subject><subject>Colorectal Neoplasms - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>Colorectal Neoplasms - therapy</subject><subject>Cost-Benefit Analysis</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Neoplasms - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>Neoplasms - therapy</subject><subject>Preventive Health Services - economics</subject><subject>Preventive Health Services - organization &amp; administration</subject><subject>Prostatic Neoplasms - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>Prostatic Neoplasms - therapy</subject><issn>0749-3797</issn><issn>1873-2607</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpVkMFq3DAQhkVJaDZp36AUHXNYOyNLtqQeAotJk0AgoU3o0Yzt2UTBtraSdsu-fQ1NSnIahvn5_o9h7IuAXICozp5zHGkTKC9AlDmYHMB-YAthtMyKCvQBW4BWNpPa6iN2HOMzAGgj7Ed2VFRKg4FqwX7VPqbsIbnBpT1fTTjso4vcr3mNU0eB3wXa0ZScn5b8PhCmcd6WHKee135KwQ_f-Ir_3MdEIybX8R-0c_TnEztc4xDp88s8YQ_fL-7rq-zm9vK6Xt1kGymrlPWtmLVLknLWtmhkK3trtEIiBW1XqTW0aAHQFli0KLSxqpOiVKZQ0vadPGHn_7ibbTtS381yAYdmE9yIYd94dM37y-Semke_a0qjqlLLGXD6Agj-95ZiakYXOxoGnMhvYyN0BXPpbDtHv77t-l_y-k35F8xyeXA</recordid><startdate>20160201</startdate><enddate>20160201</enddate><creator>Winn, Aaron N</creator><creator>Ekwueme, Donatus U</creator><creator>Guy, Jr, Gery P</creator><creator>Neumann, Peter J</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160201</creationdate><title>Cost-Utility Analysis of Cancer Prevention, Treatment, and Control: A Systematic Review</title><author>Winn, Aaron N ; Ekwueme, Donatus U ; Guy, Jr, Gery P ; Neumann, Peter J</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p336t-db10095e338739a83b3d9874aee40bc64f0ba900a92a2ba17894c315482439dc3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Breast Neoplasms - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - therapy</topic><topic>Colorectal Neoplasms - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>Colorectal Neoplasms - therapy</topic><topic>Cost-Benefit Analysis</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Neoplasms - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>Neoplasms - therapy</topic><topic>Preventive Health Services - economics</topic><topic>Preventive Health Services - organization &amp; administration</topic><topic>Prostatic Neoplasms - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>Prostatic Neoplasms - therapy</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Winn, Aaron N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ekwueme, Donatus U</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guy, Jr, Gery P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Neumann, Peter J</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>American journal of preventive medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Winn, Aaron N</au><au>Ekwueme, Donatus U</au><au>Guy, Jr, Gery P</au><au>Neumann, Peter J</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Cost-Utility Analysis of Cancer Prevention, Treatment, and Control: A Systematic Review</atitle><jtitle>American journal of preventive medicine</jtitle><addtitle>Am J Prev Med</addtitle><date>2016-02-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>50</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>241</spage><epage>248</epage><pages>241-248</pages><issn>0749-3797</issn><eissn>1873-2607</eissn><abstract>Substantial innovation related to cancer prevention and treatment has occurred in recent decades. However, these innovations have often come at a significant cost. Cost-utility analysis provides a useful framework to assess if the benefits from innovation are worth the additional cost. This systematic review on published cost-utility analyses related to cancer care is from 1988 through 2013. Analyses were conducted in 2013-2015. This review analyzed data from the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry (www.cearegistry.org), a comprehensive registry with detailed information on 4,339 original cost-utility analyses published in the peer-reviewed medical and economic literature through 2013. There were 721 cancer-related cost-utility analyses published from 1998 through 2013, with roughly 12% of studies focused on primary prevention and 17% focused on secondary prevention. The most often studied cancers were breast cancer (29%); colorectal cancer (11%); and prostate cancer (8%). The median reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (in 2014 U.S. dollars) were $25,000 for breast cancer, $24,000 for colorectal cancer, and $34,000 for prostate cancer. The current evidence indicates that there are many interventions that are cost effective across cancer sites and levels of prevention. However, the results highlight the relatively small number of cancer cost-utility analyses devoted to primary prevention compared with secondary or tertiary prevention.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pmid>26470806</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.amepre.2015.08.009</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0749-3797
ispartof American journal of preventive medicine, 2016-02, Vol.50 (2), p.241-248
issn 0749-3797
1873-2607
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5846573
source MEDLINE; ScienceDirect Freedom Collection (Elsevier)
subjects Breast Neoplasms - prevention & control
Breast Neoplasms - therapy
Colorectal Neoplasms - prevention & control
Colorectal Neoplasms - therapy
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Female
Humans
Male
Neoplasms - prevention & control
Neoplasms - therapy
Preventive Health Services - economics
Preventive Health Services - organization & administration
Prostatic Neoplasms - prevention & control
Prostatic Neoplasms - therapy
title Cost-Utility Analysis of Cancer Prevention, Treatment, and Control: A Systematic Review
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T08%3A01%3A48IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Cost-Utility%20Analysis%20of%20Cancer%20Prevention,%20Treatment,%20and%20Control:%20A%20Systematic%20Review&rft.jtitle=American%20journal%20of%20preventive%20medicine&rft.au=Winn,%20Aaron%20N&rft.date=2016-02-01&rft.volume=50&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=241&rft.epage=248&rft.pages=241-248&rft.issn=0749-3797&rft.eissn=1873-2607&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.amepre.2015.08.009&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1760894336%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1760894336&rft_id=info:pmid/26470806&rfr_iscdi=true