Search

Contains fulltext : 291298.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is a promising new biomarker with multiple potential applications in cancer care. Estimating total cost of ctDNA testing is necessary for reimbursement and implementation, but challenging because of variations in workflow. We aimed to develop a micro-costing framework for consistent cost calculation of ctDNA testing. First, the foundation of the framework was built, based on the complete step-wise diagnostic workflow of ctDNA testing. Second, the costing method was set up, including costs for personnel, materials, equipment, overhead, and failures. Third, the framework was evaluated by experts and applied to six case studies, including PCR-, mass spectrometry-, and next-generation sequencing-based platforms, from three Dutch hospitals. The developed ctDNA micro-costing framework includes the diagnostic workflow from blood sample collection to diagnostic test result. The framework was developed from a Dutch perspective and takes testing volume into account. An open access tool is provided to allow for laboratory-specific calculations to explore the total costs of ctDNA testing specific workflow parameters matching the setting of interest. It also allows to straightforwardly assess the impact of alternative prices or assumptions on the cost per sample by simply varying the input parameters. The case studies showed a wide range of costs, from €168 to €7638 ($199 to $9124) per sample, and generated information. These costs are sensitive to the (coverage of) platform, setting, and testing volume. 01 januari 2023

Item does not contain fulltext BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies have dramatically improved outcomes in patients with advanced melanoma, but approximately half these patients will not have a durable benefit. Phase 1-2 trials of adoptive cell therapy with tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) have shown promising responses, but data from phase 3 trials are lacking to determine the role of TILs in treating advanced melanoma. METHODS: In this phase 3, multicenter, open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients with unresectable stage IIIC or IV melanoma in a 1:1 ratio to receive TIL or anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 therapy (ipilimumab at 3 mg per kilogram of body weight). Infusion of at least 5×10(9) TILs was preceded by nonmyeloablative, lymphodepleting chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide plus fludarabine) and followed by high-dose interleukin-2. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: A total of 168 patients (86% with disease refractory to anti-programmed death 1 treatment) were assigned to receive TILs (84 patients) or ipilimumab (84 patients). In the intention-to-treat population, median progression-free survival was 7.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.2 to 13.1) in the TIL group and 3.1 months (95% CI, 3.0 to 4.3) in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.72; P

Introduction: Prognostic gene expression signatures can be used in combination with classical clinicopathological factors to guide adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer. However, long-term outcome data after introduction of genomic testing in the treatment decision-making process are limited. Methods: In the prospective RASTER study, the tumours of 427 patients with cTanyN0M0 breast cancer were tested to assess the 70-gene signature (MammaPrint). The results were provided to their treating physician to be incorporated in the decision-making on adjuvant systemic therapy. Here, we report the long-term outcome of the 310 patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative tumours by clinical and genomic risk categories at a median follow-up of 10.3 years. Results: Among the clinically high-risk patients, 45 (49%) were classified as genomically low risk. In this subgroup, at 10 years, distant recurrence free interval (DRFI) was similar between patients treated with (95.7% [95% CI 87.7–100]) and without (95.5% [95% CI 87.1–100]) chemotherapy. Within the group of clinically low-risk patients, 56 (26%) were classified as genomically high risk. Within the clinically low-risk group, beyond 5 years, a difference emerged between the genomically high- and low-risk subgroup resulting in a 10-year DRFI of 84.3% (95% CI 74.8–95.0) and 93.4% (95% CI 89.5–97.5), respectively. Interestingly, genomic ultralow-risk patients have a 10-year DRFI of 96.7% (95% CI 90.5–100), largely (79%) without systemic therapy. Conclusions: These data confirm that clinically high-risk, genomically low-risk tumours have an excellent outcome in the real-world setting of shared decision-making. Together with the updated results of the MINDACT trial, these data support the use of the MammaPrint, in ER-positive, HER2-negative, node-negative, clinically high-risk breast cancer patients. Registry: ISRCTN71917916

Tumour DNA and germline testing, based on DNA-wide sequencing analysis, are becoming more and more routine in clinical-oncology practice. A promising step in medicine, but at the same time leading to challenging ethicolegal questions. An important one is under what conditions individuals (patients and their relatives, research participants) should be recontacted with new information, even if many years have passed since the last contact. Based on legal- and ethical study, we developed a tool to help professionals to decide whether or not to recontact an individual in specific cases. It is based on four assessment criteria: (1) professional relationship (2) clinical impact (3) individual's preferences and (4) feasibility. The tool could also serve as a framework for guidelines on the topic.

The high cost of many new anticancer medicines significantly impedes breakthrough discoveries from reaching patients. A commonly heard refrain is that high prices are necessary to compensate for the high costs of research and development (R&D). Yet, there are promising policy proposals aimed at improving affordability without compromising innovation. In seeking new policy solutions, we argue for a shift away from entrenched opinion toward an evidence-based discourse that is grounded in experiments and real-world pilot studies. We offer a novel perspective and practical recommendations on how empirical evidence could and should be gathered to inform evidence-based policy interventions that lead to sustainable medicine prices in oncology.See related article by Franzen et al. (Cancer Res Commun 2022;2:39–47).

Supplementary DataBrief description of important policy proposals to reduce treatment prices in oncology.

Background: Over the past decade, many hospitals have adopted hybrid operating rooms (ORs). As resources are limited, these ORs have to prove themselves in adding value. Current estimations on standard OR costs show great variety, while cost analyses of hybrid ORs are lacking. Therefore, this study aims to identify the cost drivers of a conventional and hybrid OR and take a first step in evaluating the added value of the hybrid OR. Methods: A comprehensive bottom-up cost analysis was conducted in five Dutch hospitals taking into account: construction, inventory, personnel and overhead costs by means of interviews and hospital specific data. The costs per minute for both ORs were calculated using the utilization rates of the ORs. Cost drivers were identified by sensitivity analyses. Results: The costs per minute for the conventional OR and the hybrid OR were €9.45 (€8.60-€10.23) and €19.88 (€16.10- €23.07), respectively. Total personnel and total inventory costs had most impact on the conventional OR costs. For the hybrid OR the costs were mostly driven by utilization rate, total inventory and construction costs. The results were incorporated in an open access calculation model to enable adjustment of the input parameters to a specific hospital or country setting. Conclusion: This study estimated a cost of €9.45 (€8.60-€10.23) and €19.88 (€16.10-€23.07) for the conventional and hybrid OR, respectively. The main factors influencing the OR costs are: total inventory costs, total construction costs, utilization rate, and total personnel costs. Our analysis can be used as a basis for future research focusing on evaluating value for money of this promising innovative OR. Furthermore, our results can inform surgeons, and decision and policy-makers in hospitals on the adoption and optimal utilization of new (hybrid) ORs.

The high cost of many new anticancer medicines significantly impedes breakthrough discoveries from reaching patients. A commonly heard refrain is that high prices are necessary to compensate for the high costs of research and development (R&D). Yet, there are promising policy proposals aimed at improving affordability without compromising innovation. In seeking new policy solutions, we argue for a shift away from entrenched opinion toward an evidence-based discourse that is grounded in experiments and real-world pilot studies. We offer a novel perspective and practical recommendations on how empirical evidence could and should be gathered to inform evidence-based policy interventions that lead to sustainable medicine prices in oncology. See related article by Franzen et al. (Cancer Res Commun 2022;2:39–47) .

The high prices of innovative medicines endanger access to care worldwide. Sustainable prices need to be affordable while sufficiently incentivizing research and development (R&D) investments. A proposed solution is increased transparency. Proponents argue that price and R&D cost confidentiality are drivers of high prices. On the contrary, supporters of confidentiality claim that confidentiality enables targeted discounts which make treatments affordable; moreover, pharmaceutical companies argue that R&D investments would suffer with more transparency. Despite the political relevance, limited empirical evidence exists on the effects of transparency regulations. We contribute to fill this gap with an experiment where we replicate the EU pharmaceutical market in a laboratory setting. In a randomized controlled study, we analyzed how participants, 400 students located in four European countries, negotiated in the current system of Price Secrecy in comparison with innovative bargaining settings where either prices only (Price Transparency) or prices and R&D costs (Full Transparency) were made transparent to buyers. We found that Price transparency had no statistically significant effect on average prices or number of patients treated and made R&D investments significantly smaller (−16.86%; P: 0.0024). On the other hand, Full Transparency reduced prices (−26%; P: 0.0004) and held the number of patients constant at the level of Price Secrecy. It produced price convergence between countries with low and high health budgets, and, despite lower prices, had no effect on R&D investments. Our findings provide novel evidence that combining price and R&D cost transparency could be an effective policy to contribute to sustainable medicine prices. See related article by Franzen et al. (Cancer Discov 2022;12:299–302).

Background Despite multiple studies evaluating the effectiveness of Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy (RARP), there is no definitive conclusion about the added value of RARP. A retrospective cluster study was conducted to evaluate long-term sexual and urinary functioning after RARP and Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy (LRP) based on real-world data from 12 Dutch hospitals. Methods Data was collected from patients who underwent surgery between 2010 and 2012. A mixed effect model was used to evaluate differences between groups on urinary and sexual functioning (EPIC-26). Additionally, a regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the relationship between these functional outcomes and, among others, hospital volume. Results 1370 (65.1%) patients participated, 907 underwent RARP and 463 LRP, with a median follow-up time of 7.08 years (SD = 0.98). The RARP group showed a statistically and clinically significant better urinary functioning compared to the LRP group (p = 0.002). RARP showed also a shorter procedure time (p=

Background Many cancer survivors experience physical and/or psychosocial problems affecting return to work (RTW) and work retention. Current interventions on RTW lack evidence regarding effectiveness, while interventions for work retention are missing. Partners of cancer survivors may also experience work- and health-related outcomes; yet, these consequences are not well understood. Here, the protocol of the STEPS study is described. The study aims are to: 1) evaluate the (cost-)effectiveness of a rehabilitation program for RTW and work retention in cancer survivors, and 2) assess health- and work-related outcomes among cancer survivors’ partners. Methods In a multicentre Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT), 236 working-age cancer survivors with an employment contract will be randomly allocated to a usual care group or an intervention group receiving a multidisciplinary rehabilitation program, combining occupational therapy facilitating work retention (e.g., energy management and self-efficacy training) and reintegration consultation addressing work-related issues (e.g., RTW planning and discussing workplace or task modifications with the supervisor). Alongside the RCT, a prospective cohort study will be conducted among cancer survivors’ partners (n = 267). Participants in the RCT and cohort study will be asked to complete questionnaires at baseline, and after six and 12 months, assessing work- and health-related outcomes. Generalized estimating equations will be used to assess intervention’s effectiveness, compared to usual care, regarding primary (i.e., working hours per week) and secondary outcomes. Also economic and process evaluations will be performed. For the cohort study, logistic or linear regression modelling will be applied assessing work- and health-related outcomes (primary outcome: working hours) of cancer survivors’ partners, and what factors predict these outcomes. Results The study is planned to start in September 2021; results are expected in 2023. Conclusion Compared to usual care, the STEPS intervention is hypothesized to be (cost-)effective and the intervention could be a valuable addition to standard care helping cancer survivors to sustain employment. Further, it is expected that living with a cancer survivor has a substantial impact on work and health of partners, while specific groups of partners that are at particular risk for this impact are likely to be identified. Trial registration Dutch Trial Register (NTR;NL9094; 15-12-2020).

The continued introduction of biomarkers and innovative testing methods makes already complex diagnosis in patients with stage IV nonesmall-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) even more complex. This study primarily analyzed variations in biomarker testing in clinical practice in patients referred to a comprehensive cancer center in the Netherlands. The secondary aim was to compare the cost of biomarker testing with the cost of whole-genome sequencing. The cohort included 102 stage IV NSCLC patients who received biomarker testing in 2017 or 2018 at the comprehensive cancer center. The complete biomarker testing history of the cohort was identified using linked data from the comprehensive cancer center and the nationwide network and registry of histopathology and cytopathology in the Netherlands. Unique biomarker-test combinations, costs, turnaround times, and test utilization were examined. The results indicate substantial variation in test utilization and sequences. The mean cost per patient of biomarker testing was 2259.92 +/- 1217.10 USD, or 1881.23 +/- 1013.15 EUR. Targeted gene panels were most frequently conducted, followed by IHC analysis for programmed cell death protein ligand 1. Typically, the most common biomarkers were assessed within the first tests, and emerging biomarkers were tested further down the test sequence. At the cost of current biomarker testing, replacing current testing with whole-genome sequencing would have led to costsavings in only two patients (2%).

Background Guidelines recommend annual surveillance imaging after diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Guideline adherence has not been characterized in a contemporary cohort. Purpose To identify uptake and determinants of surveillance imaging in women who underwent treatment for DCIS. Materials and Methods A stratified random sample of women who underwent breast-conserving surgery for primary DCIS between 2008 and 2014 was retrospectively selected from 1330 facilities in the United States. Imaging examinations were recorded from date of diagnosis until first distant recurrence, death, loss to follow-up, or end of study (November 2018). Imaging after treatment was categorized into 10 12-month periods starting 6 months after diagnosis. Primary outcome was per-period receipt of asymptomatic surveillance imaging (mammography, MRI, or US). Secondary outcome was diagnosis of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer. Multivariable logistic regression with repeated measures and generalized estimating equations was used to model receipt of imaging. Rates of diagnosis with ipsilateral invasive breast cancer were compared between women who did and those who did not undergo imaging in the 6-18-month period after diagnosis using inverse probability-weighted Kaplan-Meier estimators. Results A total of 12 559 women (median age, 60 years; IQR, 52-69 years) were evaluated. Uptake of surveillance imaging was 75% in the first period and decreased over time (P < .001). Across the first 5 years after treatment, 52% of women participated in consistent annual surveillance. Surveillance was lower in Black (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.80; 95% CI: 0.74, 0.88; P < .001) and Hispanic (OR, 0.82; 95% CI: 0.72, 0.94; P = .004) women than in White women. Women who underwent surveillance in the first period had a higher 6-year rate of diagnosis of invasive cancer (1.6%; 95% CI: 1.3, 1.9) than those who did not (1.1%; 95% CI: 0.7, 1.4; difference: 0.5%; 95% CI: 0.1, 1.0; P = .03). Conclusion Half of women did not consistently adhere to imaging surveillance guidelines across the first 5 years after treatment, with racial disparities in adherence rates. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Rahbar and Dontchos in this issue.

Objective: Treatment decision-making for patients with laryngeal cancer consists of a complex trade-off between survival and quality of life. For decision makers on coverage and guidelines, costs come in addition to this equation. Our aim was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of surgery (laryngectomy with or without radiotherapy) versus organ preservation (OP: radiotherapy, chemo- and/or bioradiation) in advanced laryngeal cancer patients from a healthcare perspective. Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a Markov model. For each modality, data on survival and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were sourced from relevant articles in agreement with experts, and national benchmark cost prices were included regarding treatment, follow-up, adverse events, and rehabilitation. Results: Total QALYs of the surgical approach (6.59) were substantially higher compared to the OP approach (5.44). Total lifetime costs were higher for the surgical approach compared to the OP approach, namely €95,881 versus €47,233. The surgical approach was therefore more effective and more costly compared to OP, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €42,383/QALY. Conclusion: Based on current literature, surgical treatment was cost-effective compared to OP in advanced laryngeal cancer within most willingness-to-pay thresholds. The study provides information on the survival adjusted for quality of life in combination with costs of two different approaches for advanced laryngeal cancer, relevant for patients, physicians, and policy makers. As financial toxicity is a relevant aspect in this population, collection of real-world data on country-specific costs and utilities is strongly recommended to enable further generalization. Level of Evidence: N/A. Laryngoscope, 131:E509–E517, 2021.

Background To improve surgical performance, image-guided (IG) technologies are increasingly introduced. Yet, it is unknown which oncological procedures yield most value from these technologies. This study aimed to select the most promising IG technology per oncologic indication. Methods An Analytic Hierarchical Process was used to evaluate three IG technologies: navigation, optical imaging, and augmented reality, in five oncologic indications compared with usual care. Sixteen decision criteria were selected. The relative importance of the criteria and the expected performance of the technologies were evaluated among surgeons. The combination of these scores gives the expected value per technology. Results On criteria level, sparing critical tissue (9%-18%) and reducing the risk of local recurrence (11%-27%) were most important. Navigation was preferred in three indications—removal of lymph nodes (42%), liver (47%), and rectal tumors (33%). In removing rectal tumors, optical imaging was equally preferred (34%). In removing breast and tongue tumors, no technology was clearly preferred. Conclusions In selecting IG technologies, especially optical and navigation technologies are expected to add value in addition to usual care. Further development of those technologies for the preferred indications seems valuable. Multi-attribute analysis showed to be useful in prioritization of conducting clinical studies and steer research and development initiatives.

PurposePredictive diagnostics play an increasingly important role in personalized medicine for cancer treatment. Whole genome sequencing (WGS) based treatment selection is expected to rapidly increase worldwide. Detailed and comparative cost analyses of diagnostic techniques are an essential element in decision-making. This study aimed to calculate and compare the total cost of currently used diagnostic techniques and of WGS in treatment of non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC), melanoma, colorectal cancer (CRC) and gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) in the Netherlands.MethodsThe activity-based costing (ABC) method was conducted to calculate the total cost of included diagnostic techniques based on data provided by Dutch pathology laboratories and the Dutch centralized cancer WGS facility. Costs were allocated to four categories: capital costs, maintenance costs, software costs and operational costs. Outcome measures were total cost per cancer patient per included technique, and the total cost per cancer patient per most commonly applied technique (combination) for each cancer type.ResultsThe total cost per cancer patient per technique varied from € 58 (Sanger sequencing, 3 amplicons) to € 4738 (paired tumor-normal WGS). The operational costs accounted for the vast majority over 90 % of the total per cancer patient technique costs. The most important operational cost drivers were consumables followed by personnel (for sample preparation and primary data analysis).ConclusionThis study outlined in detail all costing aspects and cost prices of current and new diagnostic modalities used in treatment of NSCLC, melanoma, CRC and GIST in the Netherlands. Detailed cost differences and value comparisons between these diagnostic techniques enable future economic evaluations to support decision-making on implementation of WGS and other diagnostic modalities in routine clinical practice.

Background: This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of using heat and moisture exchangers (HMEs) vs alternative stoma covers (ASCs) following laryngectomy in the United States. Methods: A cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis were conducted including uncertainty analyses using real-world survey data with pulmonary events and productivity loss. Results: HME use was more effective and less costly compared with ASCs. Quality-adjusted life years were slightly higher for HME-users. Total costs per patient (lifetime) were $59 362 (HME) and $102 416 (ASC). Pulmonary events and productivity loss occurred more frequently in the ASC-users. Annual budget savings were up to $40 183 593. Costs per pulmonary event averted were $3770. Conclusions: HME utilization in laryngectomy patients was cost-effective. Reimbursement of HME devices is thus recommended. Utilities may be underestimated due to the generic utility instrument used and sample size. Therefore, we recommend development of a disease-specific utility tool to incorporate in future analyses.

Novel innovative drugs have improved disease control, survival and quality of life for many patients. The costs of these drugs, however, are extremely high and threaten the long-term affordability of our health care system. Efficient use of existing drugs can decrease drug expenditure whilst improving patients' quality of life at the same time. Efficiency adjustments should not compromise treatment efficacy and therefore, clinical research on the matter is crucial. In this article, we demonstrate that efficiency research is feasible, as exemplified by the SONIA study. We make the case for a 'revolving fund' in which savings from one study are used to fund a next one. A revolving fund thus stimulates efficiency research and capitalizes research investments in the interest of both patients and society.

High-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell rescue (HDCT) is a promising treatment for patients with stage III, HER2-negative, homologous recombination deficient (HRD) breast cancer. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness are currently under investigation in an international multicenter randomized controlled trial. To increase the chance of successful introduction of HDCT into daily clinical practice, we aimed to identify relevant factors for smooth implementation using an early comprehensive assessment framework.This is a qualitative, multi-stakeholder, exploratory research using semi-structured interviews guided by the Constructive Technology Assessment model, which evaluates the quality of a novel health technology by clinical, economic, patient-related, and organizational factors. Stakeholders were recruited by purposeful stratified sampling and interviewed until sufficient content saturation was reached. Two researchers independently created themes, categories, and subcategories by following inductive coding steps, these were verified by a third researcher.We interviewed 28 stakeholders between June 2019 and April 2021. In total, five overarching themes and seventeen categories were identified. Important findings for optimal implementation included the structural identification and referral of all eligible patients, early integration of supportive care, multidisciplinary collaboration between- and within hospitals, (de)centralization of treatment aspects, the provision of information for patients and healthcare professionals, and compliance to new regulation for the BRCA1-like test.In anticipation of a positive reimbursement decision, we recommend to take the highlighted implementation factors into consideration. This might expedite and guide high-quality equitable access to HDCT for patients with stage III, HER2-negative, HRD breast cancer in the Netherlands.

Background: The clinical utility of the 70-gene signature (MammaPrint®) to guide chemotherapy use in T1-3N0-1M0 breast cancer was demonstrated in the Microarray in Node-Negative and 1 to 3 Positive Lymph Node Disease May Avoid Chemotherapy (MINDACT) study. One thousand four ninety seven of 3356 (46.2%) enrolled patients with high clinical risk (in accordance with the modified Adjuvant! Online clinical-pathological assessment) had a low-risk 70-gene signature. Using patient-level data from the MINDACT trial, the cost-effectiveness of using the 70-gene signature to guide adjuvant chemotherapy selection for clinical high risk, estrogen receptor positive (ER+), human epidermal growth factor 2 negative (HER2-) patients was analysed. Patients and methods: A hybrid decision tree-Markov model simulated treatment strategies in accordance with the 70-gene signature with clinical assessment versus clinical assessment alone, over a 10-year time horizon. Primary outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), country-specific costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for six countries: Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands, UK and the US. Results: Treatment strategies guided by the 70-gene signature result in more QALYs compared with clinical assessment alone. Costs of the 70-gene signature strategy were lower in five of six countries. This led to dominance of the 70-gene signature in Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands and the US and to a cost-effective situation in the UK (ICER £22,910/QALY). Annual national cost savings were €4.2M (Belgium), €24.7M (France), €45.1M (Germany), €12.7M (Netherlands) and $244M (US). UK budget increase was £8.4M. Conclusion: Using the 70-gene signature to safely guide chemotherapy de-escalation in clinical high risk patients with ER+/HER2- tumours is cost-effective compared with using clinical assessment alone. Long-term follow-up and outcomes from the MINDACT trial are necessary to address uncertainties in model inputs., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Tissue biopsies can be burdensome and are only effective in 10–30% of patients with metastasized non-small-cell lung cancer (mNSCLC). Next-generation sequencing (NGS) on cell-free DNA (cfDNA) might be an attractive alternative. We evaluated the costs, throughput time, and diagnostic yield of two diagnostic scenarios with tissue and cfDNA for mNSCLC patients, compared to diagnostics based on tissue biopsy alone. Data were retrieved from 209 stage IV NSCLC patients included in 10 hospitals in the Netherlands in the observational Lung cancer Early Molecular Assessment (LEMA) trial. Discrete event simulation was developed to compare three scenarios, using LEMA data as input where possible: (1) diagnostics with “tissue only”; (2) diagnostics with “cfDNA first”, and subsequent tissue biopsy if required (negative for EGFR, BRAF ALK, ROS1); (3) cfDNA if tissue biopsy failed (“tissue first”). Scenario- and probabilistic analyses were performed to quantify uncertainty. In scenario 1, 84% (Credibility Interval [CrI] 70–94%) of the cases had a clinically relevant test result, compared to 93% (CrI 86–98%) in scenario 2, and 93% (CrI 86–99%) in scenario 3. The mean throughput time was 20 days (CrI 17–23) pp in scenario 1, 9 days (CrI 7–11) in scenario 2, and 19 days (CrI 16–22) in scenario 3. Mean costs were €2304 pp (CrI €2067–2507) in scenario 1, compared to €3218 (CrI €3071–3396) for scenario 2, and €2448 (CrI €2382–2506) for scenario 3. Scenarios 2 and 3 led to a reduction in tissue biopsies of 16% and 9%, respectively. In this process-based simulation analysis, the implementation of cfDNA for patients with mNSCLC resulted in faster completion of molecular profiling with more identified targets, with marginal extra costs in scenario 3.

A large number of medical devices (MDs) is available in Europe. Procedures for market approval and reimbursement have been adopted over recent years to promote accelerating patient access to innovative MDs. However, there remains uncertainty and non-transparency regarding these procedures. We provide a structured overview of market approval and reimbursement procedures and practices regarding access to MDs in the EU. Market approval procedures were found to be uniformly described. Data on reimbursement procedures and practices was both heterogeneous and incomplete. Time to MD access was mainly determined by reimbursement procedures. The influence of the patient on time to access was not reported. Prescription practices varied among device types. Barriers to and facilitators of early patient access that set the agenda for policy implications were also analyzed. Barriers were caused by unclear European legislation, complex market approval procedures, lack of data collection, inconsistency in evidence requirements between countries, regional reimbursement and provision, and factors influencing physicians’ prescription including the device costs, waiting times and hospital-physician relationships. Facilitators were: available evidence that meets country-specific requirements for reimbursement, diagnosis-related groups, additional payments and research programs. Further research needs to focus on creating a complete overview of reimbursement procedures and practices by extracting further information from sources such as grey literature and interviews with professionals, and defining clear criteria to objectify time to access.

PURPOSE: Internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy (iCBT), with and without therapist support, is effective in reducing treatment-induced menopausal symptoms and perceived impact of hot flushes and night sweats (HF/NS) in breast cancer survivors. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the cost-utility, cost-effectiveness, and budget impact of both iCBT formats compared to a waiting list control group from the Dutch healthcare perspective.METHODS: A Markov model was constructed with a 5-year time horizon. Costs and health outcomes were measured alongside a randomized controlled clinical trial and included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), overall levels of menopausal symptoms, and perceived impact of HF/NS. Uncertainty was examined using probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses, together with a scenario analysis incorporating a different perspective.RESULTS: iCBT was slightly more expensive than the waiting list control, but also more effective, resulting in incremental cost-utility ratios of €23,331/QALY and €11,277/QALY for the guided and self-managed formats, respectively. A significant reduction in overall levels of menopausal symptoms or perceived impact of HF/NS resulted in incremental costs between €1460 and €1525 for the guided and €500-€753 for the self-managed format. The estimated annual budget impact for the Netherlands was €192,990 for the guided and €74,592 for the self-managed format.CONCLUSION: Based on the current trial data, the results indicate that both guided and self-managed iCBT are cost-effective with a willingness-to-pay threshold of well below €30,000/QALY. Additionally, self-managed iCBT is the most cost-effective strategy and has a lower impact on healthcare budgets.

Background Advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harbours many genetic aberrations that can be targeted with systemic treatments. Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) can simultaneously detect these (and possibly new) molecular targets. However, the exact added clinical value of WGS is unknown. Objective The objective of this study was to determine the early cost effectiveness of using WGS in diagnostic strategies compared with currently used molecular diagnostics for patients with inoperable stage IIIB,C/IV non-squamous NSCLC from a Dutch healthcare perspective. Methods A decision tree represented the diagnostic pathway, and a cohort state transition model represented disease progression. Three diagnostic strategies were modelled: standard of care (SoC) alone, WGS as a diagnostic test, and SoC followed by WGS. Treatment effectiveness was based on a systematic review. Probabilistic cost-effectiveness analyses were performed, and threshold analyses (using €80,000 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) was used to explore the early cost effectiveness of WGS. Results WGS as a diagnostic test resulted in more QALYs (0.002) and costs (€1534 [incremental net monetary benefit –€1349]), and SoC followed by WGS resulted in fewer QALYs (–0.002) and more costs (€1059 [–€1194]) compared with SoC alone. WGS as a diagnostic test was only cost effective if it was priced at €2000 per patient and identified 2.7% more actionable patients than SoC alone. Treating these additional identified patients with new treatments costing >€4069 per month decreased the probability of cost effectiveness. Conclusions Our analysis suggests that providing WGS as a diagnostic test is cost effective compared with SoC followed by WGS and SoC alone if costs for WGS decrease and additional patients with actionable targets are identified. This cost-effectiveness model can be used to incorporate new findings iteratively and to support ongoing decision making regarding the use of WGS in this rapidly evolving field. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40273-021-01073-y.

Simple Summary Preferences for treatment strategies for low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), a potential precursor of invasive breast cancer (IBC) including a new active surveillance strategy, were elicited with a discrete choice experiment among recently-diagnosed women and oncologists involved in the care of women with DCIS. Patients exhibited strong preferences for active surveillance and seemed prepared to accept much higher levels of 10-year risk of developing ipsilateral invasive breast cancer than oncologists. Both patients and oncologists showed a strong aversion toward more extensive locoregional treatments (i.e., breast conserving surgery followed by radiotherapy, and mastectomy), while both groups demonstrated a strong preference toward shorter follow-up intervals. Abstract As ongoing trials study the safety of an active surveillance strategy for low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), there is a need to explain why particular choices regarding treatment strategies are made by eligible women as well as their oncologists, what factors enter the decision process, and how much each factor affects their choice. To measure preferences for treatment and surveillance strategies, women with newly-diagnosed, primary low-risk DCIS enrolled in the Dutch CONTROL DCIS Registration and LORD trial, and oncologists participating in the Dutch Health Professionals Study were invited to complete a discrete choice experiment (DCE). The relative importance of treatment strategy-related attributes (locoregional intervention, 10-year risk of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer (iIBC), and follow-up interval) were discerned using conditional logit models. A total of n = 172 patients and n = 30 oncologists completed the DCE. Patient respondents had very strong preferences for an active surveillance strategy with no surgery, irrespective of the 10-year risk of iIBC. Extensiveness of the locoregional treatment was consistently shown to be an important factor for patients and oncologists in deciding upon treatment strategies. Risk of iIBC was least important to patients and most important to oncologists. There was a stronger inclination toward a twice-yearly follow-up for both groups compared to annual follow-up.

Simple Summary Many cancer survivors have difficulties in attaining and maintaining physical activity (PA) after treatment. Therefore, we developed an Internet-based PA support program (IPAS), embedded in a patient portal. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and costs of IPAS alone (online only) or IPAS combined with physiotherapist telephone counselling (blended care), compared to a control group. Our RCT included 137 breast and prostate cancer survivors. IPAS in its current form did not prove to be effective in increasing moderate to vigorous PA levels or secondary outcomes, compared to a control group, either as a standalone intervention or offered as blended care. We observed low to moderate satisfaction scores, with better scores for blended care. Recruitment and adherence to the study were challenging. Lessons learned led to suggestions for future trials, such as improved accessibility of the support program, increased frequency of support and use of activity trackers. Abstract Background: We developed an Internet-based physical activity (PA) support program (IPAS), which is embedded in a patient portal. We evaluated the effectiveness and costs of IPAS alone (online only) or IPAS combined with physiotherapist telephone counselling (blended care), compared to a control group. Methods: Breast or prostate cancer survivors, 3–36 months after completing primary treatment, were randomized to 6-months access to online only, blended care, or a control group. At baseline and 6-month post-baseline, minutes of moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA) were measured by accelerometers. Secondary outcomes were self-reported PA, fatigue, mood, health-related quality of life, attitude toward PA, and costs. (Generalized) linear models were used to compare the outcomes between groups. Results: We recruited 137 survivors (participation rate 11%). We did not observe any significant between-group differences in MVPA or secondary outcomes. Adherence was rather low and satisfaction scores were low to moderate, with better scores for blended care. Costs for both interventions were low. Conclusions: Recruitment to the study was challenging and the interventions were less efficacious than anticipated, which led to lessons learned for future trials. Suggestions for future research are as follows: improved accessibility of the support program, increased frequency of support, and use of activity trackers.

Item does not contain fulltext

Introduction: Personalized medicine-based treatments in advanced cancer hold the promise to offer substantial health benefits to genetic subgroups,but require efficient biomarker-based patient stratification to match the right treatment and may be expensive. Standard molecular diagnostics are currently very heterogeneous, and tests are often performed sequentially. The alternative to whole genome sequencing (WGS) i.e. simultaneously testing for all relevant DNA-based biomarkers thereby allowing immediate selection of the most optimal therapy, is more costly than current techniques. In the current implementation stage, it is important to explore the added value and cost-effectiveness of using WGS on a patient level and to assess optimal introduction of WGS on the level of the healthcare system. Areas covered: First, an overview of current worldwide initiatives concerning the use of WGS in clinical practice for cancer diagnostics is given. Second, a comprehensive, early health technology assessment (HTA) approach of evaluating WGS in the Netherlands is described, relating to the following aspects: diagnostic value, WGS-based treatment decisions, assessment of long-term health benefits and harms, early cost-effectiveness modeling, nation-wide organization, and Ethical, Legal and Societal Implications. Expert opinion: This study provides evidence to guide further development and implementation of WGS in clinical practice and the healthcare system.

Healthcare systems are faced with the challenge of providing innovative treatments, while shouldering high drug costs that pharmaceutical companies justify by the high costs of R&D. An emergent technology that could transform R&D efficiency is organ-on-a-chip. The technology bridges the gap between preclinical testing and human trials through better predictive models, significantly impacting R&D costs. Here, we present an expert survey on the future role of organ-on-a-chip in drug discovery and its potential quantitative impact. We find that the technology has the potential to reduce R&D costs significantly, driven by changes in direct costs, success rates and the length of the R&D process. Finally, we discuss regulatory challenges to efficiency improvements.

Objectives Increased emphasis on molecular diagnostics can lead to increased variation in time to treatment (TTT) for patients with stage III and IV non-small cell lung cancer. This article presents the variation in TTT for advanced NSCLC patients observed in Dutch hospitals before the widespread use of immunotherapy. The aim of this article was to explore the variation in TTT between patients, as well as between hospitals. Material and methods Based on the Netherlands Cancer Registry, we used patient-level data (n = 4096) from all 78 hospitals that diagnosed stage III or IV NSCLC in the Netherlands in 2016. To investigate how patient characteristics and hospital-level effects are associated with TTT (from diagnosis until start treatment), we interpreted regression model results for five common patient profiles to analyze the influence of age, gender, tumor stage, performance status, histology, and referral status as well as hospital-level characteristics on the TTT. Results and conclusions TTT varies substantially between and within hospitals. The median TTT was 28 days with an inter-quartile range of 22 days. The hospital-level median TTT ranges from 17 to 68 days. TTT correlates significantly with tumor stage, performance status, and histology. The hospital-level effect, unrelated to hospital volume and type, affected TTT by several weeks at most. For most patients, TTT is within range as recommended in current guidelines. Variation in TTT seems higher for patients receiving either radiotherapy or targeted therapy, or for patients referred to another hospital and we hypothesize this is related to the complexity of the diagnostic pathway. With further advances in molecular diagnostics and precision oncology we expect variation in TTT to increase and this needs to be considered in designing optimal cancer care delivery.

BACKGROUND: Since 2011, a tailored, interdisciplinary head and neck rehabilitation (IHNR) program, covered by the basic healthcare insurance, is offered to advanced head and neck cancer (HNC) patients in the Netherlands Cancer Institute (NKI). This program is developed to preserve or restore patients' functioning, and to optimize health-related quality of life (HRQoL). It applies an integrated approach to define patients' individual goals and provide rehabilitation care throughout the cancer care continuum. The aim of the current study is to assess the (cost-) effectiveness of the IHNR approach compared to usual supportive care (USC) consisting of monodisciplinary and multidisciplinary care in advanced HNC patients.METHODS: This multicenter prospective observational study is designed to compare (cost-)effectiveness of the IHNR to USC for advanced HNC patients treated with chemoradiotherapy (CRT) or bioradiotherapy (BRT). The primary outcome is HRQoL represented in the EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score. Functional HRQoL, societal participation, utility values, return to work (RTW), unmet needs (UN), patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes are secondary outcomes, assessed using the EORTC QLQ-H&N35, USER-P, EQ-5D-5 L, and study-specific questionnaires, respectively. Both patient groups (required sample size: 64 per arm) are requested to complete the questionnaires at: diagnosis (baseline; T0), 3 months (T1), 6 months (T2), 9 months (T3) and 12 months (T4) after start of medical treatment. Differences in outcomes between the intervention and control group will be analyzed using mixed effects models, Chi-square test and descriptive statistics. In addition, a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) will be performed by means of a Markov decision model. The CEA will be performed using a societal perspective of the Netherlands.DISCUSSION: This prospective multicenter study will provide evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of IHNR compared to USC. RTW and societal participation, included as secondary outcomes, have not been studied sufficiently yet in cancer rehabilitation. Interdisciplinary rehabilitation has not yet been implemented as usual care in all centers, which offers the opportunity to perform a controlled clinical study. If demonstrated to be (cost-)effective, national provision of the program can probably be advised.TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study has been retrospectively registered in the Netherlands Trial Registry on April 24th 2018 ( NTR7140 ).

Background In oncology, Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) is not yet widely implemented due to uncertainties such as the required infrastructure and expertise, costs and reimbursements, and unknown pan-cancer clinical utility. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate possible future developments facilitating or impeding the use of WGS as a molecular diagnostic in oncology through scenario drafting. Methods A four-step process was adopted for scenario drafting. First, the literature was searched for barriers and facilitators related to the implementation of WGS. Second, they were prioritized by international experts, and third, combined into coherent scenarios. Fourth, the scenarios were implemented in an online survey and their likelihood of taking place within 5 years was elicited from another group of experts. Based on the minimum, maximum, and most likely (mode) parameters, individual Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT) probability density functions were determined. Subsequently, individual opinions were aggregated by performing unweighted linear pooling, from which summary statistics were extracted and reported. Results Sixty-two unique barriers and facilitators were extracted from 70 articles. Price, clinical utility, and turnaround time of WGS were ranked as the most important aspects. Nine scenarios were developed and scored on likelihood by 18 experts. The scenario about introducing WGS as a clinical diagnostic with a lower price, shorter turnaround time, and improved degree of actionability, scored the highest likelihood (median: 68.3%). Scenarios with low likelihoods and strong consensus were about better treatment responses to more actionable targets (26.1%), and the effect of centralizing WGS (24.1%). Conclusions Based on current expert opinions, the implementation of WGS as a clinical diagnostic in oncology is heavily dependent on the price, clinical utility (both in terms of identifying actionable targets as in adding sufficient value in subsequent treatment), and turnaround time. These aspects and the optimal way of service provision are the main drivers for the implementation of WGS and should be focused on in further research. More knowledge regarding these factors is needed to inform strategic decision making regarding the implementation of WGS, which warrants support from all relevant stakeholders.

Background Selecting patients with peritoneal metastases from colorectal cancer (CRCPM) who might benefit from cytoreductive surgery followed by hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) is challenging. Computed tomography generally underestimates the peritoneal tumor load. Diagnostic laparoscopy is often used to determine whether patients are amenable for surgery. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has shown to be accurate in predicting completeness of CRS. The aim of this study is to determine whether MRI can effectively reduce the need for surgical staging. Methods The study is designed as a multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) of colorectal cancer patients who are deemed eligible for CRS-HIPEC after conventional CT staging. Patients are randomly assigned to either MRI based staging (arm A) or to standard surgical staging with or without laparoscopy (arm B). In arm A, MRI assessment will determine whether patients are eligible for CRS-HIPEC. In borderline cases, an additional diagnostic laparoscopy is advised. The primary outcome is the number of unnecessary surgical procedures in both arms defined as: all surgeries in patients with definitely inoperable disease (PCI > 24) or explorative surgeries in patients with limited disease (PCI Conclusion This randomized trial determines whether MRI can effectively replace surgical staging in patients with CRCPM considered for CRS-HIPEC. Trial registration Registered in the clinical trials registry of U.S. National Library of Medicine under NCT04231175.