Dataset Information

The cost of oral cancer: A systematic review.

ABSTRACT: Although clinical and epidemiological aspects of oral cancers (OC) are well-documented in the literature, there is a lack of evidence on the economic burden of OC. This study aims to provide a comprehensive systematic assessment on the economic burden of OC based on available evidence worldwide. A systematic review was conducted. The population was any individual, who were exposed to OC, considered here as lip (LC), oral cavity (OCC), or oropharynx (OPC) cancer. The outcome was information on direct (medical and non-medical) and indirect (productivity loss and early death) costs. The data sources included Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, BVS, and NHS EED. A search of grey literature (ISPOR and INAHTA proceedings) and a manual search in the reference lists of the included publications were performed (PROSPERO no. CRD42020172471). We identified 24 studies from 2001 to 2021, distributed by 15 countries, in 4 continents. In some developed western countries, the costs of LC, OCC, and OPC reached an average of Gross Domestic Product per capita of 18%, 75%, and 127%, respectively. Inpatient costs for OC and LC were 968% and 384% higher than those for outpatients, respectively. Advanced cancer staging was more costly (from ~22% to 373%) than the early cancer staging. The economic burden of oral cancer is substantial, though underestimated.

SUBMITTER: Ribeiro-Rotta RF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9022815 | biostudies-literature | 2022

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The cost of oral cancer: A systematic review.

Ribeiro-Rotta Rejane Faria RF Rosa Eduardo Antônio EA Milani Vanessa V Dias Nadielle Rodrigues NR Masterson Danielle D da Silva Everton Nunes EN Zara Ana Laura de Sene Amâncio ALSA

PloS one 20220421 4

Although clinical and epidemiological aspects of oral cancers (OC) are well-documented in the literature, there is a lack of evidence on the economic burden of OC. This study aims to provide a comprehensive systematic assessment on the economic burden of OC based on available evidence worldwide. A systematic review was conducted. The population was any individual, who were exposed to OC, considered here as lip (LC), oral cavity (OCC), or oropharynx (OPC) cancer. The outcome was information on di ...[more]

PMID: 35446870

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionOral anticancer drugs (OADs) have rapidly expanded with more than 70 OADs targeting several molecular targets. Many of the OADs exert an exposure-response relationship but still, a 'one-size fits-all' dose is used, ignoring interindividual variability. Several of these OADs share similar mechanisms of actions and thus target the same cancer and has resulted in a substantial research focus on comparing the health benefit of each. However, significantly less is known about the cost-benefit associated with OADs. This paper will provide a protocol to systematically review studies that have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of OADs and their associated individualised dosing interventions.Methods and analysisSystematic review methodology will be applied to identify, select and extract data from published economic evaluation (costs and outcomes/benefits) studies of OADs and their associated individualised dosing interventions. Bibliographic databases (eg, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE) will be used to perform the systematic literature search (between 1 January 2000 and October 2020). Only full economic evaluations will be included, but no restrictions on study outcomes will be applied. The quality of included primary studies will be assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist for reporting economic evaluations. Studies with low-quality evidence will be excluded. A narrative synthesis of the results from the included studies will be undertaken, with a subgroup analysis where appropriate.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review will not require ethics approval as there will not be any collection of primary data. Findings of this review will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals, presentations at workshops or conferences and sharing through a media release. Findings from this review will provide evidence to direct and inform policy-makers where cost-neutral strategies may be effective or where dose individualising strategies may be economically beneficial. Additionally, gaps will be identified in the current literature to inform future-related research.Prospero registration numberCRD42020218170.Electronic supplemental materialThe online version of this article contains supplemental material, which is available to authorised users.

Project description:BackgroundTreatment of metastatic prostate cancer is associated with high personal and economic burden. Recently, new treatment options for castration-resistant prostate cancer became available with promising survival advantages. However, cost-effectiveness of those new treatment options is sometimes ambiguous or given only under certain circumstances. The aim of this study was to systematically review studies on the cost-effectiveness of treatments and costs of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and metastasizing castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) on their methodological quality and the risk of bias.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed in the databases PubMed, CINAHL Complete, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science Core Collection for costs-effectiveness analyses, model-based economic evaluations, cost-of-illness analyses and budget impact analyses. Reported costs were inflated to 2015 US$ purchasing power parities. Quality assessment and risk of bias assessment was performed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist and the Bias in Economic Evaluations checklist, respectively.ResultsIn total, 38 articles were identified by the systematic literature search. The methodological quality of the included studies varied widely, and there was considerable risk of bias. The cost-effectiveness treatments for CRPC and mCRPC was assessed with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from dominance for mitoxantrone to $562,328 per quality-adjusted life year gained for sipuleucel-T compared with prednisone alone. Annual costs for the treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer ranged from $3,067 to $77,725.ConclusionThe cost-effectiveness of treatments of CRPC strongly depended on the willingness to pay per quality-adjusted life year gained/life-year saved throughout all included costs-effectiveness analyses and model-based economic evaluations. High-quality cost-effectiveness analyses based on randomized controlled trials are needed in order to make informed decisions on the management of castration-resistant prostate cancer and the resulting financial impact on the healthcare system.

Project description:Background and objectivePsychosocial costs, or quality of life costs, account for psychological distress, pain, suffering and other negative experiences associated with cancer. They contribute to the overall economic burden of cancer that patients experience. But this category of costs remains poorly understood. This hinders opportunities to make the best cancer control policy decisions. This study explored the psychosocial cost burden associated with cancer, how studies measure psychosocial costs and the impact of this burden.MethodsA systematic literature review of academic and grey literature published from 2008 to 2018 was conducted by searching electronic databases, guided by the Institute of Medicine's conceptualization of psychosocial burden. Results were analyzed using a narrative synthesis and a weighted proportion of populations affected was calculated. Study quality was assessed using the Ottawa-Newcastle instrument.ResultsA total of 25 studies were included. There was variation in how psychosocial costs were conceptualized and an inconsistent approach to measurement. Most studies measured social dimensions and focused on the financial consequences of paying for care. Fewer studies assessed costs associated with the other domains of this burden, including psychological, physical, and spiritual dimensions. Fourty-four percent of cancer populations studied were impacted by psychosocial costs and this varied by disease site (38%-71%). Two studies monetized the psychosocial cost burden, estimating a lifetime cost per case ranging from CAD$427753 to CAD$528769. Studies were of varying quality; 60% of cross-sectional studies had a high risk of bias.ConclusionsConsistency in approach to measurement would help to elevate this issue for researchers and decision makers. At two-thirds of the total economic burden of cancer, economic evaluations should account for psychosocial costs to better inform decision-making. More support is needed to address the psychosocial cost burden faced by patients and their families.

Dataset Information

The cost of oral cancer: A systematic review.

Publications

The cost of oral cancer: A systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets