Welcome to CDC stacks | Cost-Utility Analysis of Cancer Prevention, Treatment, and Control - 52452 | CDC Public Access
Stacks Logo
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.
 
 
Help
Clear All Simple Search
Advanced Search
Cost-Utility Analysis of Cancer Prevention, Treatment, and Control
Filetype[PDF-262.38 KB]


Details:
  • Pubmed ID:
    26470806
  • Pubmed Central ID:
    PMC5846573
  • Description:
    Context

    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.

    Evidence acquisition

    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.

    Evidence synthesis

    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.

    Conclusions

    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.

  • Document Type:
  • Collection(s):
  • Main Document Checksum:
No Related Documents.
You May Also Like: