Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Feb;50(2):241-8.
doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2015.08.009. Epub 2015 Oct 23.

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

Aaron N Winn  1 , Donatus U Ekwueme  2 , Gery P Guy Jr  2 , Peter J Neumann  3
Affiliations

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

Aaron N Winn et al. Am J Prev Med. 2016 Feb.

Abstract

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA article identification and selection process.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Meropol NJ, Schrag D, Smith TJ, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology guidance statement: the cost of cancer care. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(23):3868–3874. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.23.1183. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mariotto AB, Yabroff KR, Shao Y, Feuer EJ, Brown ML. Projections of the cost of cancer care in the United States: 2010–2020. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(2):117–128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djq495. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lubitz J, Cai L, Kramarow E, Lentzner H. Health, life expectancy, and health care spending among the elderly. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(11):1048–1055. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa020614. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bach PB. Limits on Medicare’s ability to control rising spending on cancer drugs. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(6):626–633. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMhpr0807774. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Drummond MF, Mason AR. European perspective on the costs and cost-effectiveness of cancer therapies. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(2):191–195. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2006.07.8956. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources