Cost-effectiveness of general practitioner- versus surgeon-led colon cancer survivorship care: an economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial
- PMID: 37097550
- PMCID: PMC11324670
- DOI: 10.1007/s11764-023-01383-4
Cost-effectiveness of general practitioner- versus surgeon-led colon cancer survivorship care: an economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this study is to assess cost-effectiveness of general practitioner (GP) versus surgeon-led colon cancer survivorship care from a societal perspective.
Methods: We performed an economic evaluation alongside the I CARE study, which included 303 cancer patients (stages I-III) who were randomised to survivorship care by a GP or surgeon. Questionnaires were administered at baseline, 3-, 6-, 12-, 24- and 36-months. Costs included healthcare costs (measured by iMTA MCQ) and lost productivity costs (SF-HLQ). Disease-specific quality of life (QoL) was measured using EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score and general QoL using EQ-5D-3L quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Missing data were imputed. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to relate costs to effects on QoL. Statistical uncertainty was estimated using bootstrapping.
Results: Total societal costs of GP-led care were significantly lower compared to surgeon-led care (mean difference of - €3895; 95% CI - €6113; - €1712). Lost productivity was the main contributor to the difference in societal costs (- €3305; 95% CI - €5028; - €1739). The difference in QLQ-C30 summary score over time between groups was 1.33 (95% CI - 0.049; 3.15). The ICER for QLQ-C30 was - 2073, indicating that GP-led care is dominant over surgeon-led care. The difference in QALYs was - 0.021 (95% CI - 0.083; 0.040) resulting in an ICER of 129,164.
Conclusions: GP-led care is likely to be cost-effective for disease-specific QoL, but not for general QoL.
Implications for cancer survivors: With a growing number of cancer survivors, GP-led survivorship care could help to alleviate some of the burden on more expensive secondary healthcare services.
Keywords: Cancer survivors; Colon cancer; Cost–benefit analysis; Primary health care; Quality of healthcare.
© 2023. The Author(s).
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare no competing interests.
Figures
References
-
- Hewitt M, Greenfield S, Stovall E. From cancer patient to cancer survivor: lost in transition. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2006.
-
- The Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports (VWS) [Internet]. Accessed 11th of May 2022. [Available from: https://www.vzinfo.nl/dikkedarmkanker/zorguitgaven].
-
- Hakkaart-van Roijen L, Van der Linden N, Bouwmans CAM, et al. Costing manual: methodology of costing research and reference prices for economic evaluations in healthcare. Diemen: Dutch Healthcare Institute; 2016.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
