Download PDF
Gesundheitsökonomie & Qualitätsmanagement 2018; 23(03): 123-128
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-111392
Originalarbeit
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Optimising health economic evaluations for geriatric cancer patients

Optimierung von gesundheitsökonomischen Evaluationen für geriatrische Krebspatienten
Andrea Goettler
1   Mannheim Institute of Public Health, Social and Preventive Medicine, University Medicine Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany
,
Tanja-Maria Kessel
1   Mannheim Institute of Public Health, Social and Preventive Medicine, University Medicine Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany
,
Diana Sonntag
1   Mannheim Institute of Public Health, Social and Preventive Medicine, University Medicine Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany
2   Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
20 September 2017 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Aim Despite the growing number of elderly cancer patients, health economic evaluations have not put enough attention on this patient group. We reflect on the current state of health economic evaluations for geriatric patients and present suggestions for improvements.

Method We reviewed the scientific literature on health economic evaluations for geriatric patients in Germany and internationally. Additionally, we conducted a scoping review on cost-utility analyses on cancer treatment for older patients (> 60 years).

Results The literature review resulted in eight relevant studies. Besides the paucity of economic evaluations for elderly patients, we also present quality limitations. From the literature, we identify four recommendations regarding cost calculation, geriatric assessment, patient decision-making and quality of life on how to design better economic evaluations for geriatric cancer treatment.

Conclusion The demographic change requires more attention regarding elderly patients in health economics. Including patients above 70 years of age in health economic evaluations and improving cost-utility analyses will help to improve resource allocations and effective healthcare for the elderly.

Zusammenfassung

Zielsetzung Trotz der steigenden Anzahl von älteren Krebspatienten, wird diese Patientengruppe nur selten in gesundheitsökonomischen Evaluationen eingeschlossen. Dieser Artikel zeigt den aktuellen Stand gesundheitsökonomischer Evaluationen für geriatrische Patienten und empfiehlt Verbesserungsvorschläge.

Methodik Es wurden deutsche und internationale wissenschaftliche Studien zu gesundheitsökonomischen Evaluationen bei geriatrischen Patienten untersucht. Zusätzlich wurde ein Scoping Review zu Kosten-Nutzwert-Analysen für Krebsbehandlungen bei älteren Patienten (> 60 Jahre) erstellt und ausgewertet.

Ergebnisse Durch die Literatursuche wurden acht relevante Studien erfasst. Neben der geringen Anzahl an Evaluationen werden auch qualitative Mängel diskutiert. Desweiteren werden vier Bereiche (Kostenkalkulation, geriatrisches Assessment, Patientenentscheidung, und Lebensqualität) zur Verbesserung von gesundheitsökonomischen und insbesondere Kostennutzwertanalysen dargestellt.

Schlussfolgerung Aufgrund des demografischen Wandels sollte den geriatrischen Patienten in der Gesundheitsökonomie mehr Beachtung zukommen. Um eine faire Ressourcenallokation und Gesundheitsversorgung älterer Menschen sicherzustellen ist es wichtig Patienten über 70 Jahre in gesundheitsökonomische Studien einzuschließen und Kostennutzwertanalysen zu optimieren.

Key words

health economics - oncology - geriatrics - cost-utility analysis - geriatric assessment

Schlüsselwörter

Gesundheitsökonomie - Onkologie - Geriatrie - Kosten-Nutzwert-Analyse - Geriatrisches Assessment
 

  • References

  • 1 United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division. World Population Ageing 2015. In. New York: 2015
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Robert Koch-Institut. Krebs in Deutschland 2011/2012. In: Robert Koch-Institut, Gesellschaft der epidemiologischen Krebsregister in Deutschland e. V.. eds. Berlin: 2015
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Glaeske G. Finanzierung der onkologischen Versorgung. In, Forum: Springer; 2014: 493-500
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Weiss B. Evidence-based information concerning increasing age in German guideline portals. Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie 2011; 44: 85-90
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Balducci L, Extermann M. Management of cancer in the older person: a practical approach. The oncologist 2000; 5: 224-237
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Hurria A, Gupta S, Zauderer M. et al. Developing a cancer-specific geriatric assessment. Cancer 2005; 104: 1998-2005
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Søgaard M, Thomsen RW, Bossen KS. et al. The impact of comorbidity on cancer survival: a review. Clinical Epidemiology 2013; 5: 3-29
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Extermann M, Hurria A. Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older patients with cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2007; 25: 1824-1831
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Louwman W, Janssen-Heijnen M, Houterman S. et al. Less extensive treatment and inferior prognosis for breast cancer patient with comorbidity: a population-based study. European Journal of Cancer 2005; 41: 779-785
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Lees J, Chan A. Polypharmacy in elderly patients with cancer: clinical implications and management. The Lancet Oncology 2011; 12: 1249-1257
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Lichtman SM. Polypharmacy: Geriatric oncology evaluation should become mainstream. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2015 DOI: JCO. 2014.2060. 3548
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Surbone A, Kagawa-Singer M, Terret C. et al. The illness trajectory of elderly cancer patients across cultures: SIOG position paper. Annals of Oncology 2007; 18: 633-638
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Scher KS, Hurria A. Under-representation of older adults in cancer registration trials: known problem, little progress. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2012; 30: 2036-2038
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Talarico L, Chen G, Pazdur R. Enrollment of elderly patients in clinical trials for cancer drug registration: a 7-year experience by the US Food and Drug Administration. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2004; 22: 4626-4631
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Leidl R, Stratmann D. Economic Evaluation is Essential in Healthcare for the Elderly. Drugs & aging 1998; 13: 255-262
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Desch CE, Hillner BE, Smith TJ. et al. Should the elderly receive chemotherapy for node-negative breast cancer? A cost-effectiveness analysis examining total and active life-expectancy outcomes. Journal of Clinical Oncology 1993; 11: 777-782
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Hornberger JC, Best JH. Cost utility in the United States of rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone for the treatment of elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Cancer 2005; 103: 1644-1651
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Polsky D, Mandelblatt JS, Weeks JC. et al. Economic evaluation of breast cancer treatment: considering the value of patient choice. Journal of clinical oncology 2003; 21: 1139-1146
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Krzyzanowska MK, Earle CC, Kuntz KM. et al. Using economic analysis to evaluate the potential of multimodality therapy for elderly patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics 2007; 67: 211-218
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Goulart B, Ramsey S. A trial-based assessment of the cost-utility of bevacizumab and chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Value in Health 2011; 14: 836-845
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Sher DJ, Wee JO, Punglia RS. Cost-effectiveness analysis of stereotactic body radiotherapy and radiofrequency ablation for medically inoperable, early-stage non–small cell lung cancer. International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics 2011; 81: e767-e774
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Chan KK, Siu E, Krahn MD. et al. Cost-utility analysis of primary prophylaxis versus secondary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in elderly patients with diffuse aggressive lymphoma receiving curative-intent chemotherapy. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2012; 30: 1064-1071
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Naeim A, Keeler EB. Is adjuvant therapy for older patients with node (−) early breast cancer cost-effective?. Critical reviews in oncology/hematology 2005; 53: 81-89
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Hartmann M, Knoth H. Geriatrie und Gesundheitsökonomie. Der Onkologe 2002; 8: 134-139
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Zentner A, Busse R. Internationale Standards der Kosten-Nutzen-Bewertung. Gesundheitsökonomie & Qualitätsmanagement 2006; 11: 368-373
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Hartmann M, Kath R. Qualität gesundheitsökonomischer Studien in Onkologie und Hämatologie. Gesundheitsökonomie & Qualitätsmanagement 2005; 10: 310-313
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Nerich V, Saing S, Gamper EM. et al. Cost–utility analyses of drug therapies in breast cancer: a systematic review. Breast cancer research and treatment 2016; 159: 407-424
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Kale MS, Mhango G, Bonomi M. et al. Cost of Intensity-modulated Radiation Therapy for Older Patients with Stage III Lung Cancer. Annals of the American Thoracic Society 2016; 13: 1593-1599
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Derks MG, de Glas NA, Bastiaannet E. et al. Physical Functioning in Older Patients With Breast Cancer: A Prospective Cohort Study in the TEAM Trial. The Oncologist 2016; 21: 946-953
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Deutsches Ärzteblatt. Arzneimittelgesetz: Erstattungsbetrag künftig vertraulich, freie Preisgestaltung wird eingeschränkt. 2016 https://www.aerzteblatt.de/nachrichten/69729/Arzneimittelgesetz-Erstattungsbetrag-kuenftig-vertraulich-freie-Preisgestaltung-wird-eingeschraenkt
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Glaeske G, Rebscher H, Willich SN. Auf gesetzlicher Grundlage systematisch ausbauen. Dtsch Arztebl 2010; 107: 1295-1297
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Schreyögg J, Stargardt T. Health economic evaluation based on administrative data from German health insurance. Bundesgesundheitsblatt – Gesundheitsforschung – Gesundheitsschutz 2012; 55: 668-676
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Schubert I, Swart E, Ihle P. Datengutachten für das Deutsche Institut für Medizinische Dokumentation und Information (DIMDI). Gutachten: Daten für die Versorgungsforschung Zugang und Nutzungsmöglichkeiten Köln. 2014 https://www.dimdi.de/static/de/versorgungsdaten/wissenswertes/datengutachten/dimdi-sekundaerdaten-expertise.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Krauth C, Hessel F, Hansmeier T. et al. Empirische Bewertungssätze in der gesundheitsökonomischen Evaluation-ein Vorschlag der AG Methoden der gesundheitsökonomischen Evaluation (AG MEG). Das Gesundheitswesen 2005; 67: 736-746
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Extermann M, Aapro M, Bernabei R. et al. Use of comprehensive geriatric assessment in older cancer patients: Recommendations from the task force on CGA of the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG). Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology 2005; 55: 241-252
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Owusu C, Berger NA. Comprehensive geriatric assessment in the older cancer patient: coming of age in clinical cancer care. Clinical Practice 2014; 11: 749-762
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Balducci L. Studying cancer treatment in the elderly patient population. Cancer Control 2014; 21: 215-220
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Vahdat S, Hamzehgardeshi L, Hessam S. et al. Patient involvement in health care decision making: a review. Iranian Red Crescent Medical Journal 2014; 16
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Terret C, Pérol D, Albrand G. et al. Quality of life in geriatric oncology—An evaluation of standard questionnaires in elderly men with urological malignancies. Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology 2011; 77: 201-209
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Makai P, Brouwer WBF, Koopmanschap MA. et al. Quality of life instruments for economic evaluations in health and social care for older people: A systematic review. Social Science & Medicine 2014; 102: 83-93
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Wheelwright S, Darlington A, Fitzsimmons D. et al. International validation of the EORTC QLQ-ELD14 questionnaire for assessment of health-related quality of life elderly patients with cancer. British journal of cancer 2013; 109: 852-858
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Repetto L, Venturino A, Fratino L. et al. Geriatric oncology: a clinical approach to the older patient with cancer. European Journal of Cancer 2003; 39: 870-880
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Puts MTE, Santos B, Hardt J. et al. An update on a systematic review of the use of geriatric assessment for older adults in oncology. Annals of Oncology 2014; 25: 307-315
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar