Communicating about HPV in the context of head and neck cancer: A systematic review of quantitative studies.

OBJECTIVE: Rising incidence of HPV-positive head and neck cancers (HPV-HNC) means HPV infection is increasingly relevant to patient-provider consultations. We performed a systematic review to examine, in the context of patient-provider HNC consultations: discussions about HPV, attitudes towards discussing HPV and information needs. METHODS: We searched Embase, PsychINFO, and CINAHL + for studies to August 2018. Eligible studies included: HNC healthcare professionals (HCPs) and/or HNC patients investigated HNC patient-provider communication about HPV. RESULTS: Ten studies were identified: six including HCPs and four including HNC patients. HCPs varied in confidence in HPV discussions, which was related to their HPV knowledge. Both HCPs and patients acknowledged the need for reliable HPV information. Factors which facilitated HPV discussions included accessible HPV information for patients and HCPs and good HPV knowledge among HCPs. Barriers included the perception, among HCPs, that HPV was a challenging topic to discuss with patients. CONCLUSIONS: Information deficits, communication challenges and barriers to discussing HPV were identified in HNC patient-provider consultations. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Appropriate HPV information is needed for HCPs and patients. Professional development initiatives which increase HCPs' HPV knowledge and build their communication skills would be valuable.

Health-related quality of life as measured by the EQ-5D in the prevention, screening and management of cervical disease: A systematic review.

PURPOSE: Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of screening can be highly sensitive to the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) effects of screen tests and subsequent treatment. Accordingly, accurate assessment of HRQoL is essential. We reviewed the literature regarding HRQoL in cervical prevention and management in order to appraise the current evidence regarding this important input to CEA. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE, Scopus and EconLit databases for studies that estimated HRQoL in cervical cancer prevention and management published January 1995-December 2015. The primary inclusion criterion was for studies that assess HRQoL using the EQ-5D. Data were abstracted from eligible studies on setting, elicitation group, sample size, elicitation instruments, health state valuations, study design and follow-up. We assessed the quality and comparability of the studies with a particular focus on the HRQoL reported across states and groups. RESULTS: Fifteen papers met the inclusion criteria. Most used patient elicitation groups (n = 11), 2 used the general public and 2 used a mix of both. Eight studies were cross-sectional and seven were longitudinal. Six studies used both the EQ-5D-3L and the EQ-VAS together with other measures of overall HRQoL or condition-specific instruments. Extensive heterogeneity was observed across study characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Our results reveal the challenges of sourcing reliable estimates of HRQoL for use in CEAs of cervical cancer prevention and treatment. The EQ-5D appears insufficiently sensitive for some health states. A more general problem is the paucity of HRQoL estimates for many health states and their change over time.

Cost-effectiveness of population-based screening for colorectal cancer: a comparison of guaiac-based faecal occult blood testing, faecal immunochemical testing and flexible sigmoidoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Several colorectal cancer-screening tests are available, but it is uncertain which provides the best balance of risks and benefits within a screening programme. We evaluated cost-effectiveness of a population-based screening programme in Ireland based on (i) biennial guaiac-based faecal occult blood testing (gFOBT) at ages 55-74, with reflex faecal immunochemical testing (FIT); (ii) biennial FIT at ages 55-74; and (iii) once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy (FSIG) at age 60. METHODS: A state-transition model was used to estimate costs and outcomes for each screening scenario vs no screening. A third party payer perspective was adopted. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken. RESULTS: All scenarios would be considered highly cost-effective compared with no screening. The lowest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER vs no screening euro 589 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained) was found for FSIG, followed by FIT euro 1696) and gFOBT (euro 4428); gFOBT was dominated. Compared with FSIG, FIT was associated with greater gains in QALYs and reductions in lifetime cancer incidence and mortality, but was more costly, required considerably more colonoscopies and resulted in more complications. Results were robust to variations in parameter estimates. CONCLUSION: Population-based screening based on FIT is expected to result in greater health gains than a policy of gFOBT (with reflex FIT) or once-only FSIG, but would require significantly more colonoscopy resources and result in more individuals experiencing adverse effects. Weighing these advantages and disadvantages presents a considerable challenge to policy makers.

Cost of care for colorectal cancer in Ireland: a health care payer perspective.

OBJECTIVE: Management options for colorectal cancer have expanded in recent years. We estimated average lifetime cost of care for colorectal cancer in Ireland in 2008, from the health care payer perspective. METHOD: A decision tree model was developed in Microsoft EXCEL. Site and stage-specific treatment pathways were constructed from guidelines and validated by expert clinical opinion. Health care resource use associated with diagnosis, treatment and follow-up were obtained from the National Cancer Registry Ireland (n=1,498 cancers diagnosed during 2004-2005) and three local hospital databases (n=155, 142 and 46 cases diagnosed in 2007). Unit costs for hospitalisation, procedures, laboratory tests and radiotherapy were derived from DRG costs, hospital finance departments, clinical opinion and literature review. Chemotherapy costs were estimated from local hospital protocols, pharmacy departments and clinical opinion. Uncertainty was explored using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: In 2008, the average (stage weighted) lifetime cost of managing a case of colorectal cancer was €39,607. Average costs were 16% higher for rectal (€43,502) than colon cancer (€37,417). Stage I disease was the least costly (€23,688) and stage III most costly (€48,835). Diagnostic work-up and follow-up investigations accounted for 4 and 5% of total costs, respectively. Cost estimates were most sensitive to recurrence rates and prescribing of biological agents. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the value of using existing data from national and local databases in contributing to estimating the cost of managing cancer. The findings illustrate the impact of biological agents on costs of cancer care and the potential of strategies promoting earlier diagnosis to reduce health care resource utilisation and care costs.

Have developments in palliative care services impacted on place of death of colorectal cancer patients in Ireland? A population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Whether developments in palliative care have impacted on where cancer patients die is unknown. We investigated time trends in place of death for colorectal cancer. METHODS: Details were abstracted on 10,175 colorectal cancer deaths during 1994-2004. Time trends were analysed by joinpoint regression. RESULTS: Nearly half (49%) of deaths occurred in acute hospitals, 29% at home, 13% in hospices and 7% in nursing homes. Hospital deaths were unchanged over time. Hospice deaths rose from 6% in 1994 to 17% in 2003. Home deaths decreased significantly, but only in health boards with hospices [estimated annual percentage change (EAPC) = -3.6%, 95%CI -4.19 to -2.97%, p < 0.001]. Nursing home deaths rose significantly in areas without hospices (EAPC = 8.0%, 95%CI 2.27 to -13.94%, p = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: Most colorectal cancer deaths occur in hospital. Availability of hospice facilities is a key determinant of where the burden of death falls. The results suggest unmet demand for hospice care in Ireland.

Where do people with lung cancer die and how is this changing? A population-based study.

Investigating trends in where cancer patients die may help inform decisions about how healthcare should be organised to support those in need of end-of-life care. We analysed time trends in place of death for lung cancer during 1994-2005, based on 18,078 death certificates. Time trends were analysed by joinpoint regression. 9,485 (53%) deaths occurred in an acute hospital, 5,239 (29%) at home, 2,178 (12%) in hospices and 728 (4%) in nursing homes. Hospice deaths rose from 7% (108/1539) in 1994 to 15% (234/1560) in 2003, falling slightly in 2004-05. Hospital deaths were unchanged over time, but were more common in areas without hospices. Home deaths decreased significantly (annual percentage change (APC)=-2.2%, 95%CI -3.0% to -1.3%). Nursing home deaths rose significantly (APC=5.7%, 95%CI 2.5% to 8.9%). These trends were not explained by temporal changes in the age-sex distribution of deaths. Despite evidence suggesting most cancer patients would prefer to die at home, and developments in palliative care services, home deaths are declining and most lung cancer deaths occur in hospital.