Disutility associated with cancer screening programs: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Disutility allows to identify how much population values intervention-related harms contributing to knowledge on the benefits/harms ratio of cancer screening programs. This systematic review evaluates disutility related to cancer screening applying a utility theory framework. METHODS: Using a predefined protocol, Embase, Medline Ovid, Web of Science, Cochrane, Google scholar and supplementary sources were systematically searched. The framework grouped disutilities associated with breast, cervical, lung, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening programs into the screening, diagnostic work up, and treatment phases. We assessed the quality of included studies according to the relevance to target population, risk of bias, appropriateness of measure and the time frame. RESULTS: Out of 2840 hits, we included 38 studies, of which 27 measured (and others estimated) disutilities. Around 70% of studies had medium to high-level quality. Measured disutilities and Quality Adjusted Life Years loss were 0-0.03 and 0-0.0013 respectively in screening phases. Both disutilities and Quality Adjusted Life Years loss had similar ranges in diagnostic work up (0-0.26), and treatment (0.09-0.27) phases. We found no measured disutilities available for lung cancer screening and-little evidence for disutilities in treatment phase. Almost 40% of the estimated disutility values were above the range of measured ones. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer screening programs led to low disutities related to screening phase, and low to moderate disutilities related to diagnostic work up and treatment phases. These disutility values varied by the measurement instrument applied, and were higher in studies with lower quality. The estimated disutility values comparing to the measured ones tended to overestimate the harms.

Systematic reviews as a 'lens of evidence': Determinants of benefits and harms of breast cancer screening.

This systematic review, stimulated by inconsistency in secondary evidence, reports the benefits and harms of breast cancer (BC) screening and their determinants according to systematic reviews. A systematic search, which identified 9,976 abstracts, led to the inclusion of 58 reviews. BC mortality reduction with screening mammography was 15-25% in trials and 28-56% in observational studies in all age groups, and the risk of stage III+ cancers was reduced for women older than 49 years. Overdiagnosis due to mammography was 1-60% in trials and 1-12% in studies with a low risk of bias, and cumulative false-positive rates were lower with biennial than annual screening (3-17% vs 0.01-41%). There is no consistency in the reviews' conclusions about the magnitude of BC mortality reduction among women younger than 50 years or older than 69 years, or determinants of benefits and harms of mammography, including the type of mammography (digital vs screen-film), the number of views and the screening interval. Similarly, there was no solid evidence on determinants of benefits and harms or BC mortality reduction with screening by ultrasonography or clinical breast examination (sensitivity ranges, 54-84% and 47-69%, respectively), and strong evidence of unfavourable benefit-to-harm ratio with breast self-examination. The reviews' conclusions were not dependent on the quality of the reviews or publication date. Systematic reviews on mammography screening, mainly from high-income countries, systematically disagree on the interpretation of the benefit-to-harm ratio. Future reviews are unlikely to clarify the discrepancies unless new original studies are published.

Performance-based risk-sharing arrangements-good practices for design, implementation, and evaluation: report of the ISPOR good practices for performance-based risk-sharing arrangements task force.

There is a significant and growing interest among both payers and producers of medical products for agreements that involve a "pay-for-performance" or "risk-sharing" element. These payment schemes-called "performance-based risk-sharing arrangements" (PBRSAs)-involve a plan by which the performance of the product is tracked in a defined patient population over a specified period of time and the amount or level of reimbursement is based on the health and cost outcomes achieved. There has always been considerable uncertainty at product launch about the ultimate real-world clinical and economic performance of new products, but this appears to have increased in recent years. PBRSAs represent one mechanism for reducing this uncertainty through greater investment in evidence collection while a technology is used within a health care system. The objective of this Task Force report was to set out the standards that should be applied to "good practices"-both research and operational-in the use of a PBRSA, encompassing questions around the desirability, design, implementation, and evaluation of such an arrangement. This report provides practical recommendations for the development and application of state-of-the-art methods to be used when considering, using, or reviewing PBRSAs. Key findings and recommendations include the following. Additional evidence collection is costly, and there are numerous barriers to establishing viable and cost-effective PBRSAs: negotiation, monitoring, and evaluation costs can be substantial. For good research practice in PBRSAs, it is critical to match the appropriate study and research design to the uncertainties being addressed. Good governance processes are also essential. The information generated as part of PBRSAs has public good aspects, bringing ethical and professional obligations, which need to be considered from a policy perspective. The societal desirability of a particular PBRSA is fundamentally an issue as to whether the cost of additional data collection is justified by the benefits of improved resource allocation decisions afforded by the additional evidence generated and the accompanying reduction in uncertainty. The ex post evaluation of a PBRSA should, however, be a multidimensional exercise that assesses many aspects, including not only the impact on long-term cost-effectiveness and whether appropriate evidence was generated but also process indicators, such as whether and how the evidence was used in coverage or reimbursement decisions, whether budget and time were appropriate, and whether the governance arrangements worked well. There is an important gap in the literature of structured ex post evaluation of PBRSAs. As an innovation in and of themselves, PBRSAs should also be evaluated from a long-run societal perspective in terms of their impact on dynamic efficiency (eliciting the optimal amount of innovation).