Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author: Michaela A. Dinan x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

Michaela A. Dinan, Lauren E. Wilson and Shelby D. Reed

Background: This study examined whether associations between 21-gene recurrence score (RS) genomic testing and lower costs among patients with early-stage, estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer are observable in real-world data from the Medicare population. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using SEER-Medicare data for a nationally representative sample of Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed from 2005 through 2011. The main outcomes were associations between RS testing and overall and chemotherapy-specific costs. The primary analysis was restricted to patients aged 66 to 75 years. Results: The primary analysis comprised 30,058 patients. Mean costs 1 year after diagnosis were $35,940 [SD, $28,894] overall, $51,127 [33,386] for clinically high-risk disease, $33,225 [$27,711] for intermediate-risk disease, and $26,695 [$19,532] for low-risk disease. Chemotherapy-specific costs followed similar trends. In multivariable analyses, RS testing was associated with significantly lower costs among high-risk patients in terms of both relative costs (cost ratio, 0.88; 99% CI, 0.82–0.94) and absolute costs ($6,606; 99% CI, $39,223–$9,290). Higher costs among low-risk and intermediate-risk patients were mainly caused by higher noncancer costs. In sensitivity analyses that included all patients aged ≥66 years (N=64,996), associations between RS testing and costs among high-risk patients were similar but less pronounced because of lower overall use of chemotherapy. Conclusions: RS testing was associated with lower overall and chemotherapy-related costs in patients with high-risk disease, consistent with lower chemotherapy use among these patients. Higher overall costs for patients with intermediate-risk and low-risk disease were driven largely by non–treatment-related costs.

Full access

Michaela A. Dinan, Bradford R. Hirsch and Gary H. Lyman

Treatment-associated neutropenia continues to represent the most common dose-limiting toxicity of cancer chemotherapy. It often leads to fever and infection, prompting hospitalization and occasionally resulting in serious morbidity, and even mortality, despite modern broad-spectrum antibiotic treatment and supportive care. Neutropenia and its complications may also lead to chemotherapy dose reductions, treatment delays, or early treatment termination, compromising disease control and the potential for cure. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology recommend administration of primary prophylaxis with a myeloid growth factor in patients receiving regimens associated with a high risk for febrile neutropenia, and consideration of prophylaxis in patients receiving lower-risk regimens who have other risk factors that might place them at higher risk for febrile neutropenia. Although these agents have been shown to be effective and safe in numerous randomized controlled trials, they are expensive and contribute significantly to increasing health care costs. Regulatory agencies and guideline organizations do not currently address the issue of cost. However, with the relentless increase in health care use and current efforts to reform health care, it has become increasingly important to assess both the cost and the net benefit of interventions related to an episode of care in order to compare the overall value of therapeutic options. This article defines and discusses the intersection of quality, costs, and value in the context of prophylactic myeloid growth factor use in patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.