July 2, 2008 - Cancer clinicians need to understand and consider the economic impact of new interventions, which often have substantial costs, according to a report appearing in the July/August issue of CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Cancer Society, stating that healthcare budget constraints have made it necessary for clinicians to be aware of the relative costs and benefits of new interventions used in cancer screening, diagnosis, treatment and support services for patients.

The report highlights several examples of new interventions that may help specific populations but result in increased costs. They include magnetic resonance imaging screening for breast cancer, which at $1,000 per image is ten times the cost of screening mammography; $1,800 for a positron emission tomography (PET) scan for cancer staging; $48,000 per patient per year for the use of intensity-modulated radiation therapy to treat prostate cancer; $50,000 per patient per year for trastuzumab (Herceptin) in the treatment of HER-2-positive breast cancer; $1,800 per month for gefitinib (Iressa) for the treatment of lung cancer; and more than $8,000 for a six-day course of palifermin (Kepivance) in the treatment of oral mucositis.

The report reviews the methods used for economic analyses to help clinicians understand how economic evaluations of cancer interventions are performed so they are better able to use and critique these evaluations. The report states clinicians should care about economic analyses for several reasons: patients are increasingly required to pay for a proportion of their medical care; expenditures need to be prioritized to determine the most reasonable use of limited health care funds; and it is important that recommended medical treatments be "good buys."

The authors write, "unless clinicians, other cancer healthcare providers, and cancer researchers are active participants in discussions regarding the relative costs and benefits of new interventions, others will make these cost-effectiveness conclusions. Having members of the oncology community exclude themselves from these discussions and from the process of determining costs and benefits of new cancer therapies is unlikely to be in the best interests of cancer patients."

For more information: www.cancer.org


Related Content

News | Radiology Business

July 25, 2024 — Immunis, Inc., a clinical-stage biotech developing groundbreaking secretome therapeutics for age and ...

Time July 25, 2024
arrow
News | PET-CT

July 25, 2024 — Positron Corporation, a leading molecular imaging medical device company offering PET & PET-CT imaging ...

Time July 25, 2024
arrow
News | RSNA

July 23, 2024 — Professional registration is open for RSNA 2024, the world’s largest radiology forum. This year’s theme ...

Time July 23, 2024
arrow
News | Artificial Intelligence

July 23, 2024 — Researchers at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) found that an artificial intelligence (AI) model ...

Time July 23, 2024
arrow
News | Artificial Intelligence

July 17, 2024 — Hyperfine, a groundbreaking medical device company that has redefined brain imaging with the world’s ...

Time July 17, 2024
arrow
News | PET-CT

July 16, 2024 — A new research paper was published in Oncotarget's Volume 15 on June 20, 2024, titled, “Comparison of ...

Time July 16, 2024
arrow
News | Prostate Cancer

July 11, 2024 — GE HealthCare’s MIM Software, a global provider of medical imaging analysis and artificial intelligence ...

Time July 11, 2024
arrow
News | Prostate Cancer

July 2, 2024 — A new editorial paper was published in Oncoscience (Volume 11) on May 20, 2024, entitled, “Deep learning ...

Time July 02, 2024
arrow
News | Clinical Trials

June 27, 2024 — Prenuvo, which makes whole-body MRI screening for early cancer detection and other diseases, has ...

Time June 27, 2024
arrow
News | Pediatric Imaging

June 25, 2024 — Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego, one of the nation’s top pediatric health care systems, today ...

Time June 25, 2024
arrow
Subscribe Now