CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 44Economic and Financial Impacts of CancerHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeBone health and treatments

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Analysis of Costs Associated With Administration of Intravenous Single-Drug Therapies in Metastatic Breast Cancer in a U.S. Population

Open access
Kruse, Gregory B., Amonkar, Mayur M., Smith, Gregory, Skonieczny, Dean C., Stavrakas, Spyros·2008·Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy
DOI 10.18553/jmcp.2008.14.9.844PMC PMC10438104
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: An estimated $8.1 billion (in 2004 dollars) is spent annually on total health care costs for the treatment of breast cancer in the United States. Breast cancer has traditionally been treated with intravenous (IV) cancer therapies that entail not only the drug acquisition cost, but additional costs of personnel time, supplies, and equipment used in the preparation and administration of the IV drug. A systematic study of the costs of IV administration in the metastatic breast cancer (MBC) population has not been performed. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost components, overall and by payer type and patient age group, for administering a single-agent IV breast cancer drug to women with MBC in the United States. METHODS: Women diagnosed with MBC (ICD-9-CM codes 174.XX and 196.XX-198.XX) reported any time between January 1, 2003, and May 31, 2006, and receiving single-agent IV breast cancer therapy (including intramuscular fulvestrant) during a visit were identified (using HCPCS and CPT codes) from an administrative claims database supporting 46 general/oncology clinics in the United States. Study drugs were either FDA-approved for breast cancer or recommended for use as preferred single agents per National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) clinical practice guidelines for breast cancer. Costs were estimated using the contracted allowed payment, which is the amount that the provider is eligible to receive from all parties, including payers and patients. Costs were measured using 2 approaches-average cost per IV-administration visit and average cost per patient per month (PPPM). RESULTS: Over the 41-month study period (through May 31, 2006), 46,273 patients had a breast cancer diagnosis, of which 8,533 (18.4%) were metastatic; 828 (9.7%) of these patients received 1 of 11 single-agent IV breast cancer drugs over 7,406 visits. Mean (SD) total payments across all drugs and cost components were $2,477 ($1,842) per visit and $4,966 ($3,841) PPPM, of which IV administration costs were 10.2% of per-visit and 11.4% of PPPM costs, and other drugs and services provided during IV administration were 30.8% of per-visit and 32.2% of PPPM costs. In both the per-visit and PPPM analyses, approximately 80% of costs for other drugs and services (approximately 25% of total treatment costs) were attributed to (a) antihypercalcemic agents (e.g., zoledronic acid: 6%-8% of total treatment cost), (b) colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) (e.g., pegfilgrastim, epoetin: 6%-7%), or (c) other anticancer agents being used off-label or for other conditions (e.g., bevacizumab, irinotecan, carboplatin, vincristine: 11%-12%). The remaining 20% of costs for other drugs and services (about 6% of total costs) were attributable primarily to antiemetic agents (e.g., palonosetron, granisetron) and miscellaneous or unclassified products. Non-protein-bound paclitaxel was the most commonly used IV therapy at a mean cost of $2,804 per visit, with IV administration accounting for $353 (12.6%) and other services accounting for $1,237 (44.1%) of total costs per visit. The second most commonly used IV therapy was trastuzumab at a mean cost of $2,526 per visit, with IV administration accounting for $214 (8.5%) and other services accounting for $336 (13.3%) of total costs per visit. CONCLUSIONS: For patients being administered a single FDA-approved or NCCN-recommended IV drug for treatment of MBC, IV administration costs accounted for approximately 10%-11% of total cost, and the study drugs accounted for 56%-59%. Other drugs and services accounted for 31%-32%, most of which was attributable to antihypercalcemic agents, CSFs, anticancer drugs being used off-label for breast cancer or for other conditions, and antiemetic agents. Although costs of IV administration are 10%-11% of total IV chemotherapy costs for MBC and would clearly be avoided with the use of oral agents, the extent to which other costs would be avoided or incurred with use of oral agents is unknown and requires further research.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18553/jmcp.2008.14.9.844

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. Slamon DJ, Leyland-Jones B, Shak S, et al. Use of chemotherapy plus a monoclonal antibody against HER2 for metastatic breast cancer that overexpresses HER2. N Engl J Med. 2001;344(11):783-92.
  2. Sharma S, Saltz LB. Oral chemotherapeutic agents for colorectal cancer. Oncologist. 2000;5:99-107.
  3. O'Neill VJ, Twelves CJ. Oral cancer treatment: developments in chemotherapy and beyond. Br J Cancer. 2002;87:933-37.
  4. DeMario MD, Ratain MJ. Oral chemotherapy: rationale and future directions. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:2557-67.
  5. Batlle, JF. Arranz EE., de Castro Carpeno, J., et al. Oral chemotherapy: potential benefits and limitations. Clin Transl Oncol. 2004;6:335-40. Available at: www.springerlink.com/content/8p000g35554xq621/. Accessed October 9, 2008.
  6. Fireman BH, Quesenberry CP, Somkin CP, et al. Cost of care for cancer in a health maintenance organization. Health Care Financ Rev. 1997;18:51-76.
  7. Legorreta AP, Brooks RJ, Leibowitz AN, Solin LJ. Cost of breast cancer treatment. A 4-year longitudinal study. Arch Intern Med. 1996;156:2197-201.
  8. Taplin SH, Barlow W, Urban N, et al. Stage, age, comorbidity, and direct costs of colon, prostate, and breast cancer care. J Natl Cancer Ins. 1995;87(6):417-26.
  9. Rao S, Kubisiak J, Gilden D. Cost of illness associated with metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2004;83:25-32.
  10. Bach PB. Costs of cancer care: a view from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:187-90.
  11. Duh MS, Weiner JR, Lefebvre P, Neary MP, Skarin AT. Costs associated with intravenous chemotherapy administration in patients with small cell lung cancer: A retrospective claims database analysis. Curr Med Res Opin. 2008;24(4):967-74.
  12. Pashko S, Johnson DM. Potential cost savings of oral versus intravenous etoposide in the treatment of small cell lung cancer. Pharmacoeconomics. 1992;1(4):293-97.
  13. Fallowfield L, Atkins L, Catt S, et al. Patients' preference for administra- tion of endocrine treatments by injection or tablets: results from a study of women with breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2006;17:205-10.
  14. Liu G, Franssen E, Fitch MI, Warner E. Patient preferences for oral versus intravenous palliative chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15:110-15.
  15. Twelves C, Gollins S, Grieve R, Samuel L. A randomised cross-over trial comparing patient preference for oral capecitabine and 5-fluorouracil/ leucovorin regimens in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol. 2006;17:239-45.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Kruse, G. B., Amonkar, M. M., Smith, G., Skonieczny, D. C., & Stavrakas, S.
Affiliations
University of Pennsylvania (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy
Publisher
Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy
Published
2008-11
Volume
14
Issue
9
Pages
844-857
ISSN
  • 1083-4087 (ISSN-L)
  • 1944-706X
DOI
10.18553/jmcp.2008.14.9.844
PMC
PMC10438104
OpenAlex
W2156052776
Cited by
44
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 3
FWCI
6.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Bone health and treatments
Keywords
metastatic breast cancer, single-agent chemotherapy, health care costs, cost components, payer type, fulvestrant, oncology clinic, cost per visit, health care utilization, NCCN guidelines
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Antineoplastic Agents, Breast Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Infusions, Intravenous, Insurance, Pharmaceutical Services, Middle Aged, Neoplasm Metastasis, United States, Databases, Factual, Drug Costs

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review