Déterminants de la décision thérapeutique et analyse coût efficacité de la prise en charge thérapeutique initiale (étude sur une base de population)

TOULOUSE3-BU Santé-Centrale (315552105) / SudocTOULOUSE3-BU Santé-Allées (315552109) / SudocPARIS-BIUM (751062103) / SudocSudocFranceF

Methodological Considerations in Cost of Prostate Cancer Studies: A Systematic Review

AbstractObjectivesCost-of-illness (COI) studies estimate the overall economic burden of a specific disease, rather than simply treatment-related costs. While having been criticized for not allowing resource prioritization, COI studies can provide useful guidance, so long as they adhere to accepted methodology. Prostate cancer is an important disease in terms of economic implications because of its increasing incidence and health-care costs and therefore provides a relevant example with which to review COI study methodologies. The aim of this study was to review published COI studies on prostate cancer to analyze the methods used.MethodsFirst, we provide a general description of the COI method. COI studies relating to prostate cancer were then systematically reviewed, focussing on an analysis of the different methods used.ResultsThe methods, data sources, and estimated cost categories in each study varied widely. The review showed that COI studies adopted significantly different approaches to estimate the costs of prostate cancer, reflecting a lack of consensus on the methodology of COI studies in this area.ConclusionTo increase its credibility, closer agreement among researchers on the methodological principles of the COI studies would be desirable

Décrire le parcours de soins des femmes prises en charge pour un cancer du sein: identifier les parcours « complexes »

International audienceObjectives: We studied both the independent and combined effects of the places of biopsy and treatment on the treatment time interval based on a population-based study.Methods: We analysed the proportion of patients having a treatment time interval higher than the EUSOMA recommendation of 6 weeks, as a function of the number and the type of care centres the patients attended, from a French population-based regional cohort of women treated in 2015 for an incident invasive non-metastatic cancer (n = 505).Results: About 33% [95% CI: 27; 38] of patients had a treatment time interval higher than 6 weeks. About 48% of the patients underwent their biopsy and their initial treatment in the different centres. Results from multivariable analyses supported the impact of the type and number of centres attended on the proportion of time intervals over 6 weeks. This proportion was higher among patients with biopsy and treatment in different centres and among patients treated in a university hospital.Conclusion: We pointed out the independent impact of the type and the number of care centres the patients attended, from biopsy to first treatment, on the treatment time interval, which is a well-known prognosis factor

A longitudinal study of non-medical determinants of adherence to R-CHOP therapy for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: implication for survival

International audienceAbstractBackgroundAdherence to therapy has been established for years as a critical parameter for clinical benefit in medical oncology. This study aimed to assess, in the current practice, the influence of the socio-demographical characteristics and the place of treatment on treatment adherence and overall survival among diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients.MethodsWe analysed data from 380 patients enrolled in a French multi-centre regional cohort, with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma receiving first-line treatment with R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone) or R-CHOP-like regimens. Direct examination of administrative and medical records yielded the date of death. We studied the influence of patients’ socio-demographic characteristics and place of treatment on the treatment adherence and overall survival, adjusted for baseline clinical characteristics. Treatment adherence was measured by the ratio between received and planned dose Intensity (DI), called relative DI (RDI) categorized in “lesser than 85%” and “at least 85%”.ResultsDuring the follow-up, among the final sample 70 patients had RDI lesser than 85% and 94 deceased. Multivariate models showed that advanced age, poor international prognosis index (IPI) and treatment with R-CHOP 14 favoured RDI lesser than 85%. The treatment in a public academic centre favoured RDI greater than or equal to 85%. Poor adherence to treatment was strongly associated with poor overall survival whereas being treated in private centres was linked to better overall survival, after adjusting for confounders. No socioeconomic gradient was found on both adherence to treatment and overall survival.ConclusionsThese results reinforce adherence to treatment as a critical parameter for clinical benefit among diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients under R-CHOP. The place of treatment, but not the socioeconomic status of these patients, impacted both RDI and overall surviva

Place of multidisciplinary consulting meetings and clinical trials in the management of colorectal cancer in France in 2000.

International audienceAIM: The 1998 consensus conference dealing with colon cancer, and the 2003 Cancer Plan underlined the need for multidisciplinary meetings and for including patients in therapeutic trials. The aim of this study, which pooled data from the French Cancer Registries operating within the Francim network, was to report on diagnostic and therapeutic practices in the general French population before implementation of the Cancer Plan. METHODS: The study population was composed of 2935 patients with colorectal cancer diagnosed in 2000 in twelve French administrative districts accounting for 15% of the geographical area of France. Data were collected using a standardized procedure. Three categories of place of diagnosis were defined: public university hospitals, public non-university hospitals, and private clinics. RESULTS: Overall, multidisciplinary meeting was conducted for 32.2% of patients with colorectal cancer. This proportion varied from 6.4% to 76.9%, depending on the geographical area (P75 years): 0.71, P<0.001), site (OR(rectum): 1.80, P<0.001) and health care facilities (OR(public non-university vs public university): 0.36, P<0.001, OR(private vs public university): 0.40, P<0.001) affected the use of multidisciplinary meeting. Overall, 4.3% of patients were included in a therapeutic trial. This concerned 6.2% of patients aged under 75 and 1.0% of those aged over 75 (P<0.001). The proportion of inclusions, taking into account the trials proposed in 2000 and 2001, varied from 0.7% to 16.4% according to geographical area (P<0.001). This proportion was 10.3% if there had been multidisciplinary meeting and 5.1% if not (P<0.001). Neither cancer site, gender, nor healthcare facility responsible for diagnosis influenced trial inclusion. CONCLUSION: This population-based study underlines geographical variations in the management of colorectal cancer in France. In 2000, multidisciplinary meeting was conducted for an insufficient proportion of patients, and an insufficient number of patients were included in therapeutic trials. Repeating the same survey in 2005 will provide information on the effects of the Cancer Plan and the diffusion of these recommendations

Increasing access to fertility preservation for women with breast cancer: protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial in France

International audienceAbstract Background With the increase in the number of long-term survivors, interest is shifting from cancer survival to life and quality of life after cancer. These include consequences of long-term side effects of treatment, such as gonadotoxicity. Fertility preservation is becoming increasingly important in cancer management. International recommendations agree on the need to inform patients prior to treatments about the risk of fertility impairment and refer them to specialized centers to discuss fertility preservation. However, the literature reveals suboptimal access to fertility preservation on an international scale, and particularly in France, making information for patients and oncologists a potential lever for action. Our overall goal is to improve access to fertility preservation consultations for women with breast cancer through the development and evaluation of a combined intervention targeting the access and diffusion of information for these patients and brief training for oncologists. Methods Firstly, we will improve existing information tools and create brief training content for oncologists using a qualitative, iterative, user-centred and participatory approach (objective 1). We will then use these tools in a combined intervention to conduct a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial (objective 2) including 750 women aged 18 to 40 newly treated with chemotherapy for breast cancer at one of the 6 participating centers. As the primary outcome of the trial will be the access to fertility preservation counselling before and after using the combined intervention (brochures and brief training for oncologists), we will compare the rate of fertility preservation consultations between the usual care and intervention phases using linear regression models. Finally, we will analyse our approach using a context-sensitive implementation analysis and provide key elements for transferability to other contexts in France (objective 3). Discussion We expect to observe an increase in access to fertility preservation consultations as a result of the combined intervention. Particular attention will be paid to the effect of this intervention on socially disadvantaged women, who are known to be at greater risk of inappropriate treatment. The user-centred design principles and participatory approaches used to optimize the acceptability, usability and feasibility of the combined intervention will likely enhance its impact, diffusion and sustainability. Trial registration Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov. Trial registration number: NCT05989776. Date of registration: 7 th September 2023. URL: https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05989776 . Protocol version Manuscript based on study protocol version 2.0, 21st may 2023