A comparison of analytic models for the costs of the hospitalized diabetic patients

OBJECTIVE: To compare some survival models as applied to the estimation of thecosts of hospitalization as a function of several covariates in diabetic patients. The application of the Aalen regression model (Aalen, 1989) to medical costs is stressed. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study analyzinghospitalizations in a cohort of diabetic patients with a follow up of4.5 years. STUDY POPULATION: A total of 2550 patients have been included in the cohort, according to clinical-based enrollment standards. The patients with at least one hospitalization have been considered in this analysis. METHODS: Costs have been modelled using five different regression model: the ordinary least square regression model, the logistic regression model using the median and the third quartile of the costs distribution as cut-off points,the parametric survival model assuming Weibull distribution, the Cox proportional hazard model and the Aalen additive regression model. CONCLUSIONS: The Aalen additive regression model applied to the costs has the best performances in estimating the mean hospitalization costs for specific clinical profiles

Multiple Tumours in Survival Estimates

In international comparisons of cancer registry based survival it is common practice to restrict the analysis to first primary tumours and exclude multiple cancers. The probability of correctly detecting subsequent cancers depends on the registry\u27s running time, which results in different proportions of excluded patients and may lead to biased comparisons. We evaluated the impact on the age-standardised relative survival estimates of also including multiple primary tumours. Data from 2,919,023 malignant cancers from 69 European cancer registries participating in the EUROCARE-4 collaborative study were used. A total of 183,683 multiple primary tumours were found, with an overall proportion of 6.3% over all the considered cancers, ranging from 0.4% (Naples, Italy) to 12.9% (Iceland). The proportion of multiple tumours varied greatly by type of tumour, being higher for those with high incidence and long survival (breast, prostate and colon-rectum). Five-year relative survival was lower when including patients with multiple cancers. For all cancers combined the average difference was -0.4 percentage points in women and -0.7 percentage points in men, and was greater for older registries. Inclusion of multiple tumours led to lower survival in 44 out of 45 cancer sites analysed, with the greatest differences found for larynx (-1.9%), oropharynx (-1.5%), and penis (-1.3%). Including multiple primary tumours in survival estimates for international comparison is advisable because it reduces the bias due to different observation periods, age, registration quality and completeness of registration. The general effect of inclusion is to reduce survival estimates by a variable amount depending on the proportion of multiple primaries and cancer site

Prostate cancer treatment in Europe at the end of 1990s.

International audienceBackground. There is wide variation in prostate cancer incidence and survival across Europe. In many countries incidence is rising sharply in relation to the introduction of prostate-specific antigen assay, and there is concern that patients may not be treated appropriately. We therefore aimed to characterize treatment for prostate cancer across Europe. Methods. We performed a high resolution population-based study, collecting information on the treatment of 3 486 prostate cancer cases diagnosed in 1995-1999 in 11 cancer registries from six European countries. Results. Overall, about one in three patients received radical treatment (prostatectomy 23% or radiotherapy 14%); about 60% of younger patients (/=70 years) received palliation (transurethral prostatectomy or hormone treatment only). A considerable proportion (61%) of patients with apparently high-risk disease were treated radically within a year of diagnosis, with large variation between regions: >70% in Calvados, Haut-Rhin, Tarn and Eindhoven and <50% in Slovakia and Cracow. Overall 34% of patients with apparently low-risk disease received radical treatment, varying from 17% and 22% in Bas-Rhin and Granada, to 52% and 56% in Calvados and Eindhoven. Conclusions. Our data indicate wide variation in the treatment for prostate cancer even among patients with apparently similar disease, and further suggest a non-negligible proportion may be receiving inappropriate radical treatment for apparently low-risk disease. Current guidelines indicate active surveillance should become the main means of managing low-risk disease

The tumour-targeting immunocytokine F16-IL2 in combination with doxorubicin: dose escalation in patients with advanced solid tumours and expansion into patients with metastatic breast cancer.

A phase Ib/II trial was performed to evaluate safety, tolerability, recommended dose (RD) and efficacy of F16-IL2, a recombinant antibody-cytokine fusion protein, in combination with doxorubicin in patients with solid tumors (phase Ib) and metastatic breast cancer (phase II). Six patient cohorts with progressive solid tumors (n = 19) received escalating doses of F16-IL2 [5-25 Million International Units (MIU) of IL2 equivalent dose] in combination with escalating doses of doxorubicin (0-25mg/m(2)) on day 1, 8 and 15 every 4 weeks. Subsequently, patients with metastatic breast cancer (n = 10) received the drug combination at the RD. Clinical data and laboratory findings were analyzed for safety, tolerability, and activity. F16-IL2 could be administered up to 25 MIU, in combination with the RD of doxorubicin (25mg/m(2)). No human anti-fusion protein antibodies (HAFA) response was detected. Pharmacokinetics of F16-IL2 was dose-dependent over the tested range, with half-lives of ca. 13 and ca. 8hours for cohorts dosed at lower and higher levels, respectively. Toxicities were controllable and reversible, with no combination treatment-related death. After 8 weeks, 57% and 67% disease control rates were observed for Phase I and II, respectively (decreasing to 43% and 33% after 12 weeks), considering 14 and 9 patients evaluable for efficacy. One patient experienced a long lasting partial response (45 weeks), still on-going at exit of study. F16-IL2 can be safely and repeatedly administered at the RD of 25 MIU in combination with 25mg/m(2) doxorubicin; its safety and activity are currently being investigated in combination with other chemotherapeutics, in order to establish optimal therapy settings

Survival of European children and young adults with cancer diagnosed 1995-2002.

This study analyses survival in 40,392 children (age 0-14 years) and 30,187 adolescents/young adults (age 15-24 years) diagnosed with cancer between 1995 and 2002. The cases were from 83 European population-based cancer registries in 23 countries participating in EUROCARE-4. Five-year survival in countries and in regional groupings of countries was compared for all cancers combined and for major cancers. Survival for 15 rare cancers in children was also analysed. Five-year survival for all cancers combined was 81% in children and 87% in adolescents/young adults. Between-country survival differences narrowed for both children and adolescents/young adults. Relative risk of death reduced significantly, by 8% in children and by 13% in adolescents/young adults, from 1995-1999 to 2000-2002. Survival improved significantly over time for acute lymphoid leukaemia and primitive neuroectodermal tumours in children and for non-Hodgkin lymphoma in adolescents/young adults. Cancer survival in patients <25 years is poorly documented in Eastern European countries. Complete cancer registration should be a priority for these countries as an essential part of a policy for effective cancer control in Europe

The cure of cancer: a European perspective.

Cancer survival analyses based on cancer registry data do not provide direct information on the main aim of cancer treatment, the cure of the patient. In fact, classic survival indicators do not distinguish between patients who are cured, and patients who will die of their disease and in whom prolongation of survival is the main objective of treatment. In this study, we applied parametric cure models to the cancer incidence and follow-up data provided by 49 EUROCARE-4 (European Cancer Registry-based study, fourth edition) cancer registries, with the aims of providing additional insights into the survival of European cancer patients diagnosed from 1988 to 1999, and of investigating between-population differences. Between-country estimates the proportion of cured patients varied from about 4-13% for lung cancer, from 9% to 30% for stomach cancer, from 25% to 49% for colon and rectum cancer, and from 55% to 73% for breast cancer. For all cancers combined, estimates varied between 21% and 47% in men, and 38% and 59% in women and were influenced by the distribution of cases by cancer site. Countries with high proportions of cured and long fatal case survival times for all cancers combined were characterised by generally favourable case mix. For the European pool of cases both the proportion of cured and the survival time of fatal cases were associated with age, and increased from the early to the latest diagnosis period. The increases over time in the proportions of Europeans estimated cured of lung, stomach and colon and rectum cancers are noteworthy and suggest genuine progress in cancer control. The proportion of cured of all cancers combined is a useful general indicator of cancer control as it reflects progress in diagnosis and treatment, as well as success in the prevention of rapidly fatal cancers