Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Ghent, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Cancer Research Institute Ghent (CRIG), Ghent, Belgium.
Pharmacoeconomics. 2024 Jul;42(7):751-765. doi: 10.1007/s40273-024-01389-5. Epub 2024 May 16.
Skin cancer's rising incidence demands understanding of its economic impact. The current understanding is fragmented because of the various methodological approaches applied in skin cancer cost-of-illness studies.
This study systematically reviews melanoma and keratinocyte carcinoma cost-of-illness studies to provide an overview of the applied methodological approaches and to identify the main cost drivers.
This systematic review was conducted adhering to the 2020 PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched from December 2022 until December 2023 using a search strategy with entry terms related to the concepts of skin cancer and cost of illness. The records were screened on the basis of the title and abstract and subsequently on full text against predetermined eligibility criteria. Articles published before 2012 were excluded. A nine-item checklist adapted for cost-of-illness studies was used to assess the methodological quality of the articles.
This review included a total of 45 studies, together evaluating more than half a million patients. The majority of the studies (n = 36) focused on melanoma skin cancer, a few (n = 3) focused on keratinocyte carcinomas, and 6 studies examined both. Direct costs were estimated in all studies, while indirect costs were only estimated in nine studies. Considerable heterogeneity was observed across studies, mainly owing to disparities in study population, methodological approaches, included cost categories, and differences in healthcare systems. In melanoma skin cancer, both direct and indirect costs increased with progressing tumor stage. In advanced stage melanoma, systemic therapy emerged as the main cost driver. In contrast, for keratinocyte carcinoma no obvious cost drivers were identified.
A homogeneous skin cancer cost-of-illness study design would be beneficial to enhance between-studies comparability, identification of cost drivers, and support evidence-based decision-making for skin cancer.
皮肤癌发病率的上升要求我们了解其经济影响。由于在皮肤癌疾病成本研究中应用了各种方法学方法,因此当前的理解是零散的。
本研究系统地综述了黑色素瘤和角化细胞癌疾病成本研究,以提供对应用方法学方法的概述,并确定主要的成本驱动因素。
本系统评价按照 2020 年 PRISMA 指南进行。使用与皮肤癌和疾病成本概念相关的检索词,于 2022 年 12 月至 2023 年 12 月在 PubMed、Embase 和 Web of Science 上进行了检索。根据标题和摘要筛选记录,然后根据预先确定的纳入标准对全文进行筛选。排除发表于 2012 年之前的文章。使用针对疾病成本研究改编的九项清单来评估文章的方法学质量。
本综述共纳入 45 项研究,共评估了超过 50 万名患者。大多数研究(n=36)侧重于黑色素瘤皮肤癌,少数研究(n=3)侧重于角化细胞癌,6 项研究同时研究了这两种癌症。所有研究均估计了直接成本,而只有 9 项研究估计了间接成本。研究之间存在相当大的异质性,主要是由于研究人群、方法学方法、纳入的成本类别以及医疗保健系统的差异。在黑色素瘤皮肤癌中,直接和间接成本都随着肿瘤分期的进展而增加。在晚期黑色素瘤中,系统治疗成为主要的成本驱动因素。相比之下,角化细胞癌没有明显的成本驱动因素。
同质的皮肤癌疾病成本研究设计将有助于提高研究之间的可比性、确定成本驱动因素,并为皮肤癌提供循证决策支持。