Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Can we reasonably address and overcome cancer care inequalities across Europe? THE WORK OF THE EUROCHIP3 WP7 on BREAST CANCER Olivia Pagani Clinical Director Breast Unit and Institute of Oncology of Southern Switzerland
Breast cancer survival in EU(1999-2007) by region and age 5 year mortality Age-specific 5 year mortality EUROCARE 5 Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(1):23-34
Some «worrying» evidence Peter F. Health equity & social justice. J Applied Philosophy, 2001. 18 (2): 159-170 Global sales ($M) 2007-2012
EUROCHIP-3 mission Reducing inequalities in cancer incidence and cancer care across Europe by improving cancer information
WP7 Rationale Could cost constrains be a significant factor explaining why patients do so much worse in some countries or regions than in others?
WP7 Objectives • availability of cost-effectiveness data • possibility to consider cost effective alternatives • role of costs in the cancer health strategy for reducing survival disparities in the EU
WP7 Methods (1) • Early Breast cancer (Stage I and II) • Advanced Breast cancer (stage III and IV)
WP7 Methods (2) multidisciplinary setting: clinicians epidemiologists health economists
WP7 Methods (3) • Screening • Diagnosis • Pathology • Surgery • Medical Oncology • Radiotherapy • Rehabilitation & Supportive care
WP7 Methods (4) • The care components were classified in: • minimum requirements for acceptable care • additional tools for improvement of care
Breast Health Global Initiative www. portal.bhgi.org Breast 2013;22(5):593-605
The WP 7 Discussion Template For each WP7 tool, a discussion template was created covering: Definition Purpose Target Efficacy Caveat
Obj1: availability of cost-effectiveness data To reach objective 1, a HTA protocol of literature revision was developed by health economics experts for the revision of available data on the different economic impact linked with the WP7 Red list
Obj 2: the possibility of cost effective alternatives To reach objective2, the WP7 discussion template was applied to the proposed alternatives An alternative was defined as a diagnostic or management tool with same outcome to that of a given tool but bearing lower costs
Obj3: the role of costs in the cancer health strategy for reducing survival disparities in the EU Comparable information on costs and cost effectiveness across the EU is not sufficiently available in scientific literature to answer this question
Conclusions (1) The creation of a system able to include cost in the evidence evaluation of the different components of cancer care is a EU priority
Conclusions (2) More research must be promoted to ensure that cost information is included in the model we use for monitoring delivery of affordable quality and equitable care across the EU
Conclusions (3) The “minimal requirement tools for acceptable treatment” constitute an innovative approach to enable public health authorities to identify those core health priorities able to change outcome disparities especially in low income settings, before investing in additional tools
WP7 Final Remarks the WP7 model is EFFECTIVE to identify problem areas and expand access especially to minimum requirements of care
WP7 multidisciplinary team The Clinical Group : Olivia Pagani, Antonella Richetti, Institute of Oncology of Southern Switzerland, Ospedale Beata Vergine, Mendrisio CH; Carlos A. Garcia-Etienne, Humanitas Cancer Center, Istituto Clinico Humanitas – IRCCS, Milan, Italy; Stefano Ciatto, retired professor, ISPO, Florence, Italy; Christine BARA, Institut National du Cancer, Boulogne Billancourt cedex, France; Valérie MAZEAU-WOYNAR, Institut National du Cancer, Boulogne-Billancourt Cedex, France; Riccardo Masetti, Policlinico Gemelli Universita' Cattolica Roma, Italy; Pietro Folino Gallo, Italian Medecines Agency (AIFA) Roma, Italy; Roberto Agresti, Fondazione IRCCS “Istituto Nazionale Tumori” Milan, Italy. The Epidemiology Group: Andrea Micheli, Milena Sant, Fondazione IRCCS “Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori” Milan, Italy; Riccardo Capocaccia, Silvia Francisci, Italian Institute of Public Health, ISS Roma, Italy; Magdalena Bielska Lasota, Dominik Maslach, National Institute of Public Health and Hygiene, Warsaw, Poland. The HTA group: Luciana Scalone, Paolo Cortesi, CHARTA Foundation, Milan, Italy; Agnese Cangini, Luisa Muscolo, Italian Medecines Agency (AIFA*) Roma, Italy; Bogusława Osińska, Agency for Health Technology Assessment in Poland, Warsaw; Anna Nachtnebel, Ludwig Boltzmann Institut Health Technology Assessment, Wien, Austria; Sabine Vogler and Nina Zimmermann, Pharma Team, Gesundheit Österreich GmbH Wien, Austria; Joan Rovira, Department of Economics, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; Vladimir Stevanovic, Alan Diener, Franco Sassi, OECD, Paris, France; Rafal Halik National Institute of Public Health and Hygiene, Warsaw, Poland. Special thanks to the external referees from SIOP-E, EUSOMA, ESO, the EUROCHIP partners , the EPAAC Consortium and the European School of Oncology and Cancer World Magazine for support throughout.