ArticleHealth services research2018
Estimating Costs of Care Attributable to Cancer: Does the Choice of Comparison Group Matter?
Article in Health services research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Systematic Review of the Economic Burden of Prostate Cancer: Direct and Indirect Cost Perspectives.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Pooled it
- Direct Medical Spending on Young and Average-Age Onset Colorectal Cancer before and after Diagnosis: a Population-Based Costing Study.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2024Article
- The burden of colorectal cancer survivors in the Netherlands: costs, utilities, and associated patient characteristics.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2022Article
- Sociodemographic and health factors associated with the risk of financial catastrophe when informal care for patients with haematological neoplasms is replaced by formal care.Health economics review · 2022Article
- Cancer-Attributable Medical Costs for Colorectal Cancer Patients by Phases of Care: What Is the Effect of a Prior Cancer History?Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2020Article
- Healthcare costs associated with breast cancer in Germany: a claims data analysis.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2020Article
- Catastrophic financial effect of replacing informal care with formal care: a study based on haematological neoplasms.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2019Article
- Lung cancer costs by treatment strategy and phase of care among patients enrolled in Medicare.Cancer medicine · 2019Article
- Health services costs for cancer care in Australia: Estimates from the 45 and Up Study.PloS one · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare alternative strategies for specifying cancer-free control cohorts for estimating cancer-attributable costs of care. DATA SOURCE, STUDY DESIGN, DATA EXTRACTION: Secondary data analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data linked to Medicare claims among patients diagnosed with colorectal, lung, breast, and prostate cancers, 2007-2011. We estimated cancer-attributable costs using three alternative reference cohorts: (1) noncancer Medicare patients individually matched by demographic characteristics, (2) noncancer patients individually matched on demographic factors and comorbidity score, (3) cancer patients as their own control, using prediagnosis costs. PRINCIPAL
findingsAmong 44,266 colorectal, 61,584 lung, 55,921 breast, and 67,733 prostate patients, mean total Medicare spending in the first year of diagnosis was $59,496, $54,261, $31,895, and $26,305, respectively. Estimates of cancer-attributable costs ranged from 79 percent to 82 percent of spending for colorectal, 76 percent-79 percent for lung, 65 percent-74 percent for breast, and 60 percent-75 percent for prostate cancers, depending on the reference cohort used. For all cancers, estimates were higher when patients were used as their own control, compared to demographic and comorbidity-matched controls.
conclusionsChoice of reference group can have a substantial impact on proportion of total costs attributed to cancer and should be clearly defined in analyses of the costs of cancer care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.