NCCN recommendations for metastatic breast cancer lowers costs for patients, according to the new study.
Research from the UAB's O'Neal Comprehensive Cancer Center finds that patients treated outside the recommendations of the NCCN Guidelines had significantly greater direct costs.
A new study by the O'Neal Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Alabama in Birmingham (UAB), published in the October 2019 issue of JNCCN— Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, finds that direct costs for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) increase dramatically when their treatment differs from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines for Oncology (NCCN) recommendations. Previous studies have found that disagreeable care leads to higher overall health care costs, but this is the first study to look specifically at the cost burden for patients.
“We thought that it was important to explore potential differences in out-of-pocket costs, since financial toxicity is a growing issue among patients with metastatic breast cancer,” explained Courtney P. Williams, MPH, Division of Hematology and Oncology, O’Neal Comprehensive Cancer Center at UAB. “We found about one in five women received an anticancer treatment that wasn’t listed within the NCCN Guidelines. Those women were responsible for higher out-of-pocket costs—including deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments—in the year following their metastatic breast cancer diagnosis than those receiving an anticancer treatment listed within the guidelines. This finding is especially important for older patients, which made up about 75 percent of our sample, since financial and psychological distress could be worse for patients living on a fixed income.”
The retrospective study used the SEER-Medicare registry to look at the cost of patients of 3,709 women diagnosed with MBC from 2007 to 2013 who survived at least one year after diagnosis. Diagnosis plans have been linked to the version of the Breast Cancer NCCN Guidelines ® available at the exact date of diagnosis. Due to NCCN's regular guideline revisions, the concept of guideline-concordant treatment varied depending on the date.
The average post-diagnosis patient cost for the year was $5,171 for treatment that fit the current NCCN recommendations, compared to $7,421 for care that deviated from them. Overtreatment and undertreatment, as described in the guidelines, eventually resulted in higher costs for patients.
“The observation that out-of-pocket costs may be greater for guideline discordant care is important for both patients and physicians to understand, especially when many guideline discordant treatments may not improve clinical outcomes,” commented Matthew P. Goetz, MD, Mayo Clinic Cancer Center, Member of the NCCN Guidelines Panel for Breast Cancer, who was not involved in this study. “Clinical trials should be prioritized as a way to offer patients access to new drugs/treatments that might not otherwise be available to them, while limiting out-of-pocket expenses.”
Non-aprovedbevacizumab use was the largest increase in patient spending and was also correlated with worse outcomes. This finding was cited in the article as a“cautionary tale for physicians who add novel agents without proven benefit to treatment regimens,” and argued that it might be better to provide no treatment, than to provide a “guideline-discordant treatment associated with mild but persistent and bothersome adverse events.”
“NCCN Guidelines exist to provide recommendations based on scientific evidence and expert opinion,” said Williams. “Although there will always be circumstances where off-guideline treatment is warranted, physicians should aim to comply with current guidelines for the safety of the patient, both physically and psychologically, as well as to decrease adverse outcomes such as financial toxicity.”
To read the entire study, visit JNCCN.org. Complimentary access to “Guideline Discordance and Patient Cost Responsibility in Medicare Beneficiaries with Metastatic Breast Cancer” is available until January 10, 2020.
# # #
About JNCCN—Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network
More than 25,000 oncologists and other cancer care professionals across the United States read JNCCN—Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. This peer-reviewed, indexed medical journal provides the latest information about innovation in translational medicine, and scientific studies related to oncology health services research, including quality care and value, bioethics, comparative and cost effectiveness, public policy, and interventional research on supportive care and survivorship. JNCCN features updates on the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®), review articles elaborating on guidelines recommendations, health services research, and case reports highlighting molecular insights in patient care. JNCCN is published by Harborside. Visit JNCCN.org. To inquire if you are eligible for a FREE subscription to JNCCN, visit http://www.nccn.org/jnccn/subscribe.asp. Follow JNCCN on Twitter @JNCCN.
About the National Comprehensive Cancer Network
The National Comprehensive Cancer Network® (NCCN®) is a not-for-profit alliance of 28 leading cancer centers devoted to patient care, research, and education. NCCN is dedicated to improving and facilitating quality, effective, efficient, and accessible cancer care so patients can live better lives. Through the leadership and expertise of clinical professionals at NCCN Member Institutions, NCCN develops resources that present valuable information to the numerous stakeholders in the health care delivery system. By defining and advancing high-quality cancer care, NCCN promotes the importance of continuous quality improvement and recognizes the significance of creating clinical practice guidelines appropriate for use by patients, clinicians, and other health care decision-makers around the world.
The NCCN Member Institutions are: Abramson Cancer Center at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; Fred & Pamela Buffett Cancer Center, Omaha, NE; Case Comprehensive Cancer Center/University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland, OH; City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center | Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA; Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD; Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chicago, IL; Mayo Clinic Cancer Center, Phoenix/Scottsdale, AZ, Jacksonville, FL, and Rochester, MN; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute, Columbus, OH; O'Neal Comprehensive Cancer Center at UAB, Birmingham, AL; Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY; Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO; St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital/The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN; Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford, CA; UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center, La Jolla, CA; UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA; University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora, CO; University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison, WI; Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN; and Yale Cancer Center/Smilow Cancer Hospital, New Haven, CT.