Rapid cancer diagnosis for patients with vague symptoms: a cost-effectiveness study

Bernadette Sewell, Mari Jones, Helen Gray, Heather Wilkes, Catherine Lloyd-Bennett, Kim Beddow, Martin Bevan, Deborah Fitzsimmons, Bernadette Sewell, Mari Jones, Helen Gray, Heather Wilkes, Catherine Lloyd-Bennett, Kim Beddow, Martin Bevan, Deborah Fitzsimmons

Abstract

Background: A pilot rapid diagnosis centre (RDC) allows GPs within targeted clusters to refer adults with vague and/or non-specific symptoms suspicious of cancer, who do not meet criteria for referral under an urgent suspected cancer (USC) pathway, to a multidisciplinary RDC clinic where they are seen within 1 week.

Aim: To explore the cost-effectiveness of the RDC compared with standard clinical practice.

Design and setting: Cost-effectiveness modelling using routine data from Neath Port Talbot Hospital, Wales.

Method: Discrete-event simulation modelled a cohort of 1000 patients from referral to radiological diagnosis based on routine RDC and hospital data. Control patients were those referred to a USC pathway but then downgraded. Published sources provided estimates of patient quality of life (QoL) and pre-diagnosis anxiety. The model calculates time to diagnosis, costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and estimates the probability of the RDC being a cost-effective strategy.

Results: The RDC reduces mean time to diagnosis from 84.2 days in usual care to 5.9 days if a diagnosis is made at clinic, or 40.8 days if further investigations are booked during RDC. RDC provision is the superior strategy (that is, less costly and more effective) compared with standard clinical practice when run near or at full capacity. However, it is not cost-effective if capacity utilisation drops below 80%.

Conclusion: An RDC for patients presenting with vague or non-specific symptoms suspicious of cancer in primary care reduces time to diagnosis and provides excellent value for money if run at ≥80% capacity.

Keywords: cancer diagnosis; cost-effectiveness; early detection of cancer; general practice; non-specific symptoms; rapid diagnosis centre.

©The Authors.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Schematic of the patient pathway through the rapid diagnosis centre (RDC) in the model intervention group. CNS = cancer nurse specialist. CT = computed tomography. MDT = multidisciplinary team.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve summarising results of probabilistic sensitivity analysis across 1000 runs assuming 2.78 patients per clinic at different WTP thresholds. WTP = willingness-to-pay.

References

    1. Silver JK, Raj VS, Fu JB, et al. Cancer rehabilitation and palliative care: critical components in the delivery of high-quality oncology services. Support Care Cancer. 2015;23(12):3633–3643.
    1. Laudicella M, Walsh B, Burns E, et al. Cost of care for cancer patients in England: evidence from population-based patient-level data. Br J Cancer. 2016;114(11):1286–1292.
    1. Welsh Cancer Network Cancer delivery plan for Wales 2016–2020. (accessed 1 Dec 2019).
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Suspected cancer: recognition and referral NG12. 2017 (accessed 1 Dec 2019).
    1. Neal RD, Din NU, Hamilton W, et al. Comparison of cancer diagnostic intervals before and after implementation of NICE guidelines: analysis of data from the UK General Practice Research Database. Br J Cancer. 2014;110(3):584–592.
    1. Vedsted P, Olesen F. A differentiated approach to referrals from general practice to support early cancer diagnosis — the Danish three-legged strategy. Br J Cancer. 2015;112(Suppl 1):S65–S69.
    1. Fuller E, Fitzgerald K, Hiom S. Accelerate, Coordinate, Evaluate Programme — a new approach to cancer diagnosis. Br J Gen Pract. 2016.
    1. Katsaliaki K, Mustafee N. Applications of simulation within the healthcare context. J Oper Res Soc. 2011;62(8):1431–1451.
    1. Devapriya P, Strömblad CT, Bailey MD, et al. StratBAM: a discrete-event simulation model to support strategic hospital bed capacity decisions. J Med Syst. 2015;39(10):130.
    1. Rachuba S, Salmon A, Zhelev Z, et al. Redesigning the diagnostic pathway for chest pain patients in emergency departments. Health Care Manag Sci. 2018;21(2):177–191.
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Process and methods. In: Developing NICE guidelines: the manual PMG20. 2017 (accessed 1 Dec 2019).
    1. Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29(2):117–122.
    1. NHS Improvement NHS reference costs 2016 to 2017. (accessed 1 Dec 2019).
    1. Curtis L, Burns A. Unit costs of health and social care 2017. 2017 (accessed 1 Dec 2019).
    1. Moseholm E, Rydahl-Hansen S, Lindhardt BØ. Undergoing diagnostic evaluation for possible cancer affects the health-related quality of life in patients presenting with non-specific symptoms. PloS One. 2016;11(2):e0148463.
    1. Moseholm E, Rydahl-Hansen S, Overgaard D, et al. Health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression in the diagnostic phase of suspected cancer, and the influence of diagnosis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14:80.
    1. Walming S, Block M, Bock D, et al. Timely access to care in the treatment of rectal cancer and the effect on quality of life. Colorectal Dis. 2018;20(2):126–133.
    1. Janssen MF, Szende A, Cabases JM, et al. Population norms for the EQ-5D-3L: a cross-country analysis of population surveys for 20 countries. Eur J Health Econ. 2019;20(2):205–216.
    1. Nicholson BD, Oke J, Friedemann Smith C, et al. The Suspected CANcer (SCAN) pathway: protocol for evaluating a new standard of care for patients with non-specific symptoms of cancer. BMJ Open. 2018;8(1):e018168.
    1. Møller H, Gildea C, Meechan D, et al. Use of the English urgent referral pathway for suspected cancer and mortality in patients with cancer: cohort study. BMJ. 2015;351:h5102.
    1. Douglas CM, Carswell V, Montgomery J. Outcomes of urgent suspicion of head and neck cancer referrals in Glasgow. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2019;101(2):103–106.
    1. Mozdiak E, Weldeselassie Y, McFarlane M, et al. Systematic review with meta-analysis of over 90 000 patients. Does fast-track review diagnose colorectal cancer earlier? Ailment Pharmacol Ther. 2019;50(4):348–372.
    1. Moseholm E, Lindhardt BØ. Patient characteristics and cancer prevalence in the Danish cancer patient pathway for patients with serious non-specific symptoms and signs of cancer — a nationwide, population-based cohort study. Cancer Epidemiol. 2017;50(Pt A):166–172.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다