Explore the vast range of titles available.

Motivation Cancer patients often use complementary and/or alternative medicine, such as mistletoe therapy, alongside conventional cancer therapies. In Switzerland, so far not much is known about treatment patterns of breast cancer patients using integrative oncology. Solid knowledge on complementary care utilization may help to enhance integrative oncology care in Switzerland. Methods In this exploratory, descriptive database study, we investigated the treatment pathways of a cohort of breast cancer patients who received mistletoe therapy and were documented in the cancer registry of an anthroposophic Swiss hospital offering integrative oncology treatments. Results Patients treated with mistletoe in this cohort are in median 10 years younger than Swiss breast cancer patients as a whole. Only 5.8% of these patients were treated with mistletoe alone, while 60.5% of them supplemented chemotherapy and/or hormone therapy and/or surgery and/or radiation with mistletoe therapy. Nearly 80% of patients started conventional therapy followed by additional mistletoe therapy or started mono mistletoe therapy after completion of conventional therapies. The median time from initial diagnosis to hospital admission (inpatient and/or outpatient) was less than one year. Almost ¾ of the patients were treated in an outpatient setting only. Conclusion From our data, it appears that younger breast cancer patients are more likely to use mistletoe therapy simultaneously with or following their conventional medical therapies. The extent to which these patients discuss their mistletoe therapy and eventually other complementary and/or alternative therapies with their primary oncologists is not clear from the data. We therefore recommend that (Swiss) oncologists should openly discuss the desire for integrative oncology therapies, especially with their younger breast cancer patients, in order to find the best holistic care pattern for these patients.

Since its inception in 2003, Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation journal has come a long way over the past 18 years. Possibly much longer than many of its contemporaries in the blossoming science of health economics might have anticipated. Today, entering 2020 it celebrates the Age of Maturity. We believe that in the third decade of XXI century the interdisciplinary science of health economics, will rejuvenate and come back to us younger than ever from its early historical roots almost a century ago. The spreading of economic globalization in several distinctive ways, either led by multinational business corporations or newly emerged Asian leadership, or both, is likely to make challenges for contemporary health systems far more serious. The fourth industrial revolution (cyber physical systems and artificial intelligence technology) and accelerated innovation in the field of E-Health and digital health, will probably change the workflow in medical and health care, and inevitably transform the labour market in the upcoming decades. So, let us be up to the task. Let us provide academic centres, industry-sponsored pharmaceutical and medical device innovation hubs, and governing authorities alike, with a powerful forum for debate on cost-effective resource allocation in the years to come.

The use of cancer-related therapies in cancer patients hospitalized at the end of life has increased in many countries over time. Given the scarcity of published Swiss data, the objective of this study was to evaluate the influence of hospital type and other factors on the delivery of health care during the last month before death. Claims data were used to assess health care utilization of cancer patients (identified by cancer registry data of four participating Swiss cantons) who deceased between 2006 and 2008. Primary endpoints were delivery of cancer-related therapies during the last 30 days before death. Multivariate logistic regression assessed the explanatory value of hospital type, patient and geographic characteristics. Of 3,809 identified cancer patients in the claims database, 2,086 patients dying from cancer were hospitalized during the last 30 days before death, generating 2,262 inpatient episodes. Anticancer drug therapy was given in 22.2% and radiotherapy in 11.7% of episodes. Besides age and cancer type, the canton of residence and hospital type showed independent, statistically significant associations with intensity of care, which was highest in university hospitals. These results should initiate a discussion among oncologists in Switzerland and may question the compliance with standard of care guidelines for terminal cancer patients. i 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel

Background The use of cancer related therapy in cancer patients at the end-of-life has increased over time in many countries. Given a lack of published Swiss data, the objective of this study was to describe delivery of health care during the last month before death of cancer patients. Methods Claims data were used to assess health care utilization of cancer patients (identified by cancer registry data of four participating cantons), deceased between 2006-2008. Primary endpoints were hospitalization rate and delivery of cancer related therapies during the last 30 days before death. Multivariate logistic regression assessed the explanatory value of patient and geographic characteristics. Results 3809 identified cancer patients were included. Hospitalization rate (mean 68.5%, 95% CI 67.0-69.9) and percentage of patients receiving anti-cancer drug therapies (ACDT, mean 14.5%, 95% CI 13.4-15.6) and radiotherapy (mean 7.7%, 95% CI 6.7-8.4) decreased with age. Canton of residence and insurance type status most significantly influenced the odds for hospitalization or receiving ACDT. Conclusions The intensity of cancer specific care showed substantial variation by age, cancer type, place of residence and insurance type status. This may be partially driven by cultural differences within Switzerland and the cantonal organization of the Swiss health care system.

Methods to handle uncertainty in economic evaluation have gained much attention in the literature, and the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) is the most widely used method to summarise and present uncertainty associated with program costs and effects in cost-effectiveness analysis. Some researchers have emphasised the limitations of the CEAC for informing decision and policy makers, as the CEAC is insensitive to radial shifts of the joint distribution of incremental costs and effects in the North-East and South-West quadrants of the cost-effective plane (CEP). Furthermore, it has been pointed out that the CEAC does not incorporate risk-aversion in valuing uncertain costs and effects. In the present article, we show that the cost-effectiveness affordability curve (CEAFC) captures both dimensions of the joint distribution of incremental costs and effects on the CEP and is, therefore, sensitive to radial shifts of the joint distribution on the CEP. Furthermore, the CEAFC also informs about the budget impact of a new intervention, as it can be used to estimate the joint probability that an intervention is both affordable and cost-effective. Moreover, we show that the cost-effectiveness risk-aversion curve (CERAC) allows the analyst to incorporate different levels of risk-aversion into the analysis and can, therefore, be used to inform decision-makers who are risk-averse. We use data from a published cost-effectiveness model of palbociclib in addition to letrozole versus letrozole alone for the treatment of oestrogen-receptor positive, HER-2 negative, advanced breast cancer to demonstrate the differences between CEAC, CEAFC and CERAC, and show how these can jointly be used to inform decision and policy makers.

Background Adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy improves response rates and progression-free survival (PFS) in metastatic breast cancer (mBC). We aimed to demonstrate decreased toxicity with metronomic chemotherapy/bevacizumab compared with paclitaxel/bevacizumab. Methods This multicenter, randomized phase III trial compared bevacizumab with either paclitaxel (arm A) or daily oral capecitabine-cyclophosphamide (arm B) as first-line treatment in patients with HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. The primary endpoint was the incidence of selected grade 3–5 adverse events (AE) including: febrile neutropenia, infection, sensory/motor neuropathy, and mucositis. Secondary endpoints included objective response rate, disease control rate, PFS, overall survival (OS), quality of life (QoL), and pharmacoeconomics. The study was registered prospectively with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01131195 on May 25, 2010. Results Between September 2010 and December 2012, 147 patients were included at 22 centers. The incidence of primary endpoint-defining AEs was similar in arm A (25 % [18/71]; 95 % CI 15–35 %) and arm B (24 % [16/68]; 95 % CI 13–34 %; P  = 0.96). Objective response rates were 58 % (42/73; 95 % CI 0.46–0.69) and 50 % (37/74; 95 % CI 0.39–0.61) in arms A and B, respectively ( P  = 0.45). Median PFS was 10.3 months (95 % CI 8.7–11.3) in arm A and 8.5 months (95 % CI 6.5–11.9) in arm B ( P  = 0.90). Other secondary efficacy endpoints were not significantly different between study arms. The only statistically significant differences in QoL were less hair loss and less numbness in arm B. Treatment costs between the two arms were equivalent. Conclusion This trial failed to meet its primary endpoint of a reduced rate of prespecified grade 3–5 AEs with metronomic bevacizumab, cyclophosphamide and capecitabine.

BackgroundSeveral studies and a meta-analysis showed that fibrin sealant patches reduced lymphatic drainage after various lymphadenectomy procedures. Our goal was to investigate the impact of these patches on drainage after axillary dissection for breast cancer.MethodsIn a phase III superiority trial, we randomized patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery at 14 Swiss sites to receive versus not receive three large TachoSil® patches in the dissected axilla. Axillary drains were inserted in all patients. Patients and investigators assessing outcomes were blinded to group assignment. The primary endpoint was total volume of drainage.ResultsBetween March 2015 and December 2016, 142 patients were randomized (72 with TachoSil® and 70 without). Mean total volume of drainage in the control group was 703 ml [95% confidence interval (CI) 512–895 ml]. Application of TachoSil® did not significantly reduce the total volume of axillary drainage [mean difference (MD) −110 ml, 95% CI −316 to 94, p = 0.30]. A total of eight secondary endpoints related to drainage, morbidity, and quality of life were not improved by use of TachoSil®. The mean total cost per patient did not differ significantly between the groups [34,253 Swiss Francs (95% CI 32,625–35,880) with TachoSil® and 33,365 Swiss Francs (95% CI 31,771–34,961) without, p = 0.584]. In the TachoSil® group, length of stay was longer (MD 1 day, 95% CI 0.3–1.7, p = 0.009), and improvement of pain was faster, although the latter difference was not significant [2 days (95% CI 1–4) vs. 5.5 days (95% CI 2–11); p = 0.2].ConclusionsTachoSil® reduced drainage after axillary dissection for breast cancer neither significantly nor relevantly.

Background The European Quality of Life–5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) instrument combines questionnaire responses into a single utility estimate using country-specific value sets. Countries without a national value set are advised to select one based on geographic proximity. In the absence of a Swiss value set, we used foreign value sets to gain insights into their appropriateness for use with Swiss cancer patients. Methods EQ-5D health states and visual analogue scale (VAS) ratings were collected in one German and three Swiss oncology trials. Utilities were calculated based on the United Kingdom (UK), German (GE), French (FR) and European Union (EU) value sets. Resulting differences and Pearson partial correlation coefficients with corresponding VAS ratings were assessed. Results In total, 202 Swiss and 154 German patients undergoing cancer treatment completed at least two EQ-5D forms. The mean difference between GE-based and FR-, UK- or EU-based utilities was significantly larger than the differences between the latter. The absolute mean difference between utilities and VAS ratings was highest for GE-based utilities, for Swiss (0.170, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.146–0.194) and German patients (0.174, 95 % CI 0.145–0.202). The correlation between GE-based utilities and VAS ratings was the lowest ( r  = 0.36, 95 % CI 0.33–0.40); the highest was between FR-based utilities and VAS ratings ( r  = 0.43, 95 % CI 0.39–0.46). Conclusion For Switzerland, utility calculations based on the German or French value set would be an obvious choice. Our results suggest that the German value set may not be the most appropriate for use with Swiss cancer patients. The French and EU value sets may be relevant alternatives and improve international comparability.