, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 275–281 | Cite as

Pharmacoeconomic Aspects in the Treatment of Curable and Incurable Cancer

  • Viggo Jønsson
  • Simon R. Clausen
  • Mogens M. Hansen
Leading Article


Assessments of the direct and indirect costs of cancer treatment have demonstrated the extreme complexity of these costs. Expenditure on cancer treatment is high, often reaching 3 to 6% of the gross national product in industrialised countries. In this article, we propose that the health outcomes associated with this high expenditure should be analysed in relation to concepts such as total cytoreduction (leading to disease-free survival and cure) and cytostabilisation with acceptable quality of life (in incurable cancer patients). Outcomes appear to be more variable among incurable compared with curable patients, so that cure and survival (which apply to only about 50% of all patients) are not the sole outcome parameters. For the 50% of patients in industrialised countries in whom cure is not possible, outcomes (in the form of cytostabilisation and an ongoing obligation to seek curative cytoreduction) will require further pharmacoeconomic assessment.


Indirect Cost Autologous Bone Marrow Incurable Cancer Haemopoietic Growth Factor Pharmacoeconomic Assessment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Skipper HE, Schabel FM, Wilcox WS. Experimental evaluation of potential anticancer agents XIII, on the criteria and kinetics associated with curability of experimental leukaemia. Cancer Chemother Rep 1964; 35: 1–24PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eberlein TJ, Wilson RE. Principles of surgical oncology. In: Holleb AI, Fink DJ, Murphy GP, editors. Clinical oncology. Atlanta: American Cancer Society, 1991: 25–34Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    American Cancer Society. Cancer facts and figures 1990. Atlanta: American Cancer Society, 1991Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    WHO. WHO health statistics annual 1990: age-standardized death rates. Geneva: WHO, 1991: 378–84Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    National Center for Health Statistics. Health United States 1991. Hyattsville (MD): Public Health Service, 1992 (OHHS publication no. PHS 92–1232)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jönsson B, Karlsson G. Economic evaluation of cancer treatments. In: Williams CJ, editor. Introducing new treatments for cancer: practical, ethical and legal problems. New York: John Wiley & Son, 1992: 237–65Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schipper H, Goh CR, Wang TUL. Rethinking cancer: should we control rather than kill? Part I. Can J Oncol 1993; 3: 207–16Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schipper H, Goh CR, Wang TUL. Rethinking cancer: should we control rather than kill? Part 2. Can J Oncol 1993; 4: 220–4Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Astrow AB. Rethinking cancer. Lancet 1994; 343: 494–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harker WG, Ward JH, Steward JR. Principles of therapy and effects of specific drugs in the treatment of neoplastic diseases of the haematopoietic system. In: Lee GR, Bithell TC, Foerster J, et al., editors. Wintrobe’s clinical haematology. Philadelphia: Lea & Fibiger, 1993: 1843–72Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goldhirsch A, Gelber RD, Simon R, et al. Costs and benefits of adjuvant therapy in breast cancer, a quality-adjusted survival analysis. J Clin Oncol 1989; 7: 36–44PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kritz A, Crown JP, Motzer RJ, et al. Beneficial impact of peripheral blood progenitor cells in patients with metastatic breast cancer treatment with high-dose chemotherapy plus granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor. Cancer 1993; 71: 2515–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Richtsmeier WJ. Biological modifiers and chemoprevention of cancer of the oral cavity. N Engl J Med 1993; 328: 58–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vernon SW, Heckel V, Jackson GL. Medical outcomes of care for breast cancer among health maintenance organization and fee-for-service patients. Clin Cancer Res 1995 Feb; 1: 179–84PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pettengell R, Gurney H, Radford JA, et al. Granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor to prevent dose-limiting neutropenia in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a randomized controlled trial. Blood 1992; 80: 1430–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Antman K, Ayash L, Elias A, et al. A phase II study of high-dose cyclophosphamide, thiotepa, and carboplatin with autologous marrow support in women with measurable advanced breast cancer responding to standard-dose therapy. J Clin Oncol 1992; 10: 102–10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Peters WP, Ross M, Vredenbourgh JJ, et al. High-dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow support as consolidation after standard-dose adjuvant therapy for high-risk primary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1993; 11: 1132–43PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    de Graaf H, Willemse PHB, de Vries EGH, et al. Intensive chemotherapy with autologous bone marrow transfusion as primary treatment in women with breast cancer and more than five involved axillary lymph nodes. Eur J Cancer 1994; 30: 150–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Torrance GW. Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life. J Chron Dis 1987; 40: 593–600PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Loomers G, MacKenzie L. The use of QALYs in health care decision making. Soc Sci Med 1989; 28: 299–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mehrez A, Gafni A. Quality-adjusted life years, utility theory, and healthy-years equivalents. Med Decis Making 1989; 9: 142–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ganz PA. Quality of life measures in cancer chemotherapy. PharmacoEconomics 1994; 5 (5): 376–88PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gotay CC, Korn EC, McCabe MS, et al. Quality-of-life assessments in cancer treatment protocols: research issues in protocol development. J Natl Cancer Inst 1992; 84: 575–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Robinson R. Cost and cost-minimization analysis. BMJ 1993; 307: 726–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Robinson R. Cost-utility analysis. BMJ 1993; 307: 859–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hancock BW, Ahmedzai S, Clark D. Palliative care of patients with terminal cancer. Curr Opin Oncol 1993; 5: 655–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kaasa S. Measurements of quality of life in clinical trials. Oncology 1992; 49: 288–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    MacDonald N. The interface between oncology and palliative medicine. In: Doyle D, Hanks G, MacDonald N, editors. Oxford textbook of palliative medicine. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications, 1993: 11–7Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wilson JB, Cleary PD. Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life: a conceptual model of patient outcome. JAMA 1995; 273: 59–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shulman SR, Gouveia W. Therapeutic substitution: an option for cost-effective prescribing? PharmacoEconomics 1993; 3 (4): 257–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Drummond MF, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sagmeister M, Gessner U, Horisberger B. Assessment of the cost of a febrile neutropenic event in chemotherapy as a basis for socio-economic evaluation of a new cancer treatment. Int J Health Sci 1991; 2: 1–10Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Emanuel EJ, Emanuel LL. The economics of dying: the illusion of cost saving at the end of life. N Engl J Med 1994; 330: 540–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Crawford J, Ozer H, Stoller R, et al. Reduction by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor of fever and neutropenia induced by chemotherapy in patients with small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 1991; 325: 164–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Carlsson P, Hjertberg H, Jönsson B, et al. The costs of prostatic cancer in a defined population. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1989; 23: 93–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tattersall MHN, Friedlander ML. Cost considerations in cancer chemotherapy. Aust Health Rev 1982; 5: 21–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Clinton B. The Clinton health care plan. N Engl J Med 1992; 327: 804–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Fries JF, Koop CE, Beadier CE, et al. Reducing health care costs by reducing the need and demand for medical services. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 321–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Moinpoure CM, Frigl P, Metch B, et al. Quality of life endpoints in cancer clinical trials, review and recommendations. J Natl Cancer Inst 1989; 81: 485–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mayfield SG, Gantz PA, Moinpoure CM, et al. Report from a National Cancer Institute (USA) workshop on quality of life assessment in cancer clinical trials. Qual Life Res 1992; 1: 203–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Viggo Jønsson
    • 1
  • Simon R. Clausen
    • 2
  • Mogens M. Hansen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Haematology, RigshospitaletUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Roche a/s, IndustriholmenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations