Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Using Registry and Administrative Data

Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 190)


Health administrative databases and disease registries can serve as valuable data sources for decision modeling and cost-effectiveness analyses. In this chapter, we give an overview of administrative databases in Canada and discuss how data from multiple registries and administrative databases can be linked, analyzed, and combined with experimental data to fit a decision analytic model. We illustrate with two examples of cost-effectiveness analyses of genetic tests used in cancer diagnosis and treatment decisions.


Cost Effectiveness Analysis Recurrence Score Administrative Health Data Ontario Health Insurance Plan Hospital Discharge Database 
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.


  1. 1.
    Clement FM et al. (2009) Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make drug coverage decisions: a comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada. JAMA 302(13):1437–1443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Miners AH et al. (2005) Comparing estimates of cost effectiveness submitted to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) by different organisations: retrospective study. BMJ 330(7482):65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Henry DA, Hill SR, Harris A (2005) Drug prices and value for money: the Australian pharmaceutical benefits scheme. JAMA 294(20):2630–2632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tierney M, Manns B (2008) Optimizing the use of prescription drugs in Canada through the common drug review. CMAJ 178(4): 432–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ramsey S et al. (2005) Good research practices for cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials: the ISPOR RCT-CEA Task Force report. Value Health 8(5):521–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Drummond MF (1998) Experimental versus observational data in the economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. Med Decis Making 18(2 Suppl):S12–S18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Antman K et al. (1985) Selection bias in clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 3(8):1142–1147Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rahman ZU et al. (1997) Impact of selection process on response rate and long-term survival of potential high-dose chemotherapy candidates treated with standard-dose doxorubicin-containing chemotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 15(10):3171–3177Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stiller CA (1994) Centralised treatment, entry to trials and survival. Br J Cancer 70(2):352–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Braunholtz DA, Edwards SJ, Lilford RJ (2001) Are randomized clinical trials good for us (in the short term)? Evidence for a “trial effect.” J Clin Epidemiol 54(3):217–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zaric GS Cost effectiveness analysis, healthcare policy, and operations research models, wiley encyclopedia of operations research and management science, edited by James J. Cochran Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hillner BE (1987) Basic principles of cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Sect Proc 45–53Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hall PS et al. (2010) Health economics in drug development: efficient research to inform healthcare funding decisions. Eur J Cancer 46(15):2674–2680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jacobs P, Yim R (2009) Using Canadian administrative databases to derive economic data for health technology assessments. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Ottawa, ONGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Iron K et al. (2011) Using linked health administrative data to assess the clinical and healthcare system impact of chronic diseases in Ontario. Healthc Q 14(3):23–27Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ayanian JZ (1999) Using administrative data to assess health care outcomes. Eur Heart J 20(23):1689–1691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Health Canada (2012) Canada Health Act frequently asked questions. Health Canada 2012. Accessed 15 July 2012
  18. 18.
    Canadian Cancer Society’s Steering Committee on Cancer Statistics (2011) Canadian cancer statistics.Canadian Cancer Society, Toronto, ONGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Krahn MD et al. (2010) Healthcare costs associated with prostate cancer: estimates from a population-based study. BJU Int 105(3):338–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Carriere KC et al. (2004) Outcomes and costs among seniors requiring hospitalization for community-acquired pneumonia in Alberta. J Am Geriatr Soc 52(1):31–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brown MG (1995) Cost-effectiveness: the case of home health care physician services in New Brunswick, Canada. J Ambul Care Manage 18(1):13–28Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Najafzadeh M et al. (2009) Cost effectiveness of herpes zoster vaccine in Canada. Pharmacoeconomics 27(12):991–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sander B et al. (2010) Economic appraisal of Ontario’s Universal Influenza Immunization Program: a cost-utility analysis. PLoS Med 7(4):e1000256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Paik S et al. (2004) A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 351(27):2817–2826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mamounas EP et al. (2010) Association between the 21-gene recurrence score assay and risk of locoregional recurrence in node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: results from NSABP B-14 and NSABP B-20. J Clin Oncol 28(10):1677–1683Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Albain K, Barlow W, O’Malley F et al. (2004) Concurrent (CAFT) versus sequential (CAF-T) chemohormonal therapy (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, 5-fluorouracil, tamoxifen) versus T alone for postmenopausal, node-positive, estrogen (ER) and/or progesterone (PgR) receptor-positive breast cancer: mature outcomes and new biologic correlates on phase III intergroup trial 0100 (SWOG-8814). [Abstract] Breast Cancer Res Treat 88 (Suppl 1):A-37Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Paik S et al. (2006) Gene expression and benefit of chemotherapy in women with node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 24(23):3726–3734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zujewski JA, Kamin L (2008) Trial assessing individualized options for treatment for breast cancer: the TAILORx trial. Future Oncol 4(5):603–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hannouf MB et al. (2012) Cost-effectiveness of a 21-gene recurrence score assay versus Canadian clinical practice in women with early-stage estrogen- or progesterone-receptor-positive, axillary lymph-node negative breast cancer. BMC Cancer 12(1):447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Levine M (2001) Clinical practice guidelines for the care and treatment of breast cancer: adjuvant systemic therapy for node-positive breast cancer (summary of the 2001 update). The Steering Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Care and Treatment of Breast Cancer. CMAJ 164(5):644–646Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Horlings HM et al. (2008) Gene expression profiling to identify the histogenetic origin of metastatic adenocarcinomas of unknown primary. J Clin Oncol 26(27):4435–4441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Latosinsky S et al. (2007) Canadian breast cancer guidelines: have they made a difference? CMAJ 176(6):771–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Breast (1997) In: Fleming ID, Cooper JS, Henson D (eds) American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual. 5th edn. Lippincott-Raven Publishers, Philadelphia, PAGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    The Steering Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Care and Treatment of Breast Cancer (1998) Adjuvant systemic therapy for women with node-negative breast cancer. CMAJ 158(Suppl 3):S43–S51Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gajdos C, Tartter PI, Bleiweiss IJ (1999) Lymphatic invasion, tumor size, and age are independent predictors of axillary lymph node metastases in women with T1 breast cancers. Ann Surg 230(5):692–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ragaz J (2010–2011) The 21-gene assay, part 2, Canada’s uneven response. Report card on cancer in Canada 13:41–43Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ragaz J (2009–2010) The 21-gene assay: impact on breast cancer in Canada. Report card on cancer in Canada (Emerson D, Major P, Co-Chairs). Cancer Advocacy Coalition of Canada, vol 12:WinterGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Albain KS et al. (2010) Prognostic and predictive value of the 21-gene recurrence score assay in postmenopausal women with node-positive, oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer on chemotherapy: a retrospective analysis of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 11(1) 55–65Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wolowacz SE et al. (2008) Docetaxel in combination with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide as adjuvant treatment for early node-positive breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis. J Clin Oncol 26(6):925–933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Statistics Canada/Health Statistics Division (2006) Life tables, Canada and the Provinces, 2000–2002. Minister of Industry, publication 84–537-XIE, Ottawa, ON,,Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Charlson ME et al. (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40(5):373–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hassett MJ et al. (2006) Frequency and cost of chemotherapy-related serious adverse effects in a population sample of women with breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 98(16):1108–1117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Du XL, Osborne C, Goodwin JS (2002) Population-based assessment of hospitalizations for toxicity from chemotherapy in older women with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 20(24):4636–4642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Shapiro CL, Recht A (2001) Side effects of adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 344(26):1997–2008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    McKenna C, Claxton K (2011) Addressing adoption and research design decisions simultaneously: the role of value of sample information analysis. Med Decis Making 31(6):853–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Canadian Cancer Society (2010) General cancer statistics for 2010. %20a%20glance/General%20cancer%20stats.aspx?sc_lang = en&r = 1. Accessed 13 Aug 2010
  47. 47.
    Dumur CI et al. (2008) Interlaboratory performance of a microarray-based gene expression test to determine tissue of origin in poorly differentiated and undifferentiated cancers. J Mol Diagn 10(1):67–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Monzon FA et al. Identification of tissue of origin in carcinoma of unknown primary with a microarray-based gene expression test. Diagn Pathol 5:3Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Epidemiology and BiostatisticsSchulich School of Medicine and Dentistry Western UniversityLondonCanada
  2. 2.Richard Ivey School of BusinessWestern UniversityLondonCanada

Personalised recommendations