Efficacy, Safety and Affordability Disparities of Gastrointestinal Cancer Changing Plans of Treatment of Cancer Patients

R. Aboelhassan, SohaAli, M. Ali, Noura A. Abdel-fatah
{"title":"Efficacy, Safety and Affordability Disparities of Gastrointestinal Cancer Changing Plans of Treatment of Cancer Patients","authors":"R. Aboelhassan, SohaAli, M. Ali, Noura A. Abdel-fatah","doi":"10.31038/cst.2022713","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: With daily increase of GIT cancer incidence, there is more discovery of new regimens, raising the question: how much can cancer patient afford effective safe treatment? Methods: Safety and efficacy grades version 2021 NCCN evidence-based blocks are used in this research, Egyptian population divided according to income in to 5 categories: Poorest (4860), poor (8460), middle (22800), rich (41100), richest (66583). We considered a medicine as affordable if 20% or less of monthly income is needed to cover monthly need of medicine. Affordability divided to 5 grades according to percentage of income needed to cover treatment: very inexpensive: ≤20%, inexpensive: 20-40%, moderately expensive 40-60%, expensive 60-80%, awfully expensive ≥ 80%. Binary logistic regression model was performed to assess affordability of cancer treatments in different cancer types using efficacy of regimen, safety of regimen, line of therapy, site of treatment and income class as predictors. Results: Most GIT regimens are moderately effective 223 (51.6), while most regimens 277 (64.1) are mildly toxic. Minimally effective regimens increase the chance of being affordable by 15 times if compared to highly effective P<0.0001, moderately effective increase the chance of affordability by 3 times if compared to highly effective P<0.0001. Mildly toxic regimen increases the chance of affordability by 3 times if compared to occasionally toxic treatment. P=0.002. Adjuvant regimens have increased chance of affordability by 17 times if compared to second line. Conclusion : GIT cancer patients have more treatment affordability for neo-adjuvant/adjuvant than other regimens first-line therapy is more affordable than other regimens for stage IV disease, highly effective regimens have the low affordability while mildly toxic regimens have more chance of affordability than other regimens","PeriodicalId":72517,"journal":{"name":"Cancer studies and therapeutics","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer studies and therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31038/cst.2022713","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: With daily increase of GIT cancer incidence, there is more discovery of new regimens, raising the question: how much can cancer patient afford effective safe treatment? Methods: Safety and efficacy grades version 2021 NCCN evidence-based blocks are used in this research, Egyptian population divided according to income in to 5 categories: Poorest (4860), poor (8460), middle (22800), rich (41100), richest (66583). We considered a medicine as affordable if 20% or less of monthly income is needed to cover monthly need of medicine. Affordability divided to 5 grades according to percentage of income needed to cover treatment: very inexpensive: ≤20%, inexpensive: 20-40%, moderately expensive 40-60%, expensive 60-80%, awfully expensive ≥ 80%. Binary logistic regression model was performed to assess affordability of cancer treatments in different cancer types using efficacy of regimen, safety of regimen, line of therapy, site of treatment and income class as predictors. Results: Most GIT regimens are moderately effective 223 (51.6), while most regimens 277 (64.1) are mildly toxic. Minimally effective regimens increase the chance of being affordable by 15 times if compared to highly effective P<0.0001, moderately effective increase the chance of affordability by 3 times if compared to highly effective P<0.0001. Mildly toxic regimen increases the chance of affordability by 3 times if compared to occasionally toxic treatment. P=0.002. Adjuvant regimens have increased chance of affordability by 17 times if compared to second line. Conclusion : GIT cancer patients have more treatment affordability for neo-adjuvant/adjuvant than other regimens first-line therapy is more affordable than other regimens for stage IV disease, highly effective regimens have the low affordability while mildly toxic regimens have more chance of affordability than other regimens
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
胃肠道肿瘤患者改变治疗方案的疗效、安全性和可负担性差异
目的:随着GIT癌症发病率的日益增加,新方案的发现也越来越多,这就提出了一个问题:癌症患者能负担多少有效安全的治疗?方法:安全性和有效性评分版本2021 NCCN循证块用于本研究,埃及人口根据收入分为5类:最贫困(4860),贫困(8460),中等(22800),富裕(41100),最富裕(66583)。如果需要20%或更少的月收入来支付每月的药物需求,我们认为这种药物是负担得起的。根据支付治疗所需收入的百分比,可负担性分为5个等级:非常便宜:≤20%,便宜:20-40%,中等昂贵40-60%,昂贵60-80%,非常昂贵≥80%。采用二元logistic回归模型,以方案的有效性、方案的安全性、治疗路线、治疗地点和收入类别为预测因子,评估不同癌症类型的癌症治疗的可负担性。结果:大多数GIT方案为中度有效223(51.6),而大多数方案277(64.1)为轻度毒性。如果与高效方案P<0.0001相比,最低有效方案使可负担的机会增加15倍,如果与高效方案P<0.0001相比,中等有效方案使可负担的机会增加3倍。轻度毒性治疗方案与偶尔毒性治疗相比,可使患者负担得起的机会增加3倍。P = 0.002。与二线方案相比,辅助方案的可负担性增加了17倍。结论:GIT肿瘤患者新辅助/辅助治疗方案的可负担性高于其他方案,IV期一线治疗方案的可负担性高于其他方案,高效方案的可负担性较低,而低毒方案的可负担性高于其他方案
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Fertility Preservation Among Cancer Patients in Saudi Arabia: A Hot Topic High XPO1 Expression can Stratify Gastric Cancer Patients with Poor Clinical Outcome Enhancing Patient-Centered Care in Leukemia Treatment: Insights Generated by a Mind-Set Framework Co-developed with AI Berkeley, Anti-Semitism, and AI-Suggested Remedies: Current Thinking and a Future Opportunity Three AI-synthesized Mind-sets of Patients Talking to Their Surgeon about a Prospective Operation for Different Types of Diagnosed Cancer
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1