Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Current Oncology logoLink to Current Oncology
. 2016 Feb 29;23(Suppl 1):S32–S41. doi: 10.3747/co.23.2946

Population-based trends in systemic therapy use and cost for cancer patients in the last year of life

RE Pataky *,†,✉, WY Cheung †, C de Oliveira *,‡, KE Bremner §, KKW Chan *,‖, JS Hoch *, MD Krahn §,#, SJ Peacock *,†,**
PMCID: PMC4780587  PMID: 26985144

Abstract

Background

The use of systemic therapy near the end of life can expose cancer patients to severe toxicity for minimal survival gain and comes with a high cost. Early palliative care is recommended, but there is evidence that aggressive care remains common. To better understand those patterns, the present study set out to describe trends in systemic therapy use and cost for cancer patients in the last year of life.

Methods

Using the BC Cancer Registry, a retrospective population-based cohort of cancer decedents (2002–2007) was identified and linked to systemic therapy records. The outcomes of interest were any systemic therapy use and total systemic therapy costs during the last year of life. Multiple logistic regression (systemic therapy use) and generalized linear regression (costs) were conducted, adjusting for age, sex, and survival. Subgroup analyses were performed for patients with primary colorectal, lung, prostate, or breast cancer.

Results

From 2002 to 2007, use of systemic therapy in the last 12–4 months of life increased by 21% (95% ci: 10% to 33%); no significant change in use in the last 3 months of life was observed. Costs for both periods increased over time, by 48% (95% ci: 36% to 63%) and by 33% (95% ci: 19% to 49%) respectively. The trends varied across cancer sites, with the greatest increases being observed for lung and colorectal cancer patients.

Conclusions

The use and costs of systemic therapy have generally been increasing, putting pressure on health care providers and payers, but the quality-of-life implications for patients must be better understood.

Keywords: Systemic therapy, chemotherapy, costs, end-of-life care, palliative care

INTRODUCTION

Care for cancer patients near the end of life has two major goals: extending life and managing symptoms to maintain quality of life1. The potential survival benefit of anticancer therapy (including conventional chemotherapy, hormone therapy, and targeted therapy—collectively referred to as “systemic therapy” hereafter) for patients with advanced disease is modest, especially in later lines of therapy toward the end of life, and statistically significant improvements observed in clinical trials are not necessarily clinically significant2. Likewise, the use of progression-free survival as the primary outcome in clinical trials in this setting might not, in practice, translate to meaningful benefits for patients in terms of quantity or quality of life1,3. Modest gains must be balanced against the risk of toxicities associated with the therapy. A meta-analysis of phase iii clinical trials found, in advanced cancer, significantly higher odds of severe toxicities, toxicity-related treatment discontinuation, and toxic death for newly-approved drugs than for their comparators4. For targeted therapies directed to biomarker-selected patient populations, the benefits are relatively greater and harms are lessened5,6, but the tradeoffs between quantity and quality of life remain.

Clinical guidelines recommend that need for palliative care—including, but not limited to, symptom control, psychosocial support, and advance care planning—be assessed for patients throughout the course of their disease7,8. It has been recognized that palliative care should not be limited to the end-of-life setting and that such care can be provided early in the course of disease, concurrently with anticancer care9. However, little guidance has been developed about when and under what conditions a transition to care with primarily palliative intent should occur. For example, in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, use of chemotherapy was found to extend survival, but its use in the last 2 weeks of life provided no additional benefit and was associated with decreased hospice use10. The overuse of aggressive care near death (including use of systemic therapy and admission to an intensive care unit or repeated emergency room visits) and the underuse of supportive care (including palliative home care, physician home visits, or admission to hospice) are indicators of poor quality of care at the end of life11–13. Comparisons across Canadian regions show that between 2% and 7% of patients are admitted to the intensive care unit very near the end of life and that 32%–67% receive palliative home nursing in the last 6 months of life14. After adjustments for patient and disease characteristics, significant unexplained regional variation in such quality indicators has been observed12,14, indicating wide variation in practice.

Published evidence also suggests that the care of cancer patients near the end of life has been becoming more aggressive over time: aggregate indicators of aggressiveness reportedly increased 6% per year in the United States12 and 1% per year in Canada15. Recently approved drugs for advanced cancer have demonstrated increased toxicity independent of clinical effectiveness4, suggesting that the balance of harms to benefits might be worsening. The price of new drugs for advanced cancer has also been increasing rapidly, at approximately 12% per year from 1995 to 2013, despite the fact that the survival benefit with the newer drugs is no better than with the older ones16. Taken together, the increase in aggressive care, the greater risks of toxicity, and the increasing cost of drugs for advanced disease indicate a need to better characterize trends in the use and costs of systemic therapy near the end of life. The scale of the issue has to be understood, in terms of both the number of patients affected and the costs incurred. The objective of the present study was therefore to use population-based administrative data to understand trends in the use and costs of systemic therapy for patients in the last year of life.

METHODS

The study used a retrospective cohort design, in which the cohort consisted of all adult patients who died of malignant neoplasms (International Classification of Diseases version 10 codes C00–C97 for underlying cause of death) between 1 January 2002 and 31 December 2007. The cohort was defined using data from the BC Cancer Registry, a registry of all cancer diagnoses in British Columbia, including data about disease characteristics, patient demographics, and mortality. The study cohort was limited to patients who had been diagnosed fewer than 5 years but more than 3 months before death and those who were at least 19 years of age at diagnosis.

Using the unique provincial health insurance numbers for the patients, the BC Cancer Registry data were linked to pharmacy dispensing records from the province’s Systemic Therapy Program to obtain prescription dates, drug names, and costs. The Systemic Therapy Program is the sole public provider of systemic anticancer therapy to cancer patients in British Columbia; consequently the program’s dispensing records provide population-based data on systemic therapy use and cost.

Any dispensing record for a systemic therapy drug was used as an indicator variable, and the total cost for systemic therapy was calculated from the ingredient costs of the dispensed drugs for two periods: the last 12–4 months of life and the last 3 months of life. Those two periods are consistent with differences in practice and in health services use as patients approach the end of life17. For patients diagnosed less than 1 year before death, costs were calculated from the diagnosis date onward. All costs were expressed in 2009 Canadian dollars, using the health care component of Statistics Canada’s Consumer Price Index18. Mean cost was calculated for the two time periods, and confidence intervals (cis) were generated using nonparametric bootstrapping. In exploratory data analyses, average systemic therapy costs were calculated by month before death to understand the cost trajectory and to verify the choice of time periods. Frequency of systemic therapy use in the two periods was compared using a McNemar test, and independent two-sample t-tests and chi-square tests were used in bivariate analyses to compare the characteristics of systemic therapy users and nonusers in each period.

Changes in systemic therapy use over time were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression. Changes in mean costs (for systemic therapy users only) were analysed using generalized linear models with a log-link function and gamma distribution19. The dependent variable for the cost analysis was mean monthly cost per patient, to account for the varying period of observation for each patient. Models were constructed for both time periods for the full cohort (all cancers) and for each of the 4 most common primary cancer sites: lung, colon and rectum, female breast, and prostate. The independent variable of interest in all models, time, was defined as patient year of death. The relationships between the outcomes of interest and year were found to be nonlinear; thus, in the final models, year was included as a categorical variable, with 2002 being the reference year. Covariates included in all models were patient age at death, sex, and an indicator for patients who survived for less than 1 year after diagnosis, intended as a proxy for poor prognosis. The analysis was conducted in the SAS software application (version 9.2: SAS Institute, Cary, NC, U.S.A.).

RESULTS

Table i summarizes the characteristics of the patient cohort. Overall, significantly more patients received systemic therapy in the last 12–4 months of life (41.4%; 95% ci: 40.8% to 42.0%) than in the last 3 months of life (30.6%; 95% ci: 30.0% to 31.2%; p < 0.0001). In both periods, users of systemic therapy were younger, more likely to be women, and more likely to survive at least 1 year after diagnosis. Year of death was not associated with systemic therapy use in the last 3 months of life, but the association was significant for use in the last 12–4 months.

TABLE I.

Characteristics of patients receiving and not receiving chemotherapy in the last 12–4 months and last 3 months of life

Characteristic All pts (n) Chemotherapy use during …
Last 12–4 months Last 3 months
No Yes p Valueb No Yes p Valueb
(n) (%)a (n) (%)a (n) (%)a (n) (%)a
Patients 24,030 14,077 59 9953 41 16,670 69 7360 31
Mean age (years) 68.0±13.0 71.5±11.9 63±12.8 <0.0001 70.1±12.5 63.2±12.9 <0.0001
Sex
  Women 11,120 6276 56 4844 44 7474 67 3646 33
  Men 12,910 7801 60 5109 40 <0.0001 9196 71 3714 29 <0.0001
Year of death
  2002 3906 2369 61 1537 39 2760 71 1146 29
  2003 3942 2379 60 1563 40 2744 70 1198 30
  2004 4060 2350 58 1710 42 2758 68 1302 32
  2005 3973 2308 58 1665 42 2762 70 1211 30
  2006 3968 2310 58 1658 42 2750 69 1218 31
  2007 4181 2361 56 1820 44 0.0008 2896 69 1285 31 0.2065
Cancer site at diagnosis
  Breast 1503 403 27 1100 73 629 42 874 58
  Colon and rectum 3281 1886 57 1395 43 2408 73 873 27
  Lung 6249 4344 70 1905 30 4892 78 1357 22
  Prostate 1538 705 46 833 54 999 65 539 35
  Others 11,459 6739 59 4720 41 <0.0001 7742 68 3717 32 <0.0001
Survival <1 year 10,607 7136 67 3471 33 <0.0001 7508 71 3099 29 0.0001
Open in a new tab
a

Calculated for the row.

b

Between-group differences were tested using t-tests (for age) and chi-square tests.

The exploratory analysis indicated that, for the full cohort, mean systemic therapy cost by month (Figure 1) was relatively constant for the last 12–4 months of life and then declined rapidly during the last 3 months of life, consistent with the time periods defined for the analysis.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Mean monthly costs of systemic therapy for cancer decedents in British Columbia, 2002–2007, by month before death. The vertical dashed line marks the two time periods used in the analysis: the last 12–4 months of life, and the last 3 months of life.

Among users of systemic therapy, the unadjusted mean cost of that therapy in the last 12–4 months of life increased to $6102 (95% ci: $5685 to $6507) in 2007 from $4151 (95% ci: $3866 to $4460) in 2002 (p = 0.001 for trend, Figure 2). The largest increase, in both absolute and relative terms, occurred in colorectal cancer patients, whose costs more than doubled, to $12,618 (95% ci: $11,083 to $14,244) from $5895 (95% ci: $5027 to $6810; p = 0.009). By contrast, no change was observed for breast cancer patients (p = 0.74). In the last 3 months of life, the mean cost of systemic therapy for lung cancer patients increased to $2,262 (95% ci: $1951 to $2602) in 2007 from $829 (95% ci: $673 to $995) in 2002 (p < 0.001), but little change occurred during that period for breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer patients, or for the full cohort (Figure 3). Table ii presents mean costs for all years.

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

Mean systemic therapy costs for systemic therapy recipients in the last 12–4 months of life, overall and by cancer type, by year of death.

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

Open in a new tab

Mean systemic therapy cost for systemic therapy recipients in the last 3 months of life, overall and by cancer type, by year of death.

TABLE II.

Mean drug costs for patients receiving chemotherapy in the last 12–4 months and last 3 months of life, by year of death and cancer site

Cancer site Year Systemic chemotherapy during …
Last 12–4 months Last 3 months
Pts (n) Costs (2009 CA$) p Value (trend) Pts (n) Costs (2009 CA$) p Value (trend)
Mean 95% CI Mean 95% CI
Breast 2002 189 4,934 3,889 to 6,091 150 1,480 1,148 to 1,871
2003 220 5,444 4,309 to 6,628 160 1,641 1,322 to 2,027
2004 176 5,807 4,565 to 7,160 141 1,865 1,407 to 2,341
2005 162 6,106 4,659 to 7,661 136 2,097 1,612 to 2,628
2006 167 6,271 5,093 to 7,477 136 1,467 1,114 to 1,866
2007 186 4,780 3,754 to 5,976 0.74 151 1,231 991 to 1,503 0.61
Colon and rectum 2002 221 5,895 5,027 to 6,810 123 2,082 1,607 to 2,604
2003 217 9,545 8,435 to 10,674 154 2,443 2,062 to 2,864
2004 235 10,189 9,049 to 11,339 150 2,927 2,476 to 3,424
2005 248 9,990 8,950 to 11,068 163 2,808 2,371 to 3,241
2006 208 11,675 10,138 to 13,324 129 2,705 2,200 to 3,264
2007 266 12,618 11,083 to 14,244 0.009 154 2,210 1,751 to 2,700 0.67
Lung 2002 266 2,183 1,889 to 2,540 194 829 673 to 995
2003 257 2,590 2,251 to 2,968 195 1,073 877 to 1,274
2004 322 2,696 2,326 to 3,071 250 1,207 1,024 to 1,414
2005 347 2,959 2,554 to 3,410 221 1,596 1,330 to 1,898
2006 336 3,276 2,802 to 3,741 241 1,821 1,553 to 2,101
2007 377 4,182 3,649 to 4,730 0.004 256 2,262 1,951 to 2,602 0.0002
Prostate 2002 128 2,390 1,749 to 3,137 80 816 643 to 1,004
2003 114 2,052 1,590 to 2,565 85 1,132 630 to 2,031
2004 140 3,389 2,113 to 5,392 92 1,348 994 to 1,764
2005 125 3,113 2,311 to 4,063 75 1,500 1,088 to 2,011
2006 164 3,639 3,055 to 4,307 103 1,416 1,077 to 1,797
2007 162 3,706 2,981 to 4,581 0.025 104 1,000 731 to 1,315 0.45
Overall 2002 1,537 4,151 3,866 to 4,460 1,146 1,324 1,213 to 1,444
2003 1,563 4,768 4,443 to 5,122 1,198 1,530 1,418 to 1,654
2004 1,710 5,342 4,977 to 5,695 1,302 1,857 1,692 to 2,037
2005 1,665 5,618 5,236 to 5,990 1,211 1,994 1,835 to 2,170
2006 1,658 6,070 5,699 to 6,487 1,218 1,915 1,756 to 2,079
2007 1,820 6,102 5,685 to 6,507 0.001 1,285 1,739 1,601 to 1,889 0.12
Open in a new tab

Pts = patients; CI = confidence interval.

Adjusting for age, sex, and survival (<1 year), overall use of systemic therapy in the last 12–4 months of life increased by 21% from 2002 to 2007 (odds ratio: 1.21; 95% ci: 1.10 to 1.33), with variation by cancer site (Table iii). Among users of systemic therapy, the cost for that therapy in the last 12–4 months of life increased by 48% between 2002 and 2007 (relative cost: 1.48; 95% ci: 1.36 to 1.63; Table iv). Older age was associated with a lesser likelihood of using systemic therapy and lower relative costs over that period. Patients who survived for less than 1 year were also less likely to receive systemic therapy and had lower therapy costs even after adjustment for observation time.

TABLE III.

Results of multiple logistic regression for any systemic therapy use in the last 12–4 months and last 3 months of life, for all cancers and by cancer site

Variable Comparator Systemic therapy use by cancer site
Overall Breast Colon/rectum Lung Prostate
OR 95%CI OR 95%CI OR 95%CI OR 95%CI OR 95%CI
Last 12–4 months of life
  Age at death (continuous) Per year 0.95 0.95 to 0.95 0.96 0.95 to 0.97 0.93 0.92 to 0.93 0.93 0.93 to 0.94 0.96 0.95 to 0.97
  Sex (reference: men) Women 1.18 1.12 to1.24 0.85 0.73 to 1.00 0.99 0.88 to 1.11
  Year of death (reference: 2002) 2003 1.00 0.91 to 1.11 1.55 1.03 to 2.35 0.96 0.73 to 1.26 0.96 0.78 to 1.19 1.13 0.79 to 1.63
2004 1.12 1.02 to1.23 1.05 0.70 to 1.57 1.11 0.85 to 1.45 1.30 1.06 to 1.59 1.27 0.90 to 1.80
2005 1.13 1.03 to 1.25 0.99 0.65 to 1.51 1.16 0.89 to 1.51 1.42 1.16 to 1.74 1.25 0.87 to 1.79
2006 1.13 1.03 to 1.25 0.98 0.65 to 1.47 1.03 0.78 to 1.35 1.34 1.09 to 1.64 1.84 1.29 to 2.62
2007 1.21 1.10 to 1.33 1.11 0.74 to 1.68 1.37 1.05 to 1.79 1.57 1.29 to 1.92 1.40 0.99 to 1.96
  Survival (reference: ≥1 year) <1Year 0.50 0.48 to 0.53 0.50 0.37 to 0.68 0.48 0.40 to 0.57 0.76 0.67 to 0.85 1.25 0.94 to 1.66
Last 3 months of life
  Age at death (continuous) Per year 0.96 0.96 to 0.96 0.97 0.96 to 0.98 0.95 0.95 to 0.96 0.95 0.94 to 0.95 0.97 0.96 to 0.98
  Sex (reference: men) Women 1.20 1.13 to 1.27 0.84 0.72 to 1.00 1.08 0.96 to 1.23
  Year of death (reference: 2002) 2003 1.04 0.94 to 1.15 1.01 0.71 to 1.43 1.33 1.00 to 1.76 1.00 0.80 to 1.26 1.43 0.98 to 2.09
2004 1.14 1.03 to 1.25 1.04 0.73 to 1.50 1.27 0.95 to 1.69 1.36 1.09 to 1.69 1.28 0.89 to 1.85
2005 1.06 0.96 to 1.17 1.14 0.79 to 1.66 1.37 1.04 to 1.82 1.10 0.88 to 1.38 1.10 0.75 to 1.61
2006 1.08 0.98 to 1.19 1.03 0.72 to 1.49 1.17 0.87 to 1.57 1.25 1.00 to 1.55 1.53 1.06 to 2.20
2007 1.08 0.98 to 1.19 1.12 0.78 to 1.61 1.31 0.99 to 1.75 1.32 1.07 to 1.65 1.30 0.91 to 1.87
  Survival (reference: ≥1 year) <1Year 0.91 0.86 to 0.97 0.88 0.66 to 1.17 1.41 1.18 to 1.67 1.31 1.15 to 1.49 1.52 1.15 to 2.02
Open in a new tab

OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval.

TABLE IV.

Results of generalized linear regression for chemotherapy costs in the last 12–4 months and last 3 months of life, for all cancers and by cancer site

Variable Comparator Relative cost for systemic therapy by cancer site
Overall Breast Colorectal Lung Prostate
Relative cost 95%CI Relative cost 95%CI Relative cost 95%CI Relative cost 95%CI Relative cost 95%CI
Last 12–4 months of life
  Age at death (continuous) Per year 0.98 0.98 to 0.98 0.96 0.95 to 0.96 0.97 0.96 to 0.98 0.98 0.98 to 0.99 0.98 0.97 to 0.99
  Sex (reference: men) Women 0.85 0.81 to 0.90 0.72 0.63 to 0.82 0.91 0.82 to 1.02
  Year of death (reference: 2002) 2003 1.12 1.02 to 1.24 1.21 0.92 to 1.57 1.61 1.29 to 2.00 1.25 1.03 to 1.53 0.84 0.60 to 1.18
2004 1.30 1.18 to 1.42 1.29 0.97 to 1.71 1.72 1.39 to 2.13 1.28 1.06 to 1.54 1.47 1.07 to 2.02
2005 1.36 1.24 to 1.50 1.25 0.94 to 1.67 1.81 1.46 to 2.24 1.43 1.19 to 1.72 1.23 0.88 to 1.70
2006 1.48 1.35 to 1.63 1.77 1.32 to 2.36 2.02 1.62 to 2.52 1.58 1.31 to 1.91 1.41 1.03 to 1.91
2007 1.48 1.36 to 1.63 1.23 0.93 to 1.63 2.16 1.76 to 2.66 1.90 1.58 to 2.28 1.45 1.07 to 1.98
  Survival (reference: ≥1 year) <1Year 0.86 0.81 to 0.91 0.70 0.55 to 0.90 0.91 0.79 to 1.06 0.65 0.58 to 0.72 0.84 0.66 to 1.07
Last 3 months of life
  Age at death (continuous) Per year 0.99 0.98 to 0.99 0.97 0.97 to 0.98 0.97 0.97 to 0.98 0.98 0.97 to 0.98 0.99 0.97 to 1.00
  Sex (reference: men) Women 0.82 0.77 to 0.87 0.74 0.63 to 0.87 0.86 0.74 to 0.99
  Year of death (reference: 2002) 2003 1.15 1.03 to 1.29 1.15 0.87 to 1.53 1.11 0.83 to 1.49 1.33 1.02 to 1.73 1.44 0.97 to 2.14
2004 1.41 1.27 to 1.58 1.41 1.05 to 1.88 1.34 1.00 to 1.80 1.48 1.15 to 1.90 1.62 1.10 to 2.40
2005 1.52 1.36 to 1.70 1.36 1.02 to 1.82 1.41 1.06 to 1.88 2.06 1.59 to 2.66 1.74 1.15 to 2.62
2006 1.47 1.32 to 1.65 1.16 0.86 to 1.55 1.38 1.02 to 1.88 2.19 1.71 to 2.82 1.65 1.13 to 2.41
2007 1.33 1.19 to 1.49 0.89 0.67 to 1.19 1.06 0.79 to 1.42 2.72 2.12 to 3.49 1.16 0.80 to 1.70
  Survival (reference: ≥1 year) <1Year 0.84 0.79 to 0.90 1.08 0.85 to 1.38 1.02 0.86 to 1.21 0.60 0.52 to 0.70 0.69 0.52 to 0.91
Open in a new tab

We observed a nonsignificant trend toward increased utilization of chemotherapy in the last 3 months of life (Table iii). Of the four major cancer sites, only lung cancer showed a significant increase from 2002 to 2007 after adjustment for age, sex and survival (<1 year). The cost of chemotherapy in the last 3 months of life increased steadily over time for lung cancer patients, nearly tripling from 2002 to 2007 (relative cost: 2.72; 95% ci: 2.12 to 3.49; Table iv). By contrast, the cost of chemotherapy for the other cancer sites showed an inverted U relationship with time, with the highest relative costs in 2004 (breast cancer) and 2005 (colorectal and prostate cancer).

DISCUSSION

In British Columbia, both the use and the cost of systemic therapy increased over time for cancer patients in the last year of life. Overall, from 2002 to 2007, the use of systemic therapy in the last 12–4 months before death increased by 21%, and the mean cost of that therapy among users increased by 48%. From 2002 to 2007, the cost in the last 3 months of life increased by 33%, although use was largely unchanged. Those results suggest that, although the use and mean cost of systemic therapy among users both contribute to overall growth, the cost per user is the larger driver of expenditures in this setting.

The overall growth in the use and cost of systemic therapy observed for the full cohort is largely attributable to the growth in its use and cost in lung and colorectal cancer patients. Together, those two cancer sites accounted for 40% of decedents in the cohort, and the cost of systemic therapy for those sites in the last year of life roughly doubled during the study period. Lung cancer in particular was the only site for which systemic therapy use and cost both increased in the last 3 months of life. Previous work by Temel et al.20 found that most lung cancer patients receiving systemic therapy near the end of life were prescribed an oral epidermal growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitor. In British Columbia, the first agent of that class, erlotinib, was introduced in late 200521. The introduction of erlotinib during the study period likely increased both the use of systemic therapy in lung cancer patients (because of ease of administration and a favourable toxicity profile22) and the cost. Our observation period was also a period of significant change in the management of metastatic colorectal cancer, with the introduction of irinotecan, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine for that indication in 200223 and of bevacizumab, the first targeted therapy for colorectal cancer, in 200624. The availability of multiple new treatment options and their relatively higher costs25,26 are likely the main drivers behind the growth observed in our study.

An exception to the observed growth occurred with respect to the cost in the last 3 months of life for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancers, whose relative costs were highest in 2004 and 2005. That pattern likely reflects a number of changes that occurred after that time. Generic irinotecan and generic bicalutamide, used in colorectal cancer and prostate cancer respectively, became available in 200627, contributing to reduced costs later in the observation period. However, that reduction was likely obscured in the last 12–4 months of life by increases in expenditures on high-cost drugs such as first-line bevacizumab, which was approved in 200624. In breast cancer, the decline in costs might be attributable to less trastuzumab and docetaxel use in the last 3 months of life, because that combination became available as a first-line treatment option in mid-200528. These examples of simultaneous treatment protocol, formulary, and pricing changes highlight the need to understand the policy context in which trends are observed.

The results of the present study add to the evidence that the use of systemic therapy in cancer patients toward the end of life has been growing and that the cost of systemic therapy is increasing. The expansion of systemic therapy in this context is a product of complex upstream factors, including patient and provider expectations29, and the resulting rising expenditures on systemic therapy drugs is increasing the pressure on public and private providers alike to control costs18. However, the implications of the trends with respect to patient outcomes and quality of care are not clear. The initiation of new anticancer therapies in the last month of life and the continuation of ongoing therapy in the last 2 weeks of life are indicators for poor quality of care, and both have been increasing over time30; however, little evidence is available about the appropriateness of the earlier use of systemic therapy in this setting. Although systemic therapy can extend survival and might be underused in settings in which its effectiveness has been demonstrated31, other evidence suggests that use is inappropriately high in patients with cancers known to be unresponsive to chemotherapy32.

Regardless of the uncertainty concerning the correct level of chemotherapy use for high-quality patient care in the last year of life, mounting evidence supports the value of early palliative care in this setting. A review conducted by the American Society of Clinical Oncology found that, although many studies of palliative care interventions were not comparable because of variation in the services provided, all such interventions provided patients with some improvement in quality of life, symptoms, or satisfaction with care, in the absence of evidence of harm or increased cost33. A randomized controlled trial of early palliative care in metastatic lung cancer patients found not only a reduction in chemotherapy use in the last 2 months of life, earlier admission to hospice, and improved quality of life, but also improved survival34,35. Furthermore, no difference was observed in the number of lines of chemotherapy provided in the early-palliative-care and standard-care arms, nor any difference in time to progression between the lines of chemotherapy, suggesting that anticancer care and palliative care can be effectively delivered simultaneously35. Providing standard cancer care, including systemic therapy, together with early palliative care appears to provide both quantity and quality of life to patients with advanced disease. A recent population-based study of cancer decedents in Ontario reported that health care costs in the last month of life were reduced in patients who received palliative care services in the last year of life, even if those patients went on to receive aggressive end-of-life care36. On average, median costs were $536 higher in recipients of systemic therapy in the last 14 days of life than in patients who did not receive such aggressive care, and early palliative care was independently associated with a $418 decrease in median cost36. Those results suggest that, even without changing the aggressiveness of care at end of life, early palliative services can to some extent offset the additional costs.

Our study was not designed to address the question of appropriateness of chemotherapy use toward the end of life, but the results imply that the intensity of care in the last 3 months of life has generally been increasing for cancer patients, with the exception of lung cancer patients. The results of the multivariable analysis also indicated that chemotherapy use and cost were lower for older patients and patients with poor survival, suggesting that older patients who might not tolerate chemotherapy well or poor-prognosis patients who might not benefit are less likely to receive anticancer therapy. The associations between chemotherapy use and age31,37,38 or survival38,39 have been previously described in the literature. However, the association with survival time should be interpreted with some caution. The expectation would be that use of systemic therapy increases survival in this setting, and so the association between the indicator for survival (<1 year), intended as a proxy for poor prognosis, and use of systemic therapy might arise in part from reverse causality. This indicator was included to adjust for confounding in the trend analysis, not to achieve an unbiased estimate of the relationship between survival and systemic therapy use. However, our findings are consistent with prior studies and raise important questions for potential future research into the appropriateness of care. Adjusting for stage at diagnosis or time to local or distant progression could also potentially control for differences in prognosis or disease trajectory, providing additional insight into the appropriateness of the observed systemic therapy use. Unfortunately, those variables were not available in the study dataset, but should be considered for future analyses.

The limited availability of patient and disease characteristics in the administrative data used in our study restricted the scope of the analysis. For example, increasing comorbidity is associated with less systemic therapy use31,37,38, but whether comorbidity confounds the relationship between systemic therapy use and trends over time is unclear. A growing body of evidence also suggests that the use of systemic therapy varies across care providers, care settings, and regions12,32,37,38,40. A limitation of the present study is that it does not take into account the broader contextual factors that are associated with treatment intensity41 and that might be associated with the observed increase in systemic therapy use and cost over time. A further limitation is the age of the data used in the analysis. The reported increase in systemic therapy cost has likely continued and might have accelerated in the intervening time. Since 2007, many new drugs for metastatic cancer have been introduced, and the prices of those drugs have been increasing over time, independent of their effect on survival16,18. Finally, our analysis considered only the cost of systemic therapy; it did not take into account other health system costs, patient out-of-pocket costs, or indirect costs that might be affected by changes in systemic therapy use. Compared with patients who do not receive systemic therapy as they approach death, those receiving systemic therapy in the last 14 days of life have higher acute care costs and lower home and community care costs36, suggesting that the effect on health system costs extends beyond the systemic therapy budget.

The major strength of our study is its use of population-based cancer registry and systemic therapy program data for the province of British Columbia, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of systemic therapy use and cost. The BC Cancer Registry captured 91% of the cancer cases in the province over the study period42, and dispensing records from the Systemic Therapy Program included all systemic therapy covered through the province’s universal public health care system. Those data are an invaluable resource for secondary analysis and are well-suited to work of the present scope.

CONCLUSIONS

Both the use and the costs of systemic therapy for cancer patients in the last year of life have been increasing, but more work is needed to understand the extent to which that increase is appropriate or not, and whether the rising expenditure is providing value to patients and health care systems. Early palliative care can maintain quality of life for patients and can be delivered concurrently with anticancer therapy, but an understanding of the relationship between increased systemic therapy use and the uptake of palliative care is necessary to understand the ultimate effect on care and quality of life for patients approaching death.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was funded by the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute (grant no. 020200) and the Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (ccsri grant no. 019789). MDK is supported by the F. Norman Hughes Chair in Pharmacoeconomics at the Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES

We have read and understood Current Oncology’s policy on disclosing conflicts of interest, and we declare that we have none.

REFERENCES

  • 1.Kirkbride P, Tannock IF. Trials in palliative treatment—have the goal posts been moved? Lancet Oncol. 2008;9:186–7. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70041-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ocana A, Tannock IF. When are “positive” clinical trials in oncology truly positive? J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:16–20. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djq463. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Fallowfield LJ, Fleissig A. The value of progression-free survival to patients with advanced-stage cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2011;9:41–7. doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2011.156. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Niraula S, Seruga B, Ocana A, et al. The price we pay for progress: a meta-analysis of harms of newly approved anticancer drugs. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:3012–19. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.40.3824. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Amir E, Seruga B, Martinez-Lopez J, et al. Oncogenic targets, magnitude of benefit, and market pricing of antineoplastic drugs. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:2543–9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.35.2393. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Niraula S, Amir E, Vera-Badillo F, Seruga B, Ocana A, Tannock IF. Risk of incremental toxicities and associated costs of new anticancer drugs: a meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:3634–42. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.55.8437. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.National Comprehensive Cancer Network (nccn) NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Palliative Care. Fort Washington, PA: NCCN; 2015. Ver 1.2015. [Current version available online at: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/palliative.pdf (free registration required); cited 7 January 2016] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.National Institute for Clinical Excellence (nice) Improving Supportive and Palliative Care for Adults with Cancer. London, UK: NICE; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Foley KM, Gelband H, on behalf of the National Cancer Policy Board, US Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council, editors. Improving Palliative Care for Cancer: Summary and Recommendations. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Saito AM, Landrum MB, Neville BA, Ayanian JZ, Earle CC. The effect on survival of continuing chemotherapy to near death. BMC Palliat Care. 2011;10:14. doi: 10.1186/1472-684X-10-14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Barbera L, Paszat L, Chartier C. Indicators of poor quality end-of-life cancer care in Ontario. J Palliat Care. 2006;22:12–17. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Earle CC, Landrum MB, Souza JM, Neville BA, Weeks JC, Ayanian JZ. Aggressiveness of cancer care near the end of life: is it a quality-of-care issue? J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:3860–6. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.15.8253. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Earle CC, Park ER, Lai B, Weeks JC, Ayanian JZ, Block S. Identifying potential indicators of the quality of end-of-life cancer care from administrative data. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:1133–8. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.03.059. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Barbera L, Seow H, Sutradhar R, et al. Quality indicators of end-of-life care in patients with cancer: what rate is right? J Oncol Pract. 2015;11:e279–87. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2015.004416. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ho TH, Barbera L, Saskin R, Lu H, Neville BA, Earle CC. Trends in the aggressiveness of end-of-life cancer care in the universal health care system of Ontario, Canada. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:1587–91. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.31.9897. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Howard DH, Bach PB, Berndt ER, Conti RM. Pricing in the market for anticancer drugs. J Econ Persp. 2015;29:139–62. doi: 10.1257/jep.29.1.139. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Fassbender K, Fainsinger RL, Carson M, Finegan BA. Cost trajectories at the end of life: the Canadian experience. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2009;38:75–80. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2009.04.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Bach PB. Limits on Medicare’s ability to control rising spending on cancer drugs. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:626–33. doi: 10.1056/NEJMhpr0807774. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Barber J, Thompson S. Multiple regression of cost data: use of generalised linear models. J Health Services Res Policy. 2004;9:197–204. doi: 10.1258/1355819042250249. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Temel JS, McCannon J, Greer JA, et al. Aggressiveness of care in a prospective cohort of patients with advanced nsclc. Cancer. 2008;113:826–33. doi: 10.1002/cncr.23620. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.BC Cancer Agency (bcca) BCCA Protocol Summary for Second- or Third-Line Treatment of Advanced Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) with Erlotinib. Vancouver, BC: BCCA; 2015. [Available online at: http://www.bccancer.bc.ca/chemotherapy-protocols-site/Documents/Lung/LUAVERL_Protocol_1May2015.pdf; cited 11 May 2015] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Shepherd FA, Rodrigues Pereira J, Ciuleanu T, et al. Erlotinib in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:123–32. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa050753. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Lucas AS, O’Neil BH, Goldberg RM. A decade of advances in cytotoxic chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2011;10:238–44. doi: 10.1016/j.clcc.2011.06.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.BC Cancer Agency (bcca) BCCA Protocol Summary for Palliative Combination Chemotherapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Using Oxaliplatin, Bevacizumab and Capecitabine. Vancouver, BC: BCCA; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Jansman FG, Postma MJ, Brouwers JR. Cost considerations in the treatment of colorectal cancer. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25:537–62. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200725070-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Hedden L, Kennecke H, Villa D, et al. Incremental cost-effectiveness of the pre- and post-bevacizumab eras of metastatic colorectal cancer therapy in British Columbia, Canada. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48:1969–76. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2012.01.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Health Canada . Drug product database [Web resource] Ottawa, ON: Health Canada; 2015. [Accessible online at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodpharma/databasdon/index-eng.php; cited 10 December 2015] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.BC Cancer Agency (bcca) BCCA Protocol Summary for Palliative Therapy for Metastatic Breast Cancer Using Pertuzumab, Trastuzumab (HERCEPTIN), and DOCEtaxel as First-Line Treatment for Advanced Breast Cancer. Vancouver, BC: BCCA; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Davis C. Drugs, cancer and end-of-life care: a case study of pharmaceuticalization? Social Sci Med. 2015;131:207–14. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.12.007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Earle CC, Neville BA, Landrum MB, et al. Evaluating claims-based indicators of the intensity of end-of-life cancer care. Int J Quality Health Care. 2005;1:505–9. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzi061. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ramsey SD, Howlader N, Etzioni RD, Donato B. Chemotherapy use, outcomes, and costs for older persons with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: evidence from Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results–Medicare. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:4971–8. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2004.05.031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Emanuel EJ, Young-Xu Y, Levinsky NG, Gazelle G, Saynina O, Ash AS. Chemotherapy use among Medicare beneficiaries at the end of life. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:639–43. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-138-8-200304150-00011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Smith TJ, Temin S, Alesi ER, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology provisional clinical opinion: the integration of palliative care into standard oncology care. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:880–7. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.38.5161. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Temel JS, Greer JA, Muzikansky A, et al. Early palliative care for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:733–42. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1000678. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Greer JA, Pirl WF, Jackson VA, et al. Effect of early palliative care on chemotherapy use and end-of-life care in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:394–400. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.35.7996. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Cheung MC, Earle CC, Rangrej J, et al. Impact of aggressive management and palliative care on cancer costs in the final month of life. Cancer. 2015;121:3307–15. doi: 10.1002/cncr.29485. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Earle CC, Neville BA, Landrum MB, Ayanian JZ, Block SD, Weeks JC. Trends in the aggressiveness of cancer care near the end of life. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:315–21. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2004.08.136. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Liu TW, Chang WC, Wang HM, et al. Use of chemotherapy at the end of life among Taiwanese cancer decedents, 2001–2006. Acta Oncol. 2012;51:505–11. doi: 10.3109/0284186X.2011.653440. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Warren JL, Barbera L, Bremner KE, et al. End-of-life care for lung cancer patients in the United States and Ontario. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:853–62. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djr145. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Kelley AS, Ettner SL, Morrison RS, Du Q, Wenger NS, Sarkisian CA. Determinants of medical expenditures in the last 6 months of life. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154:235–42. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-154-4-201102150-00004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Kelley AS, Morrison RS, Wenger NS, Ettner SL, Sarkisian CA. Determinants of treatment intensity for patients with serious illness: a new conceptual framework. J Palliat Med. 2010;13:807–13. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2010.0007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Cancer Registry, BC Cancer Agency (bcca) BC Cancer Registry Certification Results from North American Association of Central Cancer Registries (NAACCR) Vancouver, BC: BCCA; 2015. [Available online at: http://www.bccancer.bc.ca/statistics-and-reports-site/Documents/BC_Cancer_Registry_Data_Quality_NAACCR1.pdf; cited 11 May 2015] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Current Oncology are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)

RESOURCES