Demonstrating Broader Economic Impact of Oncology Diagnostics and Therapeutics on Healthcare Resource Utilization Across All Relevant Specialties
Author(s)
Ryan Callahan, BSFS1, Anna Morris, BMedSci2, Gianluca Fontana, MS2;
1Prova Health, Granger, IN, USA, 2Prova Health, London, United Kingdom
1Prova Health, Granger, IN, USA, 2Prova Health, London, United Kingdom
Presentation Documents
OBJECTIVES: Demonstrating the economic impact of new technologies often accounts for changes in healthcare resource utilization (HCRU). These analyses are typically limited to specific sites of care (e.g., cancer center), specialties (e.g., medical oncology), and types of interventions (e.g., drug utilization). Broader assessment designs include a larger share of a cancer patient’s interactions with the health system from prevention through end-of-life care or post-curative surveillance. This study aims to determine which cancer types include a broad range of potential sources of HCRU.
METHODS: We conducted a literature review of major guidelines (NCCN and ESMO) across 10 major cancer types as well as health system cancer strategies across all cancer types. We reviewed these documents to determine how many specialties were represented in authorship or content. We assessed differences between solid and liquid tumor types.
RESULTS: Cancer patients interact with the health system across sites of care and specialties with regularity. While some core specialties (e.g., medical oncology) play a central role in all cancer types, specialties vary by cancer type with a total of 24 unique specialties identified. These diverse specialties represent different potential sources of HCRU. Solid tumor types tended to involve more specialties in the standard of care than liquid tumor types (11.4 solid vs. 9.1 liquid). Health system cancer strategies also identified similar numbers of specialties (12.0) while emphasizing sites of care more often (e.g., primary care, community/rehabilitation care).
CONCLUSIONS: New technologies introduced within oncology may impact HCRU in many different aspects of care. A “whole-of-health-system” approach to assessing economic value is recommended in situations where a comprehensive, holistic assessment is appropriate, such as engagement with health system stakeholders and creating a value narrative that appeals to a wide range of system stakeholders including and going beyond medical oncology.
METHODS: We conducted a literature review of major guidelines (NCCN and ESMO) across 10 major cancer types as well as health system cancer strategies across all cancer types. We reviewed these documents to determine how many specialties were represented in authorship or content. We assessed differences between solid and liquid tumor types.
RESULTS: Cancer patients interact with the health system across sites of care and specialties with regularity. While some core specialties (e.g., medical oncology) play a central role in all cancer types, specialties vary by cancer type with a total of 24 unique specialties identified. These diverse specialties represent different potential sources of HCRU. Solid tumor types tended to involve more specialties in the standard of care than liquid tumor types (11.4 solid vs. 9.1 liquid). Health system cancer strategies also identified similar numbers of specialties (12.0) while emphasizing sites of care more often (e.g., primary care, community/rehabilitation care).
CONCLUSIONS: New technologies introduced within oncology may impact HCRU in many different aspects of care. A “whole-of-health-system” approach to assessing economic value is recommended in situations where a comprehensive, holistic assessment is appropriate, such as engagement with health system stakeholders and creating a value narrative that appeals to a wide range of system stakeholders including and going beyond medical oncology.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-05, ISPOR 2025, Montréal, Quebec, CA
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S1
Code
EE196
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Disease
SDC: Oncology