From the Grace Archives | Originally Published May 27, 2011 | By Dr West
This week, a “Sounding Board” article by Drs. Thomas Smith and Bruce Hillner was published in the New England Journal of Medicine that focused on the sensitive topic of the rapidly rising costs of cancer care. Making the point that the costs of cancer care are rising in an unsustainable way and that most new agents treating cancer are priced aggressively, typically over $5000 per month, the authors proposed five interventions that oncologists could pursue that could substantially reduce the costs of cancer care without compromising outcomes. They are as follows:
1) Reduce surveillance testing and imaging for cancer: There is no proven benefit to surveillance testing for recurrence using serum tumor markers or imaging for most cancers. The authors recognize that patients and physicians both reflexively want to detect recurrence as early as possible, but the fact is that most recurrences are detected as metastatic disease and that there is no survival benefit with detecting metastatic disease when it is a little smaller vs. a little larger. It is also noted that some physician practices are financially incentivized to do testing, and more of it.
2) Favor sequential single agent approaches over combinations: Though it depends on the cancer setting, there are many in which treatment with single agent approaches delivered serially provide the same benefit as combinations, with fewer side effects and lower costs. There are certainly evidence-based exceptions, as many chemotherapy +/- targeted therapy combinations provide a higher cure rate or extend survival beyond what single agents can achieve, or at least the evidence available only demonstrates benefits for combinations. But it has become routine to add agents in later lines of therapy primarily because it’s possible to do so, including continuing agents like Herceptin (trastuzumab), Avastin (bevacizumab), and many other extraordinarily expensive medications from one line to the next after progression, month and month and year after year. There is little to no evidence of a survival benefit, yet the costs associated with this practice are tremendous.
3) Limiting chemotherapy on the basis of performance status: Because patient performance status is very consistently associated with treatment outcomes for a wide range of cancers, and because many patients with cancer are elderly and have many other medical problems along with cancer, the authors propose that oncologists do a better job of limiting the recommendation for cancer treatment to patients who can walk into the clinic independently. An exception is suggested for people who are debilitated because of a highly responsive cancer. However, the premise is that we overtreat many patients, presumably for reasons ranging from patient and family expectations to a financial motivation to do so, while it provides no real benefit but incurs significant costs.
4) Reducing chemotherapy dose in metastatic solid cancers: The authors offer the challenge that the widespread presumption that more is better in chemotherapy treatment is not backed by evidence and is associated with routine overuse of “colony stimulating factors” to boost blood counts, but which may do little more than markedly increase the cost to deliver care. While they acknowledge that there are some cancer settings in which these agents are a key component of evidence-based care, in most treatment settings for cancer, pushing up the doses and propping up counts with growth factor support may be more reflexive and based on pressures of aggressive marketing practices than solid medical evidence that it helps patients do meaningfully better. Another potential motivation for overuse is the financial windfall they can provide to oncology practices.
5) Transition earlier to symptom-directed care when benefits of further aggressive care is minimal: It is a fair criticism that oncologists and patients are complicit in a prevalent practice of continuing with chemotherapy and targeted treatments far beyond the point where there is a meaningful potential for benefit. Many outside of oncology, and even some within it, charge that such overtreatment is financially motivated, but those immersed in the harsh reality of a cancer diagnosis, from either the patient or physician perspective, recognize that the desire to continue treatment is largely based in a desire to offer ongoing hope. Nevertheless, it is impossible to ignore that, from the perpective of broad populations, there is typically little or no survival or symptomatic benefit to later lines of treatment without evidence to support it in heavily pretreated patients. The authors propose that discontinuing such treatment not be viewed as giving up, but rather that, as a society, we need to consider a transition to management based on symptoms and quality of life provides greater benefit than we have been inclined to do.
I’ll acknowledge that while I share many of their convictions, I am among the vast majority of practicing oncologists who transgress in many of these categories (though I’ll at least say that my motivation is based on negotiating expectations rather than financial motivations).
I want to give the authors credit for broaching several difficult topics. They also acknowledge that many of the challenges to their proposals are in the form of entrenched societal pressures, such as to test more, that more treatment is better, that the latest and invariably most expensive technology and treatments are best, and that disfavoring more treatment is “giving up”. I have to imagine that many of these points are not especially welcome to patients and caregivers, since it amounts to a limitation on interventions based on a discordance between expectations and reality, but we can expect more pressure to confront this reality of socially dictated but medically inappropriate interventions more and more as the stress of limited resources forces this.
I’ll follow with my next post providing a summary of the second part of their commentary, which explores several shifts that are suggested to be keys to more effective.
Stan - Thank you once again for your kind words. Thank you as well for your donation. As you know, your donation helps us to exist and continue to fulfill our...
Hi Stan, It's good to hear your voice and know your cheesecakes are still making the rounds. Though I'm sure startling, I imagine some of those little pockets of the house...
Hi Rutbats, Welcome to GRACE and thanks for the kind words.
We can't say what you should or shouldn't do and I can't say why your RA doc made their...
Thank you very much for your quick answer, Janine.
I have an appointment with a pulmonologist in 10 days. I will summarize the conversation with him here, so that other people...
Glad to know you're moving forward with a pulmonologist. The more you know the better the conversation with your pulmonologist. Remember you can help your docs know what level their conversation...
Hi Terry, Welcome to Grace.
I saw this exact post somewhere else months back and the only response was to a lab. I hope that doesn't happen here, we don't allow...