Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 37, Issue 3, pp 237–241 | Cite as

Use of hospital services by breast cancer patients by stage of the disease: implications on the costs of cancer control

  • Holli Kaija
  • Hakama Matti
  • Hakala Tapani
Report

Summary

The use of resources for breast cancer during the first five years after diagnosis by different stages of disease was evaluated on the basis of all breast cancer patients (555) diagnosed in the Tampere University hospital district (Finland). All outpatient visits or inpatient-days of these patients in any hospital of the district were recorded and the average costs of hospital-day and of outpatient visit were applied to quantify the total use of resources. During the first five years of follow-up 535 breast cancer patients had 8206 follow-up visits and spent 18472 days in hospital. The stage II–IV patients had more than twice as many outpatient visits and inpatient-days as the stage I patients. The number of hospital-days/patient-year was 2.4-fold for stage II patients and 4.1-fold for stage III–IV patients as compared to stage I patients. The overall use of resources/ patient for those with nonlocalized disease was twice as high as the use for stage I patients, while the use of resources/person-year was 2.3-fold for stage II patients and 3.6-fold for stage III–IV as compared to stage I patients. Our study in an unselected patient population during the first five years of follow-up shows that breast cancer patients diagnosed in the early stage (stage I) require far fewer health care resources than if diagnosed in advanced stages. The results can be directly transformed into costs of breast cancer control by stage of breast cancer.

Key words

breast neoplasms treatment follow-up use of resources cost by stage 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bailar J, Smith E: Progress against cancer. N Engl J Med 314: 1226–1232, 1986PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    McLelland R: Low-cost mass screening with mammography as a means of reducing overall mortality from breast cancer. Rad Clin North Am 25: 1007–1013, 1987Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Gad Aet al.: Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography. Lancet 1: 829–832, 1985PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Verbeek A, Hendriks J, Holland R, Mravunac M, Sturmans F, Day N: Reduction of breast cancer mortality through mass screening with modern mammography. Lancet 1: 1222–1224, 1984PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shapiro S, Venet W, Strax P, Venet L, Roesner R: Ten-tofourteen year effect of screening on breast cancer mortality. JNCI 69: 349–355, 1982PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moskowitz M: Costs of screening for breast cancer. Rad Clin North Am 25: 1031–1037, 1987Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hakulinen T, Pukkala E, Hakama M, Lehtonen M, Saxen E, Teppo L: Survival of cancer patients in Finland in 1953–1974. Ann Clin Res 13, suppl 31, 1981Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Holli K: Organization, functions, and effectiveness of follow-up for breast cancer patients (in Finnish with English summary). Tampere: Acta Universitatis Tamperensis, Ser A, 225, 1987Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Finnish Community Union. Costs of Finnish hospitals and primary health care centers in 1991 (in Finnish), 1993Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Drummond M, Stoddart G, Torrance: Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publication, 1987Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Valentin J, Leitz W: Mass screening for breast cancer. Benefits, risks, costs. Med Oncol & Tumor Pharmacother 5: 77–83, 1988Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Van der Maas P, de Koning H, van Ineveld Bet al.: The costeffectiveness of breast cancer screening. Int J Cancer 43: 1055–1060, 1989PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    De Koning H, van Ineveld M, van Oortmarssen Get al.: Breast cancer screening and cost-effectiveness; policy alternatives, quality of life considerations and the possible impact of uncertain factors. Int J Cancer 49: 531–537, 1991PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Epstein R: Does the breast cancer dollar make sense? Eur J Cancer 28: 486–491, 1992PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Holli Kaija
    • 1
  • Hakama Matti
    • 2
  • Hakala Tapani
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of OncologyTampere University HospitalPikonlinnaFinland
  2. 2.Tampere School of Public HealthUniversity of TampereTampereFinland

Personalised recommendations