Abstract
Purpose
Cost evaluation is becoming mandatory to support healthcare sustainability and optimize the decision-making process. This topic is a challenge, especially for complex and rapidly evolving treatment modalities such as radiotherapy (RT). The aim of the present study was to investigate the cost of RT in the last month of life of patients in an Italian cancer center.
Methods
This was a retrospective study on a cancer population (N= 160) who underwent RT or only an RT planning simulation in an end of life (EOL) setting. The cost of RT procedures performed on patients was collected according to treatment status, care setting, and RT technique used. Costs were valued according to the sum of reimbursements relating to all procedures performed and assessed from the perspective of the National Health System.
Results
The total cost of RT in the last month of life was €244,774, with an average cost per patient of €1530. Around 7.7% and 30.3% of the total cost was associated with patients who never started RT or who discontinued RT, respectively, while the remaining 62.0% referred to patients who completed treatment. Costs associated with outpatient and inpatient settings represented 54.3% and 38.6% of the total cost, respectively. The higher average cost per patient for the never-started and discontinued groups was correlated with patients who had a poor ECOG Performance Status.
Conclusion
Improved prognostic accuracy and a better integration between radiotherapy and palliative care units could be a key to a better use of resources and to a reduction in the cost of EOL RT.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
The quality of care delivered to cancer patients near the end of life (EOL) has become a hot topic for researchers [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14] and is contributing to the development of interventions and policies to guarantee appropriate EOL care and to optimize the use of healthcare resources [2, 6, 7, 10, 15, 16]. Little information is available on the correlation between EOL care and healthcare costs, the majority of economic evaluations having been conducted in the USA [1, 5, 11] whose healthcare system differs significantly from most of the European ones. However, all the studies agree that reducing EOL costs represents a constant challenge within the healthcare system [9, 10].
It is known that radiotherapy (RT) is a pivotal approach in cancer treatments, with around 50% of all cancer patients undergoing RT to manage their illness and 8–18% of these receiving treatment in the last 30 days of life [8, 11].
Given the advancements made in cancer care, including radiotherapy technique, the distinction between curative RT and palliative RT (PRT) has become blurred. The goal of therapy in patients with metastatic disease from solid tumors is generally palliative, but improved systemic therapies have, in certain circumstances, led to longer overall survival times [12].
There is still very little information in the literature on the use and cost of RT at the EOL, many of the studies not focusing on this specific RT setting [17,18,19], some limited to the analysis of a specific cancer site [14, 20,21,22,23] and others dealing with a specific RT technique [23,24,25,26,27]. There is also a paucity of methodological detail in published studies, along with considerable variation in the calculated cost estimates.
This heterogeneity of methods in cost evaluation clearly compromises benchmarking within the context of RT [28, 29]. The generation of high-quality cost data, especially for complex and rapidly evolving treatment modalities such as those used for RT, is needed to guarantee the sustainability of the healthcare system because these novel RT techniques are often associated with high costs [28].
Given the above premises, we carried out the present retrospective study at our institute (Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori (IRST) IRCCS) to study RT costs in the last 30 days of life of a population of cancer patients. This analysis is a part of the beginning of our process to develop new models and tools in order to optimize use of healthcare resources in PRT.
Costs were evaluated on the basis of treatment status, care setting, and RT technique used.
Materials and methods
This retrospective study is a secondary cost analysis conducted on a patient population included in a previous study [30].
Of the 2444 patients referred to our institute for RT and who died between January 01, 2009, and December 31, 2015, 160 (6.5%) underwent RT the last 30 days of life, both as a new treatment or continuing a course started more than 30 days before they died. We included also patients that received only RT planning simulation in the last 30 days of life [30]. As in the previous study, this population was divided into 3 main subgroups on the basis of treatment status at the time of death:
-
1
Never-started: patients considered for RT who only underwent RT planning procedures such as a CT scan but did not start treatment;
-
2
Discontinued: patients who started RT but prematurely discontinued therapy;
-
3
Completed: patients who completed the planned RT;
Twenty (12.5%) patients were included in the never-started group and 49 (30.6%) in the discontinued group due to worsening medical conditions or death. A total of 91 (56.9%) patients who completed treatment were included in the last group. Patient characteristics, RT techniques, and fraction schedules are shown in Table 1.
The cost and amount of resources used in the 30 days before death were valued on the basis of the RT technique used. Information on procedures performed outside the 30-day window was not collected for 34 (21.3%) patients who started RT more than 30 days before they died.
RT techniques were identified on the basis of the complexity of each procedure, as follows:
-
Standard technique: 2-dimensional (2D) including cobalt therapy (up to 2013), 3-dimensional conformal (3D) RT, and volumetric modulated arc therapy (V-MAT) technique
-
High-precision technique: TomoTherapy (used at our institute since 2013)
In the present analysis, costs were valued as the sum of reimbursements for the procedures performed as part of the RT care pathway, including first visit, planning CT scan, medical physics treatment planning, and treatment sessions on the basis of the number of fractions delivered. Costs were assessed from the perspective of the Italian National Health System. The Regional Healthcare Range of Fees table [31] was used to determine the unit cost of each RT procedure per patient in an outpatient setting. With regard to the inpatient setting, we set up a methodology to calculate the cost of RT procedures. Rather than computing the entire DRG (diagnosis-related group)–related costs, we identified each RT procedure reported in the Hospital Discharge Cards of patients and summed up costs according to the Regional Healthcare Range of Outpatient Fees table to obtain the total cost for inpatients.
We retrieved the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (PS) scores of patients on the day of the RT consultation or up to 7 days before from electronic health records. The average cost per patient was estimated for each subgroup on the basis of ECOG PS scores (good [0], moderate [2], and poor [3, 4]).
Data sources
Patients were identified through IRST electronic medical records (CCE Log80 2.6 of Log80 S.r.l) in which the date of death was registered. Patient data were cross-checked with those of IRST’s Radiation Oncology database (MOSAIQ version 2.64) and with an internal administration software system used to collect and manage patient reimbursements at our institute (Cdg2007 of CEDAF S.r.l).
Statistical analysis
Continuous data were expressed as median (range) while categorical data were expressed as numbers and percentages. Costs were expressed as total costs and as average cost per patient. Bar graphs were used to better explain data. Due to descriptive nature of this work, statistical comparisons among subgroups were not done.
Results
The overall cost of RT delivered to the study population (N = 160) in the last 30 days of life during the study period (between 2009 and 2015) was €244,774. Around 7.7% of the overall cost was attributed to the never-started group and 30.3% to the discontinued group, while the remaining 62.0% was associated with the patients who completed treatment (Fig. 1). The average total cost per patient was €1,530. Costs associated with outpatient and inpatient settings were 54.3% and 38.0%, respectively (Fig. 2). The costs of standard and high-precision RT techniques were almost identical (Fig. 2), although the number of procedures delivered was significantly different (N = 1548 for standard technique vs. N = 849 for high-precision technique). The average cost per patient for standard technique was €1,159, while much more was the average cost €2,575 associated with high-precision RT technique. With regard to the standard technique, outpatient and inpatient costs were comparable as the number of procedures delivered was almost the same in either setting (N = 782 for outpatients vs. N= 766 for inpatients). Conversely, the high-precision technique was associated with a higher cost in the outpatient setting, where it was more frequently used (N = 603 for outpatients vs. N = 246 for inpatients).
The bar on the left shows the total cost of RT for the entire patient population subdivided into the RT planning cost of the never-started group and inpatient and outpatient setting costs. The middle bar shows the RT cost for the standard technique subdivided into inpatient and outpatient setting costs, and the right bar shows the cost of RT for the high-precision technique subdivided into inpatient and outpatient setting costs
The overall cost of RT in the discontinued group was €74,352 (Fig. 3), with an average cost per patient of €1,571. A large percentage of this cost (63.5%) was for outpatient procedures. The cost of the standard technique was €40,127, while that of the high-precision technique was €34,225, accounting for 54.0% and 46.0% of the total cost, respectively. The outpatient expenditure was the highest, accounting for 52.5% of the standard technique cost and 76.3% of the high-precision technique cost (Fig. 3).
The overall cost of the group that completed treatment was €151,669 (Fig. 3), with an average cost per patient of €1,667. The highest cost (53.8%) was associated with outpatient setting. The cost of the standard techniques was €69,998, while that of the high-precision technique was €81,671 (46.2% and 53.8% of the total cost, respectively). A comparison between techniques revealed an opposite pattern, the highest cost for inpatients being the standard technique (57.2%) while that for outpatients was the high-precision technique (68.4%) (Fig. 3).
With regard to the use of resources, the number of outpatient procedures (N = 520) was considerably higher than that of inpatient procedures (N = 307) for the discontinued group, whereas the difference was less marked for the group that completed treatment (N = 865 for outpatients, N = 705 for inpatients). For the high-precision technique, the number of outpatient procedures was 2- and 4-fold higher than that observed in the inpatient setting for the discontinued and completed groups, respectively.
A higher average cost per patient was associated with poor ECOG PS (3–4) in never-started and discontinued patients and with ECOG PS 1–2 in the completed group (Fig. 4). One patient in the completed group was excluded because of undocumented PS in the electronic medical record (Table 1).
Discussion
The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate the cost of RT during the last 30 days of life in a population of cancer patients. There are very few data in the literature on the cost of EOL RT, even though the European radiotherapy community agrees that such information is crucial for optimizing access to RT services and for reimbursement purposes [28]. To the best of our knowledge, ours is the first study carried out in an Italian institution to evaluate the cost of an EOL RT service. Our results showed that, out of almost €250,000 spent on RT in the last 30 days of life, 30.3% was used for the discontinued group who obviously did not benefit from treatment and 7.7% was used for never-started patients. There is clearly ample leeway for improving the use of RT resources. Although short-fractionation or single-dose RT has a place in the treatment of EOL patients, there is still a real risk of overusing RT in this setting.
As expected, when outpatient and inpatient settings were compared in our study, costs were higher for the former and associated with high-precision techniques. This was probably due to the fact that high-precision RT was more often reserved for patients who would have better compliance with the treatment than those in poorer conditions or who received combined treatments such as radio-chemotherapy.
Although the tendency to treat patients up to the very end and refer them for palliative care when it is too late is widely acknowledged as an indicator of poor-quality care [7], this practice is still all too common. Our findings corroborate those of previous studies on the trend in aggressiveness of cancer care near the end of life, highlighting a fairly high intensity of care [2, 5] and inappropriately lengthy treatment regimens [32]. Thus, if “inappropriate treatment” is defined as “interventions that are ineffective in achieving the desired goals, or are a disservice to patients who are subjected to ongoing and likely uncomfortable conditions with no direct benefit” [33], all costs pertaining to the never-started and discontinued groups can be considered inappropriate costs, regardless of the treatment intent, Figs. 1 and 3 (which provides greater detail for the never-started and discontinued groups) show the amount of resources used for non-beneficial treatments in our population, suggesting that careful patient selection and more accurate survival prognostication are key to reducing the risk of inappropriate therapies and costs [34].
Concerning ECOG PS, our study indicates that the higher average cost per patient for never-started and discontinued groups was associated with patients with poor PS. As suggested in other studies [35, 36], ECOG PS could be a crucial factor for estimating life expectancy in the last month of life, gauging treatment appropriateness, and reducing improper costs, especially in a palliative care setting.
There are several limitations to this paper, the main ones being its retrospective design and the fact that the data were collected over a long period of time, with suboptimal completeness. Furthermore, the monocentric design of the study does not express the reality of all Italian cancer centers. Secondly, out-of-pocket costs for patients and indirect costs such as those for staff, equipment, and maintenance were not taken into account. Moreover, our study did not collect detailed data on the palliative versus curative intent of therapy, making it more difficult to determine whether treatment was clinically appropriate. Differences in costing methodologies, assessment timeframes [17,18,19], tumor sites [14, 20, 23], and healthcare system may help to explain the observed variations in computed costs, rendering a comparison across studies complicated [28].
We wish that more Italian cancer centers will carry out this kind of analysis and share data in order to do benchmarking for the optimization of healthcare system resources within the Italian context of RT. The main strength of the present study is that the costing methodology was based on the extraction of real data from the institute’s RT database and an internal administration software system, grouping costs into the 2 main RT techniques and settings.
For the first time, costs were evaluated according to RT treatment status (never-started/discontinued/completed), which showed more clearly the costs that could be re-allocated to achieve better results for patients. From a clinical point of view, it is important to avoid aggressiveness of care at EOL, choose appropriate treatment schedules and RT techniques according to the patient’s life expectancy, and establish the correct timing of RT to provide relief from or prevent patient symptoms [36].
In conclusion, the above findings have enabled us to reorganize the RT Unit of our institute. In fact, since 2016, we have been using a new integrated approach between our Radiotherapy and Palliative Care Units to optimize the use of healthcare resources and guarantee appropriate EOL care for advanced cancer patients. This model is also backed by substantial evidence that palliative care combined with standard cancer care improves patient and caregiver outcomes in terms of quality of life (QoL), survival, use of healthcare services, and costs [37,38,39]. Into this integrated approach, the systematic analysis of all data collected will hopefully provide the answer to the many open questions remaining in this challenging healthcare area.
Data availability
The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Liao K-P, Buchholz TA, Giordano SH, Elting LS, Buchholz TA, Shih YC (2014) Increasing use of advanced radiation therapy technologies in the last 30 days of life among patients dying as a result of cancer in the United States. J Oncol Pract 10(4):e269–e276. https://doi.org/10.1200/jop.2013.001348
Earle CC, Neville BA, Landrum MB, Ayanian JZ, Block SD, Weeks JC (2004) Trends in the aggressiveness of cancer care near the end of life. J Clin Oncol 22(2):315–321. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2004.08.136
Cardona-Morrell M, Kim J, Turner RM, Anstey M, Mitchell IA, Hillman K (2016) Non-beneficial treatments in hospital at the end of life: a systematic review on extent of the problem. Int J Qual Heal 28(4):456–469. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzw060
Ho TH, Barbera L, Saskin R, Lu H, Neville BA, Earle CC (2011) Trends in the aggressiveness of end-of-life cancer care in the universal health care system of Ontario, Canada. J Clin Oncol 29(12):1587–1591. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.31.9897
Li D, Prigerson HG, Kang J, Maciejewski PK, Maciejewski PK (2017) Impact of radiation therapy on aggressive care and quality of life near death. J Pain Symptom Manag 53(1):25–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2016.08.011
Earle CC, Park ER, Lai B, Weeks JC, Ayanian JZ, Block S (2003) Identifying potential indicators of the quality of end-of-life cancer care from administrative data. J Clin Oncol 21(6):1133–1138. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2003.03.059
Earle CC, Landrum MB, Souza JM, Neville BA, Weeks JC, Ayanian JZ (2008) Aggressiveness of cancer care near the end of life: is it a quality-of-care issue? J Clin Oncol 26(23):3860–3866. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.15.8253
Kapadia NS, Mamet R, Zornosa C, Niland JC, D'Amico TA, Hayman JA (2012) Radiation therapy at the end of life in patients with incurable nonsmall cell lung cancer. Cancer 118(17):4339–4345. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.27401
Emanuel EJ (1996) Cost savings at the end of life. What do the data show? JAMA 275(24):1907–1914. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199402243300806
Chen B, Kuo C-C, Huang N, Fan VY (2018) Reducing costs at the end of life through provider incentives for hospice care: a retrospective cohort study. Palliat Med 32(8):1389–1400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216318774899
Guadagnolo BA, Liao K-P, Elting L, Giordano S, Buchholz TA, Shih YC (2013) Use of radiation therapy in the last 30 days of life among a large population-based cohort of elderly patients in the United States. J Clin Oncol 31(1):80–87. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2012.45.0585
Lutz ST, Jones J, Chow E (2014) Role of radiation therapy in palliative care of the patient with cancer. J Clin Oncol 32(26):2913–2919
Earle CC, Neville BA, Landrum MB, Souza JM, Weeks JC, Block SD, Grunfeld E, Ayanian JZ (2005) Evaluating claims-based indicators of the intensity of end-of-life cancer care. Int J Qual Heal Care 17(6):505–509. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzi061
Massa I, Nanni O, Foca F, Maltoni M, Derni S, Gentili N, Frassineti GL, Casadei Gardini A, Valgiusti M, Amadori D, Prati E, Altini M, Gallegati D, Sansoni E (2018) Chemotherapy and palliative care near end-of life: examining the appropriateness at a cancer institute for colorectal cancer patients. BMC Palliat Care 17(1):86. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-018-0339-8
Perez CA, Kobeissi B, Smith BD, Fox S, Grigsby PW, Purdy JA, Procter HD, Wasserman TH (1993) Cost accounting in radiation oncology: a computer-based model for reimbursement. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 25(5):895–906. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(93)90321-L
Johnston S, Wilson K, Varker H, Malangone-Monaco E, Juneau P, Riehle E, Satram-Hoang S, Sommer N, Ogale S (2017) Real-world direct health care costs for metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with cetuximab or bevacizumab-containing regimens in first-line or first-line through second-line therapy. Clin Colorectal Cancer 16(4):386–396.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clcc.2017.03.014
Barton MB, Frommer M, Shafiq J (2006) Role of radiotherapy in cancer control in low-income and middle-income countries. Lancet Oncol 7(10):584–595. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(06)70759-8
Barbieri M, Weatherly HLA, Ara R, Basarir H, Sculpher M, Adams R, Ahmed H, Coles C, Guerrero-Urbano T, Nutting C, Powell M (2014) What is the quality of economic evaluations of non-drug therapies? A systematic review and critical appraisal of economic evaluations of radiotherapy for cancer. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 12(5):497–510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-014-0115-8
Batumalai V, Wong K, Shafiq J, Hanna TP, Gabriel G, Heberle J, Koprivic I, Kaadan N, King O, Tran T, Cassapi L, Forstner D, Delaney GP, Barton M (2019) Estimating the cost of radiotherapy for 5-year local control and overall survival benefit. Radiother Oncol 136:154–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2019.04.011
Hummel S, Simpson E, Hemingway P, Stevenson MD, Rees A (2010) Intensity-modulated radiotherapy for the treatment of prostate cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 14(47):1–108, iii-iv. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta14470
Monten C, Veldeman L, Verhaeghe N, Lievens Y (2017) A systematic review of health economic evaluation in adjuvant breast radiotherapy: quality counted by numbers. Radiother Oncol 125(2):186–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2017.08.034
Brown B, Diamantopoulos A, Bernier J, Schöffski P, Hieke K, Mantovani L, Launois R, Griebsch I, Robinson P (2008) An economic evaluation of cetuximab combined with radiotherapy for patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer in Belgium, France, Italy, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Value Health 11(5):791–799. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00302.x
Perrier L, Morelle M, Pommier P, Boisselier P, Coche-Dequeant B, Gallocher O, Alfonsi M, Bardet E, Rives M, Calugaru V, Chajon E, Noel G, Mecellem H, Pérol D, Dussart S, Giraud P (2016) Cost analysis of complex radiation therapy for patients with head and neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 95(2):654–662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.02.013
Delaney G, Jacob S, Featherstone C, Barton M (2005) The role of radiotherapy in cancer treatment: estimating optimal utilization from a review of evidence-based clinical guidelines. Cancer 104(6):1129–1137. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.21324
Marta GN, Weltman E, Ferrigno R (2018) Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) versus 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) for head and neck cancer: cost-effectiveness analysis. Rev Assoc Med Bras 64(4):318–323. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9282.64.04.318
Schroeck FR, Jacobs BL, Bhayani SB, Nguyen PL, Penson D, Hu J (2017) Cost of new technologies in prostate cancer treatment: systematic review of costs and cost effectiveness of robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and proton beam therapy. Eur Urol 72(5):712–735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.03.028
Yong JHE, McGowan T, Redmond-Misner R, Beca J, Warde P, Gutierrez E, Hoch JS (2016) Estimating the costs of intensity-modulated and 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy in Ontario. Curr Oncol 23(3):e228–e238. https://doi.org/10.3747/co.23.2998
Defourny N, Dunscombe P, Perrier L, Grau C, Lievens Y (2016) Cost evaluations of radiotherapy: what do we know? An ESTRO-HERO analysis. Radiother Oncol 121(3):468–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2016.12.002
Ploquina NP, Dunscombe PB (2008) The cost of radiation therapy. Radiother Oncol 86(2):217–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2008.01.005
Rossi R, Massa I, Romeo A, Foca F, Altini M,Vespignani R, Fabbri M, Nanni O, Maltoni M, Radiotherapy at the end of life and integration with palliative care: from retrospective analysis to future strategies to improve radiotherapy outcomes in Italy, Palliative Medicine [in submission]
Jones JA, Lutz ST, Chow E, Johnstone PA (2014) Palliative radiotherapy at the end of life: a critical review. CA Cancer J Clin 64(5):296–310. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21242
Singal RK, Sibbald R, Morgan B, Quinlan M, Parry N, Radford M, Martin CM (2014) A prospective determination of the incidence of perceived inappropriate care in critically ill patients. Can Respir J 21(3):165–170. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/429789
Glare P, Virik K, Jones M, Hudson M, Eychmuller S, Simes J, Christakis N (2003) A systematic review of physicians’ survival predictions in terminally ill cancer patients. BMJ 327(7408):195–198. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7408.195
Angelo K, Norum J, Dalhaug A, Pawinski A, Aandahl G, Haukland E, Engljähringer K, Nieder C (2014) Development and validation of a model predicting short survival (death within 30 days) after palliative radiotherapy. Anticancer Res 34(2):877–885
Park KR, Lee CG, Tseng YD, Liao JJ, Reddy S, Bruera E, Yennurajalingam S (2017) Palliative radiation therapy in the last 30 days of life: a systematic review. Radiother Oncol 125(2):193–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2017.09.016
Ferrell BR, Temel JS, Temin S, Alesi ER, Balboni TA, Basch EM, Firn JI, Paice JA, Peppercorn JM, Phillips T, Stovall EL, Zimmermann C, Smith TJ (2017) Integration of palliative care into standard oncology care: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol 35(1):96–112. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2016.70.1474
Temel JS, Greer JA, Muzikansky A et al (2010) Early palliative care for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 19;363(8):733-42. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1000678
Maltoni M, Scarpi E, Dall’Agata M, Schiavon S, Biasini C, Codecà C, Broglia CM, Sansoni E, Bortolussi R, Garetto F, Fioretto L, Cattaneo MT, Giacobino A, Luzzani M, Luchena G, Alquati S, Quadrini S, Zagonel V, Cavanna L, Ferrari D, Pedrazzoli P, Frassineti GL, Galiano A, Casadei Gardini A, Monti M, Nanni O, Farolfi A, Ruscelli S, Valgiusti M, Pini S, Faedi M, Ragazzini A, Pittureri C, Amaducci E, Guglieri I, Bergamo F, Lonardi S, di Nunzio C, Bosco M, Bocci B, Bramanti A, Gandini C, Buonadonna A, Comandone A, Zoccali S, Pino MS, Dalu D, Sozzi P, Gozza A, Giordano M, Longhi C, Autelitano C, Gamucci T, Mastromauro C, Scognamiglio R, Degiovanni D, Negri F, Caraceni A, Montanari L (2016) Systematic versus on-demand early palliative care: a randomised clinical trial assessing quality of care and treatment aggressiveness near the end of life. Eur J Cancer 69:110–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2016.10.004
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Gráinne Tierney and Cristiano Verna for the editorial assistance.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not for profit sectors.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conception/design: all authors; provision of study material or patients: Antonino Romeo, William Balzi; collection and/or assembly of data: Romina Rossi, Ilaria Massa, Valentina Danesi, William Balzi; data analysis and interpretation: William Balzi, Valentina Danesi, Ilaria Massa, Romina Rossi; manuscript writing: Romina Rossi, Valentina Danesi, Ilaria Massa; final approval of manuscript: all authors.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
This retrospective study was approved by the Scientific and Medical Committee and the Ethics Committee of IRST–IRCCS Area Vasta Romagna. The study was also conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki 1964 and later versions.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Informed consent
As per Italian law on privacy, it was not mandatory to collect informed consent forms for deceased patients.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Rossi, R., Danesi, V., Massa, I. et al. The challenge of sustainability in healthcare systems: cost of radiotherapy in the last month of life in an Italian cancer center. Support Care Cancer 29, 2735–2742 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-020-05718-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-020-05718-0