Abstract

Given the rapidly rising healthcare costs, it is important to understand the economic costs of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT), a procedure that is being used more frequently in the treatment of various hematologic disorders. Studies have reported a wide range of costs for HCT, from $36 000 to $88 000 (USD) for a single autologous transplantation for the initial hospitalization, to $200 000 (USD) or more for a myeloablative allogeneic procedure involving an unrelated donor. Common posttransplantation complications, such as infections and GVHD, have been shown to be significant cost drivers. Comparisons across studies are limited by differences in patient populations, cost ascertainment methods, and length of follow-up. This article summarizes the current state of knowledge about costs and cost-effectiveness of HCT, highlighting the challenges in conducting these studies and identifying important areas for future research. We discuss the need for more value-based assessments of HCT using high-quality approaches to measuring costs and outcomes so that potential future efforts to contain costs are well informed and appropriate.

Introduction

Hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is an important treatment modality for many benign and malignant hematologic disorders. There has been a dramatic increase in the number of autologous and allogeneic procedures performed worldwide.1  However, an increasing use of this expensive treatment modality has economic consequences. According to an Agency for Health Care Research and Quality report, HCT generated the most rapid increase in total hospital costs from 2004 to 2007 with a growth rate of 84.9% and $1.3 billion spent in 2007.2  It was estimated that 25.6% of this increase was the result of an increase in mean cost of hospital stays, and 59.3% was the result of an increase in the number of hospital days.

As advances in HCT allow the procedure to be offered to more patients, it is critical not only to assess clinical outcomes but also to carefully monitor financial costs. Increased attention to value for money can assist in the development of clinical practice guidelines and ensure that insurers and other agencies make appropriate coverage decisions. Accurate knowledge about clinical benefits and economic consequences can also help inform discussions between physicians and patients about treatment decisions that can affect costs of care, especially if treatment choices cause financial hardship for the patient without increasing the chance of a successful outcome.

Methods

Search strategy

The Medline database was searched using the following terms: “stem cell transplantation” or “hematopoietic cell transplantation” or “bone marrow transplantation” and “economics” or “cost analysis.” Only articles published in English between January 1, 1986 and December 31, 2011 were considered. The reference lists from publications were reviewed to identify other relevant papers. Abstracts were reviewed and full text articles were retrieved if the study reported any information about costs as a primary or secondary outcome.

Each published cost study was reviewed and assessed for 3 important components: general study design, the type of cost data collected, and the analytic methods used by the authors in analyzing the cost data. These components have been highlighted as critical considerations for evaluating the quality and robustness of economic evaluations in healthcare.3  Each study was summarized by N.K. with secondary review by S.B.Z. and S.J.L. if a component of the study was not clearly described in the original manuscript.

Why do costs matter?

The societal burden of cancer care is substantial and likely to increase with the newer treatment modalities. The National Cancer Institute estimated 13.8 and 18.1 million cancer survivors in 2010 and 2020, respectively, with associated costs of cancer care of $125 billion and $158 billion (2010 US) assuming constant incidence, survival, and cost.4  Taken together, leukemia and lymphoma are the third most expensive cancer in females and second most expensive cancer in males. The rapidly evolving field of HCT is a key cost driver in treatment of these hematologic malignancies and other disorders. It lends itself to incorporation of economic evidence when evaluating the impact of advances in the field and understanding their cost consequences.5,6 

In clinical practice, a common dilemma is how to factor in the concern for healthcare expenses into the clinical decision-making process (eg, when recommending a third line treatment for steroid refractory GVHD, considering options for a patient who relapses with acute leukemia within the first month after HCT or managing a patient with chronic GVHD who cannot afford medications/tests because of lack of insurance). This adds to the daily struggle between delivering care and considering the downstream effects on resource use for the healthcare system as well as the consequences on patient quality of life and financial burden. We no longer live in a world where we can ignore the costs of treatments we are recommending, even if a patient has insurance. Financial hardship from rising premiums, increased deductibles, copayments, and coinsurances for the patient can decrease their compliance with the recommended management and potentially undermine treatment success, especially if they choose to limit their medical care because of concerns about medical costs.7,8  Having better information about the costs and outcomes can help them and their caregivers develop a financial plan at the outset, which may help avoid potentially deleterious health behaviors.

Although a detailed discussion about the role of costs in decreasing access to HCT is beyond the scope of this article, increasing procedural costs also have the potential of worsening disparities. The inequitable distribution of a life-saving technology resulting from the constraints of infrastructure and financial resources is well illustrated by a study from Thailand.9  This study found that a related HCT for patients younger than 10 years with thalassemia was the most cost-effective option in the Thai context, but because of the limited infrastructure, this could only be made available to a minority of patients. Medical possibility and economic reality are often in conflict.10  For example, in the United States, HCT is not performed unless a means of paying for the procedure is secured, usually through insurance preapproval or patient prepayment. Physicians are less likely to refer patients lacking insurance for consideration of HCT.11 

How much does HCT cost?

Table 1 shows the costs of HCT adjusted to 2012 US dollars using the Consumer Price Index, which historically observes 3% to 5% inflation in medical costs per year.12  The year the study was published was used for adjustment when the time period for the cost data was not specified. Studies conducted using foreign currency were converted to US dollars for the original study period and then adjusted to current 2012 US dollars (USD).13  Although accounting methods differ considerably, costs of autologous transplantation for the initial transplantation hospitalization have been reported to range from $36 000 to $88 000, whereas costs of allogeneic transplantation for the first year range from $96 000 to $204 000 in 2012 USD. Most studies report costs through the first 100 days, although some report costs within the first year or even up through 5 years.

Table 1

Characteristics of cost studies in HCT

StudyPublication yearNo. of study patientsTypes of transplantsCosts/charges (median)Costs/charges adjusted to 2012 USDTime horizon
Societal 
    Frey et al26  2002 Inpatient (n = 26), Outpatient (n = 21) Autologous Inpatient: $40 985 USD Inpatient: $51 639 USD Beginning of HDT to discharge from the facility 
Outpatient: $29 210 USD Outpatient: $36 803 USD 
Hospital/healthcare system 
    Smith et al33  1997 58 Autologous PB: $45 792 USD PB: $68 106 USD Initial transplant hospitalization 
BMT: $59 314 USD BM: $88 217 USD 
    Kline et al19  1998 46 Both autologous and allogeneic Mean charges: $243 550 USD Mean charges: $338 676 USD Initial transplant hospitalization 
    Lee et al21  2000 236 Both autologous and allogeneic Auto: $55 500 USD Auto: $78 379 USD Initial transplant hospitalization 
Allo: $105 300 USD Allo: $148 709 USD 
    Van Agthoven et al62  2002 97 Allogeneic MRD BM: $98 334 USD MRD BM: $179 987 USD 2 y 
MUD BM: $151 754 USD MUD BM: $277 765 USD 
MRD PB: $98 977 USD MRD PB: $181 163 USD 
    Lee et al20  2002 TCD (n = 47), IST (n = 98) Allogeneic TCD: $113 000 USD TCD: $148 740 USD 1 y 
IST: $155 000 USD IST: $204 024 USD 
    Cordonnier et al32  2005 MA (n = 12), NMA (n = 11) Allogeneic MA: €64 600 MA: $109 710 USD 1 y 
NMA: €60 000 NMA: $101 898 USD 
    de Lissovoy et al17  2005 TCD (n = 194); NTCD (n = 202) Allogeneic TCD: $145 115 USD TCD: $185 728 USD 6 mo 
NTCD: $141 981 USD; NTCD: $181 717 USD 
    Svahn et al31  2006 93 Allogeneic €139 414 $214 703 USD 5 y 
    Saito et al24  2007 MA (n = 185), RIC (n = 90) Allogeneic MA:$128 253 USD MA: $153 893 USD 1 y 
RIC:$80 499 USD; RIC: $96 592 USD; 
    Saito et al23  2008 315 Allogeneic $128 800 USD $154 549 USD 1 y 
    Majhail et al35  2009 UCB (n = 173) Allogeneic UCB: $137 654 USD UCB: $145 435 USD 100 d 
MRD (n = 121), MRD: $83 583 USD MRD: $88 308 USD 
    Majhail et al28  2010 MRD (n = 27), MUD (n = 28), UCB (n = 91) Allogeneic Mean cost per day survived MRD: $3446 USD; MUD: $4050 USD; UCB: $4522 USD Mean cost per day survived MRD: $3582 USD 100 d 
MUD: $4214 USD 
UCB: $4700 USD 
Third-party payer 
    Rizzo et al25  1999 Inpatient (n = 115), Outpatient (n = 17) Both autologous and allogeneic Charges inpatient: $157 698 USD Charges inpatient: $214 553 USD 100 d 
Outpatient: $110 879 USD Outpatient: $150 854 USD 
StudyPublication yearNo. of study patientsTypes of transplantsCosts/charges (median)Costs/charges adjusted to 2012 USDTime horizon
Societal 
    Frey et al26  2002 Inpatient (n = 26), Outpatient (n = 21) Autologous Inpatient: $40 985 USD Inpatient: $51 639 USD Beginning of HDT to discharge from the facility 
Outpatient: $29 210 USD Outpatient: $36 803 USD 
Hospital/healthcare system 
    Smith et al33  1997 58 Autologous PB: $45 792 USD PB: $68 106 USD Initial transplant hospitalization 
BMT: $59 314 USD BM: $88 217 USD 
    Kline et al19  1998 46 Both autologous and allogeneic Mean charges: $243 550 USD Mean charges: $338 676 USD Initial transplant hospitalization 
    Lee et al21  2000 236 Both autologous and allogeneic Auto: $55 500 USD Auto: $78 379 USD Initial transplant hospitalization 
Allo: $105 300 USD Allo: $148 709 USD 
    Van Agthoven et al62  2002 97 Allogeneic MRD BM: $98 334 USD MRD BM: $179 987 USD 2 y 
MUD BM: $151 754 USD MUD BM: $277 765 USD 
MRD PB: $98 977 USD MRD PB: $181 163 USD 
    Lee et al20  2002 TCD (n = 47), IST (n = 98) Allogeneic TCD: $113 000 USD TCD: $148 740 USD 1 y 
IST: $155 000 USD IST: $204 024 USD 
    Cordonnier et al32  2005 MA (n = 12), NMA (n = 11) Allogeneic MA: €64 600 MA: $109 710 USD 1 y 
NMA: €60 000 NMA: $101 898 USD 
    de Lissovoy et al17  2005 TCD (n = 194); NTCD (n = 202) Allogeneic TCD: $145 115 USD TCD: $185 728 USD 6 mo 
NTCD: $141 981 USD; NTCD: $181 717 USD 
    Svahn et al31  2006 93 Allogeneic €139 414 $214 703 USD 5 y 
    Saito et al24  2007 MA (n = 185), RIC (n = 90) Allogeneic MA:$128 253 USD MA: $153 893 USD 1 y 
RIC:$80 499 USD; RIC: $96 592 USD; 
    Saito et al23  2008 315 Allogeneic $128 800 USD $154 549 USD 1 y 
    Majhail et al35  2009 UCB (n = 173) Allogeneic UCB: $137 654 USD UCB: $145 435 USD 100 d 
MRD (n = 121), MRD: $83 583 USD MRD: $88 308 USD 
    Majhail et al28  2010 MRD (n = 27), MUD (n = 28), UCB (n = 91) Allogeneic Mean cost per day survived MRD: $3446 USD; MUD: $4050 USD; UCB: $4522 USD Mean cost per day survived MRD: $3582 USD 100 d 
MUD: $4214 USD 
UCB: $4700 USD 
Third-party payer 
    Rizzo et al25  1999 Inpatient (n = 115), Outpatient (n = 17) Both autologous and allogeneic Charges inpatient: $157 698 USD Charges inpatient: $214 553 USD 100 d 
Outpatient: $110 879 USD Outpatient: $150 854 USD 

PB indicates peripheral blood; HDT, high-dose therapy; TCD, T-cell depletion; IST, immunosuppressive therapy; NTCD, non–T cell-depleted; MA, myeloablative; NMA, nonmyeloablative; RIC, reduced intensity conditioning; MRD, matched related donor; UCB, umbilical cord blood; MUD, matched unrelated donor; USD, United States dollar; and €, Euro.

Whereas most studies report “costs,” which reflect the actual resources used to deliver a service, some report “charges.” Charges are inflated from actual costs and may vary widely among institutions based on accounting methodology, payer mix, and unreimbursed care. Charges can be converted to costs using Medicare global cost-to-charge ratios or institutional ratios. There are newer approaches to assessing costs, including activity-based costing, which may provide a more accurate assessment of the true resources required for a service and help in controlling costs.14  Although no studies have reported costs of HCT using these alternative approaches, pilot studies in other areas of medicine are ongoing and may provide a map for future studies of HCT costs.15 

Most studies are performed from the perspective of the healthcare organization, although some take the perspective of the insurance company, or very rarely, society as a whole. The societal perspective includes all costs accrued in the treatment of disease, including direct medical, direct nonmedical (transportation, food, and lodging), and indirect nonmedical (lost wages and productivity from illness or premature death). The societal perspective is recommended by the Public Health Service's Panel on Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine,16  but it is the hardest to report because of difficulty in measuring costs other than direct medical costs.

Certain costs are often excluded from consideration in many studies because they are inaccessible or difficult to collect, such as professional fees and costs to patients and families, including indirect costs.17–20  Many studies exclude costs of donor identification/stem cell procurement and patient evaluation for transplantation eligibility.21–24 

A few studies have looked at the out-of-pocket cost burden in HCT patients. Rizzo et al examined the unreimbursed direct medical, direct nonmedical, and indirect costs along with perceived financial impact through a questionnaire in their study to determine whether the shift from inpatient to outpatient care affected the financial burden on the patients.25  They did not find any significant differences in the out-of-pocket costs to the patients between the inpatient and outpatient treatment groups. A similar study that compared the profile of costs for inpatient and outpatient autologous transplants reported a median of $2520 incurred by the caregivers as out-of-pocket costs or lost opportunity costs.26 

What factors are associated with higher HCT costs?

Patient characteristics.

Lee et al did not find significant correlation between costs and patient age and sex, disease risk, or status in a study of 236 consecutive transplant recipients,21  similar to findings by Griffiths et al.27  However, in some more recent studies, advanced disease risk was shown to be a significant predictor of higher costs.20,22,24,25  Rizzo et al reported that patients with standard risk disease treated as outpatients had hospital charges that were 34% lower than those treated as inpatients, whereas those with high-risk disease had similar total charges irrespective of inpatient versus outpatient status.25  Performance status has not emerged as a significant predictor of costs in many adult studies, but in one pediatric study, costs per day survived were 30% more for patients with a Lansky score less than or equal to 80, than in those with a score of 90% to 100%.28 

Transplant factors

Transplant center experience.

Similar to the trends seen in the solid organ transplant literature, investigators have shown that higher costs are incurred when an HCT program is being established and that the costs and clinical outcomes improve with time and greater institutional experience. However, this economic advantage may be offset as the complexity of the patients treated increases or more aggressive supportive interventions are used, resulting in a plateau in the improvement curve.21,29  Svahn et al looked at the pattern of treatment, costs, and survival for patients with grades 3 or 4 acute GVHD from 1977 to 2004 and found that both the survival and costs of treatment increased with time.30 

Conditioning.

Some investigators have compared the costs between reduced intensity and myeloablative regimens. The larger studies find that costs of reduced intensity procedures are less, with Saito et al reporting lower median costs ($80 499 vs $128 253 in 2004 USD) and fewer median hospital days (21 vs 39 days) within the first year of the transplantation in reduced intensity conditioning patients compared with high-dose regimens.24  This finding was also reported by Svahn et al who showed a significantly lower cost with reduced intensity conditioning: median 109 206 Euros (range 52 100-217 170 in 2003 Euros) compared with full myeloablative conditioning with a median of 158 061 Euros (range, 57 880-345 640 in 2003 Euros; P = .024).31  However, a smaller study from France did not find a significant difference in the mean cost for 1 year after HCT or in the number of hospital days over 1 year after transplantation.32 

Graft type.

In autologous HCT for lymphomas, mobilized peripheral blood was shown to be less costly because of lower graft collection costs, shorter hospital stays, and less need for supportive care in an analysis of resource use data from a multicentric randomized clinical trial.33  In the allogeneic setting, stem cell source was not a significant predictor of costs when either high dose or reduced intensity conditioning was used.23,24,34  However, a cost-effectiveness study in pediatric patients showed that a bone marrow graft was more cost-effective than peripheral blood stem cells for standard-risk acute leukemia.22  In high-risk leukemia, the differences were less marked; therefore, neither option had a clear advantage.

URDs and T-cell depletion.

Use of unrelated donors (URDs) has emerged as a significant cost driver, even if the costs of stem cell procurement are not included.23,24,35  Among the URDs, there are conflicting data on whether T-cell depletion (TCD) decreases the overall costs. Lee et al reported significantly lower costs ($113 000 vs $155 000 in 2000 USD, P < .001) with T cell–depleted grafts in a single-center comparative analysis, but the economic substudy of the randomized TCD trial conducted by National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute found comparable costs between the TCD and unmanipulated donor arms ($145 115 vs $141 981 in 2001 USD, respectively; P = .63).17,20  The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute trial reported that, although TCD of the donor graft reduced the short-term costs, frequent hospitalizations and higher average number of hospital days resulting from infectious complications in the first 6 months after transplantation appeared to offset any savings seen with the initial transplantation stay.

Majhail et al compared costs of the first 100 days between matched related donor (MRD) transplantation and umbilical cord blood (UCB) transplantation in adults.35  They reported that the highest median costs per day survived are for myeloablative UCB at $2082, followed by $1156 for nonmyeloablative UCB recipients, $1016 for myeloablative MRD, and $612 for nonmyeloablative MRD (P < .001). A subsequent analysis of 100-day costs in MRD, HLA-matched URD, and UCB transplants in a pediatric population showed equivalent costs in the UCB and HLA-matched URD group irrespective of whether costs of graft acquisition were considered but significantly lower costs in MRD.28 

Posttransplantation factors

Duration of hospitalization.

Inpatient hospital care has been shown to be the single most expensive category of healthcare expenditures.36  In the HCT cost studies performed thus far, length of stay has been found to be a good proxy for short-term costs with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.39 to 0.9.19–21,24  Bennett et al showed that most of the decrease in the cost of autologous transplant for lymphoid malignancies from 1987 to 1991 was the result of decrease in length of stay over time and not the result of changes in cost per day.29  A novel approach by the Swedish group to help cut down the inpatient costs was to provide aggressive home care for patients undergoing HCT during their pancytopenic phase. Interestingly, in their case-control study, they reported better 2-year survival rates (70% vs 57%; P < .03) and lower costs (RR = 0.37; P < .05) for the home care group versus controls treated in the hospital.37 

Transplantation complications.

Posttransplantation complications have been reported in multiple studies to be major cost drivers in both the autologous and allogeneic setting.21,32,35,38  In a multinational pilot study of a new oral mucositis scoring system, oral mucositis was found to be associated with worse clinical and economic outcomes.39  Whereas Majhail et al reported dialysis, graft failure, and mechanical ventilation as factors associated with higher costs,35  Lee et al found infection, veno-occlusive disease, acute GVHD, and death added between $15 300 and $28 100 each to allogeneic transplantation costs.21  Similar findings were reported by Esperou et al who reported an addition of 20 000 Euros because of occurrence of GVHD and infections.38  Svahn et al categorized the transplantation costs according to the initial transplantation period, first posttransplantation year and up to 5 years, and found that bacteremia and veno-occlusive disease continued to be significant predictors for higher costs in all 3 categories.31  These data confirm that prevention and better management of these complications can improve clinical outcomes as well as reduce the associated costs and resource use.

Do drugs contribute substantially to costs of HCT?

Despite the substantial costs of drug therapy in HCT patients, the literature in this area is very sparse. Pharmacy costs are included in most studies evaluating hospital costs for the first 100 days or 1 year after HCT, and they range from 8% to 39% of the total costs of HCT.19,40–42  Among the category of pharmacy charges, colony-stimulating factors and antibiotics appeared to be the major contributors in the study by Kline et al.19  These analyses need to be updated given the changes in HCT practice in the last decade with increasing use of peripheral blood as a stem cell source and emergence of newer immunosuppressive regimens and anti-infective agents. In addition, little is known about the economic burden imposed by long-term pharmacy costs. Although HCT is different from solid organ transplantation because immunosuppression is not necessarily lifelong, it is still relevant to assess ongoing costs for patients with chronic GVHD who may require prolonged immunosuppressive treatment.43 

In the area of supportive care in HCT patients, there are multiple studies looking at the economic consequences of antifungal agents for prevention and treatment of invasive fungal infections. A recent review evaluated the available pharmacoeconomic evidence for antifungal prophylaxis in patients with hematologic malignancies and reported that the newer antifungal agents may have a more favorable cost-effective profile than fluconazole, but because of wide heterogeneity in patient characteristics, underlying diseases, hospital settings, and the lack of “head-to-head” trials among the agents, definitive recommendations could not be made.44 

How do you integrate comparative effectiveness with cost considerations to chose between different treatment options?

There are 4 main types of economic evaluations that provide information intended to guide decision making on the basis of value for money: cost minimization, cost benefit, cost effectiveness, and cost utility. Cost minimization is commonly practiced in HCT whenever lower cost, equally effective treatment is chosen over more expensive treatments. For example, financial considerations have led the transplantation centers in developing countries to modify their transplantation procedures, resulting in lower costs without affecting outcomes adversely, thereby increasing the number of people who can be treated.45  Cost-benefit analysis is almost never used in HCT because it requires assignment of monetary costs to measure clinical benefits. Several cost-effectiveness analyses, which compare 2 or more interventions by assessing both the difference in average costs and the difference in clinical outcomes (eg, life-years gained, symptom-free days) have been reported in HCT. Cost utility analysis is a specific type of cost-effectiveness analysis where outcomes are adjusted to consider health-related quality of life, so that a cure without treatment sequelae is considered more valuable than a cure that results in permanent disability. Although there is considerable controversy about what threshold is appropriate to designate an intervention as “cost-effective,” in general, interventions that cost less than $50 000 per quality adjusted life-year gained relative to available alternatives are considered good value for the money.46 Table 2 gives some examples of cost-effectiveness and cost-utility studies of HCT versus non-HCT treatments for hematologic malignancies.

Table 2

Cost-effectiveness and costutility studies of HCT versus chemotherapy

Study/diseaseCategoryChemotherapy/no transplantHCTDifferenceIncremental cost-effectiveness ratioInterpretation
Dufoir et al42 /AML Costs 304 486 FF 424 696 FF 120 210 FF 122 421 FF/year Allo-HCT cost-effective in AML-CR1 
Survival 2.806 years 3.785 years 0.979 years 
Welch et al63 /AML Costs $136 000 USD $193 000 USD $57 000 USD $52 777 USD/year Allo-HCT cost-effective for acute nonlymphocytic leukemia 
Survival 2.24 years 3.32 years 1.08 years 
Barr et al40 /AML Costs $51 800 CAN $100 600 CAN $48 800 CAN $29 221 CAN/year Allo-HCT cost-effective for AML in CR2 
Survival 0.57 life-years 2.24 life-years 1.67 life-years 
Barr et al40 /ALL Costs $102 800 CAN $92 000 CAN $10 800 CAN  Cost savings with HCT for ALL in CR1 
Survival 3.32 life-years 3.69 life-years 0.37 life-years 
Lee et al18 /CML Costs $61 800 USD (IFN) $333 600 USD $271 800 USD (IFN) $51 771 USD/QALY (IFN), $55 449 USD/QALY (Hydrea) URD transplant is cost-effective for CML-CP compared with IFN or Hydrea 
$31 400 USD (Hydrea) $302 200 USD (Hydrea) 
Survival 4.7 QALY (IFN)/4.5 QALY (Hydrea) 9.95 QALY 5.25 QALY (IFN) 
5.45 QALY (Hydrea) 
Costa et al64 /acute leukemia Costs $20 702 USD (no transplant) $69 830 USD (URD BM/PBSC) $49 693 USD (URD BM/PBSC) $16 346 USD/life-year (URD BM/PBSC) Both URD BM/PBSC and cords are cost-effective compared with no transplants 
$92 330 USD (cord) $72 157 USD (cord) 
Survival 0.75 life-years (no transplant)  3.04 life-years (BM/PBSC) $34 360 USD/life-year (cord) 
2.10 life-years (cord) 
Skrepnek et al65 /CML-CP (Ph+): 2-y cost-efficacy Costs $78 000 USD (imatinib) $114 000 USD(MUD BMT) $36 000 USD  MUD BMT is more costly and less efficacious than imatinib for CML during the first 2 y 
Survival 0.91 (imatinib) 0.44 (MUD BMT) −0.47 
Breitscheidel66 /CML-CP Costs €196 836 (imatinib) €133 403 (MUD HCT) €63 433 €77 410/QALY MUD HCT is less costly and less effective than imatinib over a 5-year time horizon 
Survival 4.17 QALY 3.35 QALY 0.82 QALY 
Kouroukis et al67 /multiple myeloma Costs $1803 CAN (melphalan/prednisone) $32 320 CAN (autologous HCT) $30 517 CAN $18 974 CAN Autologous HCT cost-effective in patients < 65 years old with myeloma 
Survival 2.85 life-years 4.46 life-years 1.61 life-years 
Messori et al68 /acute leukemia relapse Costs $60 000 USD (chemotherapy) $150 000 USD (2nd HCT) $90 000 USD $52 215 USD/ life-year 2nd HCT cost-effective for posttransplant relapse of acute leukemia 
Survival 0.6 life-years 2.2 life-years 1.6 life-years 
Study/diseaseCategoryChemotherapy/no transplantHCTDifferenceIncremental cost-effectiveness ratioInterpretation
Dufoir et al42 /AML Costs 304 486 FF 424 696 FF 120 210 FF 122 421 FF/year Allo-HCT cost-effective in AML-CR1 
Survival 2.806 years 3.785 years 0.979 years 
Welch et al63 /AML Costs $136 000 USD $193 000 USD $57 000 USD $52 777 USD/year Allo-HCT cost-effective for acute nonlymphocytic leukemia 
Survival 2.24 years 3.32 years 1.08 years 
Barr et al40 /AML Costs $51 800 CAN $100 600 CAN $48 800 CAN $29 221 CAN/year Allo-HCT cost-effective for AML in CR2 
Survival 0.57 life-years 2.24 life-years 1.67 life-years 
Barr et al40 /ALL Costs $102 800 CAN $92 000 CAN $10 800 CAN  Cost savings with HCT for ALL in CR1 
Survival 3.32 life-years 3.69 life-years 0.37 life-years 
Lee et al18 /CML Costs $61 800 USD (IFN) $333 600 USD $271 800 USD (IFN) $51 771 USD/QALY (IFN), $55 449 USD/QALY (Hydrea) URD transplant is cost-effective for CML-CP compared with IFN or Hydrea 
$31 400 USD (Hydrea) $302 200 USD (Hydrea) 
Survival 4.7 QALY (IFN)/4.5 QALY (Hydrea) 9.95 QALY 5.25 QALY (IFN) 
5.45 QALY (Hydrea) 
Costa et al64 /acute leukemia Costs $20 702 USD (no transplant) $69 830 USD (URD BM/PBSC) $49 693 USD (URD BM/PBSC) $16 346 USD/life-year (URD BM/PBSC) Both URD BM/PBSC and cords are cost-effective compared with no transplants 
$92 330 USD (cord) $72 157 USD (cord) 
Survival 0.75 life-years (no transplant)  3.04 life-years (BM/PBSC) $34 360 USD/life-year (cord) 
2.10 life-years (cord) 
Skrepnek et al65 /CML-CP (Ph+): 2-y cost-efficacy Costs $78 000 USD (imatinib) $114 000 USD(MUD BMT) $36 000 USD  MUD BMT is more costly and less efficacious than imatinib for CML during the first 2 y 
Survival 0.91 (imatinib) 0.44 (MUD BMT) −0.47 
Breitscheidel66 /CML-CP Costs €196 836 (imatinib) €133 403 (MUD HCT) €63 433 €77 410/QALY MUD HCT is less costly and less effective than imatinib over a 5-year time horizon 
Survival 4.17 QALY 3.35 QALY 0.82 QALY 
Kouroukis et al67 /multiple myeloma Costs $1803 CAN (melphalan/prednisone) $32 320 CAN (autologous HCT) $30 517 CAN $18 974 CAN Autologous HCT cost-effective in patients < 65 years old with myeloma 
Survival 2.85 life-years 4.46 life-years 1.61 life-years 
Messori et al68 /acute leukemia relapse Costs $60 000 USD (chemotherapy) $150 000 USD (2nd HCT) $90 000 USD $52 215 USD/ life-year 2nd HCT cost-effective for posttransplant relapse of acute leukemia 
Survival 0.6 life-years 2.2 life-years 1.6 life-years 

FF indicates French franc; USD, United States dollars; CAN, Canadian; AML, acute myeloid leukemia; ALL, acute lymphocytic leukemia; CML, chronic myeloid leukemia; CR, clinical remission; CML-CP (Ph+), chronic myeloid leukemia-chronic phase (Ph+); MUD, matched unrelated donor; QALY, quality-adjusted life-years; and MUD SCT, matched unrelated donor stem cell transplant.

The literature about whether HCT has a favorable economic profile in chronic myeloid leukemia with the advent of tyrosine kinase inhibitors is conflicting. Most investigators comment that the results of these studies are sensitive to the pricing of imatinib. More broadly, Gratwohl et al have analyzed the impact of cost consideration for HCT for chronic myeloid leukemia in Europe.47  They estimated the median ratio between 1 year of tyrosine kinase inhibitors and allogeneic HCT at 2.0 (range, 0.9-5.9). These considerations are even more important in developing countries, where lifelong treatment with an expensive drug may consume more resources than a “once only” HCT procedure. Investigators from Mexico found a nonmyeloablative allograft with a median cost of USD $18 000 in their practice, a more attractive option for patients with newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia because that amount would be enough to cover only 180 days of treatment with imatinib 400 mg/day.48 

What are important areas for more research in the economic issues in HCT?

Longer-term costs.

As the survival after HCT improves, it is vital to look at the cost burden of posttransplantation complications and downstream effects because survivorship costs are anticipated to contribute the largest increase in cancer care costs projected by 2020.4 

Patient financial burden.

A better understanding of the financial burden and inter-related factors, such as return to work/insurance coverage for the survivor population, can improve counseling before transplantation so that patients can plan for the future. HCT survivors, especially those with chronic GVHD who require long-term medications and use of multiple services to maintain optimal health, may be especially vulnerable to increasing out-of-pocket medical expenses.49,50  Cancer is a risk factor for personal bankruptcy,51  and little attention has been paid to the physician's responsibility to explain the financial risks of HCT.

Evolving transplantation technologies.

Reduced-intensity conditioning has been increasingly used in the last decade, mainly for patients 50 years and older or those with significant comorbidities. Comorbidities have been shown to be a predictor of resource use and cost of care in primary care and cancer studies, but no studies have been performed in HCT to validate this observation.52,53 

Relapse.

Another area that would benefit from economic evaluation is prevention and management of posttransplantation relapse because relapse is the leading cause of death after HCT. Efforts to prevent relapse with maintenance treatment (eg, bortezomib and lenalidomide in myeloma, hypomethylating agents for acute myeloid leukemia/myelodysplastic syndrome, or tyrosine kinase inhibitors in Philadelphia+ malignancies) may have far-reaching clinical and economic consequences if routinely applied.47,54 

Is there enough information about costs to factor them into individual or societal medical decision making?

Although there is an expanding knowledge base about the costs and cost-effectiveness of HCT, there is not yet sufficient information to integrate cost considerations into personal or societal decision making in a meaningful way. We think that this situation is not unique to HCT but reflects the challenges in conducting and interpreting these studies (Table 3), and the nation's reluctance thus far to be transparent about whether costs are a legitimate consideration in the practice of medicine. We can begin to provide the basis for a dialogue about costs if we encourage authors to include information about the estimated costs of the interventions in their publications, so that readers can have the efficacy, toxicity, and cost data available in the same report. Such analyses can also provide information about areas where costs could be decreased without compromising efficacy.

Table 3

Challenges in designing and interpreting cost studies

Methodologic: study design/data collection elements 
    Difficult to capture all societal costs 
    For studies with patient perspective: out-of pocket costs may vary based on insurance schemes and income levels 
    Heterogeneity between accounting methods and cost estimation among different institutions or even the same institution over time 
    Difficulty accounting for costs outside the hospital system, especially for long-term survivors resulting from fragmentation of care, unless using claims-based system 
    Estimation of costs related only to the transplant process in patients with multiple comorbidities that need medical management 
Analysis and interpretative elements 
    Costs in the context of clinical trials may be inflated because of trial-specific requirements 
    Modeling-based methods for cost-effectiveness analysis rely on assumptions that may not reflect real-world decisions 
    Complexity of medical science and rapid pace of therapeutic innovation makes constant reevaluation of benefits and costs essential 
    Cost-effectiveness thresholds vary over time and from country to country 
Methodologic: study design/data collection elements 
    Difficult to capture all societal costs 
    For studies with patient perspective: out-of pocket costs may vary based on insurance schemes and income levels 
    Heterogeneity between accounting methods and cost estimation among different institutions or even the same institution over time 
    Difficulty accounting for costs outside the hospital system, especially for long-term survivors resulting from fragmentation of care, unless using claims-based system 
    Estimation of costs related only to the transplant process in patients with multiple comorbidities that need medical management 
Analysis and interpretative elements 
    Costs in the context of clinical trials may be inflated because of trial-specific requirements 
    Modeling-based methods for cost-effectiveness analysis rely on assumptions that may not reflect real-world decisions 
    Complexity of medical science and rapid pace of therapeutic innovation makes constant reevaluation of benefits and costs essential 
    Cost-effectiveness thresholds vary over time and from country to country 

Discussion

Our review shows that cost studies in HCT have been heterogeneous in terms of study populations, diagnoses, perspectives of the analyses, time horizons, and study methods, as has been reported by prior reviews of literature in this area.55,56  Most studies have focused on the early costs after transplantation until 100 days or 1 year; cost studies beyond 1 year are rare. Investigators have shown that, similar to the clinical outcomes, the costs of procedures are influenced by patient- and disease-related factors, transplantation-related factors, and external factors. This review also identifies areas for more research, as it is clear that the contribution of economic analysis to HCT should continue to evolve with advances in therapeutics to ensure high quality but low cost care.

Sullivan et al recently identified the key cost drivers and possible solutions to the growing economic burden of cancer that called on all major stakeholders to work together to rein in spending.57  Smith and Hillner have proposed 10 provocative solutions to address the problem of unsustainable trends in cost of cancer care.58  They acknowledge the challenges in trying to change behaviors, attitudes, and practices but also point out that there is no other alternative because the growth of healthcare expenditures is unsustainable. The federal solution to rising costs may include more stringent eligibility criteria, greater cost sharing, or changes in the provider payment (eg, bundled payment system),59  which may not be liked by physicians, patients, and society in general. The Oregon health plan was considered as an embodiment of rationing healthcare when it initially refused to cover HCT and other expensive treatments based on criteria of quality of life, cost-effectiveness, and so on. However, 7 years later, the coverage list was revised to include specific diagnosis-treatment pairs where the treatment had been proven to prevent death and lead to full recovery (including expensive therapies as long as they were clinically effective).60  More recently, in 2011, Arizona Medicaid decided to stop covering certain transplants, including URD HCT, although the funding was restored later.

The balance between advocating for one's patient and considering the good of society often seems precarious, and cost information may accentuate this tension. The availability of high-quality comparative effectiveness and cost studies is vital to help ensure evidence based practice while systematically containing healthcare expenses. It is also very important to update these studies as new scientific data become available with time. Coverage with evidence development as proposed by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid services is one of the novel approaches to help collect enough data about efficacy of a treatment before making final coverage decisions while continuing to provide the service to those who need it. This can avoid the debacle that occurred with autologous transplants for metastatic breast cancer. Because of political and legal pressures, the health plans were forced to cover the procedure, which led to $3.4 billion in costs paid by the insurers that was eventually passed on to taxpayers and subscribers. Research was also impeded because 9 of 10 patients opted to receive their transplants outside of clinical trials.61  The upcoming Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network randomized study comparing the clinical outcomes of cord blood versus haploidentical transplants will hopefully have an economic evaluation. Collection and use of this economic information are a testament to the fact that we are beginning to realize our fiscal responsibilities in patient care and to broaden the types of information we will consider in deciding which treatment is best. Integrating the goal of patient welfare with commitment to cost-effective care can help lower healthcare spending without having adverse effects on the health of our patients.

Acknowledgments

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States government.

Authorship

Contribution: N.K. designed the review, conducted the literature search, and wrote the manuscript; S.B.Z. offered critical review of the paper and contributed to analysis; S.J.L. designed the review, contributed to the analysis, and offered critical review; and all authors approved the final manuscript.

Conflict-of-interest disclosure: The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Correspondence: Nandita Khera, 5777 E Mayo Blvd, C-211, Phoenix, AZ 85054; e-mail: khera.nandita@mayo.edu.

References

1
Pasquini
 
MC.
Wang
 
Z
Current Use and Outcome of Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: CIBMTR Summary Slides, 2010
Accessed January 29, 2012 
Available at: http://www.cibmtr.org
2
Stranges
 
ETR
Russo
 
CA
Friedman
 
B
Procedures With the Most Rapidly Increasing Hospital Costs, 2004-2007 [HCUP Statistical Brief 82]
2009
Rockville, MD
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
3
Drummond
 
MF
Jefferson
 
TO
Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ: the BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party.
BMJ
1996
, vol. 
313
 
7052
(pg. 
275
-
283
)
4
Mariotto
 
AB
Yabroff
 
KR
Shao
 
Y
Feuer
 
EJ
Brown
 
ML
Projections of the cost of cancer care in the United States: 2010-2020.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2011
, vol. 
103
 
2
(pg. 
117
-
128
)
5
Redaelli
 
A
Botteman
 
MF
Stephens
 
JM
Brandt
 
S
Pashos
 
CL
Economic burden of acute myeloid leukemia: a literature review.
Cancer Treat Rev
2004
, vol. 
30
 
3
(pg. 
237
-
247
)
6
van Agthoven
 
M
Kramer
 
MH
Sonneveld
 
P
, et al. 
Cost analysis of common treatment options for indolent follicular non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Haematologica
2005
, vol. 
90
 
10
(pg. 
1422
-
1432
)
7
Khera
 
N
Chow
 
EJ
Leisenring
 
WM
, et al. 
Factors associated with adherence to preventive care practices among hematopoietic cell transplantation survivors.
Biol Blood Marrow Transplant
2011
, vol. 
17
 
7
(pg. 
995
-
1003
)
8
Weaver
 
KE
Rowland
 
JH
Bellizzi
 
KM
Aziz
 
NM
Forgoing medical care because of cost: assessing disparities in healthcare access among cancer survivors living in the United States.
Cancer
2010
, vol. 
116
 
14
(pg. 
3493
-
3504
)
9
Leelahavarong
 
P
Chaikledkaew
 
U
Hongeng
 
S
Kasemsup
 
V
Lubell
 
Y
Teerawattananon
 
Y
A cost-utility and budget impact analysis of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for severe thalassemic patients in Thailand.
BMC Health Serv Res
2010
, vol. 
10
 pg. 
209
 
10
Woolhandler
 
S
Himmelstein
 
DU
Labar
 
B
Lang
 
S
Transplanted technology: Third World options and First World science.
N Engl J Med
1987
, vol. 
317
 
8
(pg. 
504
-
506
)
11
Pidala
 
J
Lee
 
SJ
Majhail
 
N
Quinn
 
G
Anasetti
 
C
Practice variation in physician referral for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation [published online ahead of print June 18, 2012].
Bone Marrow Transplant
 
12
Overview of BLS statistics on inflation and prices
Accessed January 29, 2012 
13
Historical exchange rates
Accessed January 29, 2012 
14
Kaplan
 
RS
Anderson
 
SR
Time-driven activity-based costing.
Harvard Business Rev
2004
, vol. 
82
 
11
(pg. 
131
-
138
)
15
Kaplan
 
RS
Porter
 
ME
How to solve the cost crisis in health care.
Harvard Business Rev
2011
, vol. 
89
 
9
(pg. 
46
-
52
)
16
Gold
 
MR SJ
Russell
 
LB
Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine
1996
New York, NY
Oxford University Press
17
de Lissovoy
 
G
Hurd
 
D
Carter
 
S
, et al. 
Economic analysis of unrelated allogeneic bone marrow transplantation: results from the randomized clinical trial of T-cell depletion vs unmanipulated grafts for the prevention of graft-versus-host disease.
Bone Marrow Transplant
2005
, vol. 
36
 
6
(pg. 
539
-
546
)
18
Lee
 
SJ
Anasetti
 
C
Kuntz
 
KM
Patten
 
J
Antin
 
JH
Weeks
 
JC
The costs and cost-effectiveness of unrelated donor bone marrow transplantation for chronic phase chronic myelogenous leukemia.
Blood
1998
, vol. 
92
 
11
(pg. 
4047
-
4052
)
19
Kline
 
RM
Meiman
 
S
Tarantino
 
MD
Herzig
 
RH
Bertolone
 
SJ
A detailed analysis of charges for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation at a children's hospital.
Bone Marrow Transplant
1998
, vol. 
21
 
2
(pg. 
195
-
203
)
20
Lee
 
SJ
Zahrieh
 
D
Alyea
 
EP
, et al. 
Comparison of T-cell-depleted and non-T-cell-depleted unrelated donor transplantation for hematologic diseases: clinical outcomes, quality of life, and costs.
Blood
2002
, vol. 
100
 
8
(pg. 
2697
-
2702
)
21
Lee
 
SJ
Klar
 
N
Weeks
 
JC
Antin
 
JH
Predicting costs of stem-cell transplantation.
J Clin Oncol
2000
, vol. 
18
 
1
(pg. 
64
-
71
)
22
Lin
 
YF
Lairson
 
DR
Chan
 
W
, et al. 
The costs and cost-effectiveness of allogeneic peripheral blood stem cell transplantation versus bone marrow transplantation in pediatric patients with acute leukemia.
Biol Blood Marrow Transplant
2010
, vol. 
16
 
9
(pg. 
1272
-
1281
)
23
Saito
 
AM
Cutler
 
C
Zahrieh
 
D
, et al. 
Costs of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation with high-dose regimens.
Biol Blood Marrow Transplant
2008
, vol. 
14
 
2
(pg. 
197
-
207
)
24
Saito
 
AM
Zahrieh
 
D
Cutler
 
C
, et al. 
Lower costs associated with hematopoietic cell transplantation using reduced intensity vs high-dose regimens for hematological malignancy.
Bone Marrow Transplant
2007
, vol. 
40
 
3
(pg. 
209
-
217
)
25
Rizzo
 
JD
Vogelsang
 
GB
Krumm
 
S
Frink
 
B
Mock
 
V
Bass
 
EB
Outpatient-based bone marrow transplantation for hematologic malignancies: cost saving or cost shifting?
J Clin Oncol
1999
, vol. 
17
 
9
(pg. 
2811
-
2818
)
26
Frey
 
P
Stinson
 
T
Siston
 
A
, et al. 
Lack of caregivers limits use of outpatient hematopoietic stem cell transplant program.
Bone Marrow Transplant
2002
, vol. 
30
 
11
(pg. 
741
-
748
)
27
Griffiths
 
RI
Bass
 
EB
Powe
 
NR
Anderson
 
GF
Goodman
 
S
Wingard
 
JR
Factors influencing third party payer costs for allogeneic BMT.
Bone Marrow Transplant
1993
, vol. 
12
 
1
(pg. 
43
-
48
)
28
Majhail
 
NS
Mothukuri
 
JM
Macmillan
 
ML
, et al. 
Costs of pediatric allogeneic hematopoietic-cell transplantation.
Pediatric Blood Cancer
2010
, vol. 
54
 
1
(pg. 
138
-
143
)
29
Bennett
 
CL
Armitage
 
JL
Armitage
 
GO
, et al. 
Costs of care and outcomes for high-dose therapy and autologous transplantation for lymphoid malignancies: results from the University of Nebraska 1987 through 1991.
J Clin Oncol
1995
, vol. 
13
 
4
(pg. 
969
-
973
)
30
Svahn
 
BM
Ringden
 
O
Remberger
 
M
Treatment costs and survival in patients with grades III-IV acute graft-versus-host disease after allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation during three decades.
Transplantation
2006
, vol. 
81
 
11
(pg. 
1600
-
1603
)
31
Svahn
 
BM
Alvin
 
O
Ringden
 
O
Gardulf
 
A
Remberger
 
M
Costs of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.
Transplantation
2006
, vol. 
82
 
2
(pg. 
147
-
153
)
32
Cordonnier
 
C
Maury
 
S
Esperou
 
H
, et al. 
Do minitransplants have minicosts? A cost comparison between myeloablative and nonmyeloablative allogeneic stem cell transplant in patients with acute myeloid leukemia.
Bone Marrow Transplant
2005
, vol. 
36
 
7
(pg. 
649
-
654
)
33
Smith
 
TJ
Hillner
 
BE
Schmitz
 
N
, et al. 
Economic analysis of a randomized clinical trial to compare filgrastim-mobilized peripheral-blood progenitor-cell transplantation and autologous bone marrow transplantation in patients with Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
J Clin Oncol
1997
, vol. 
15
 
1
(pg. 
5
-
10
)
34
Couban
 
S
Dranitsaris
 
G
Andreou
 
P
, et al. 
Clinical and economic analysis of allogeneic peripheral blood progenitor cell transplants: a Canadian perspective.
Bone Marrow Transplant
1998
, vol. 
22
 
12
(pg. 
1199
-
1205
)
35
Majhail
 
NS
Mothukuri
 
JM
Brunstein
 
CG
Weisdorf
 
DJ
Costs of hematopoietic cell transplantation: comparison of umbilical cord blood and matched related donor transplantation and the impact of posttransplant complications.
Biol Blood Marrow Transplant
2009
, vol. 
15
 
5
(pg. 
564
-
573
)
36
Hartman
 
MMA
McDonnell
 
P
Catlin
 
A
National health spending in 2007: slower drug spending contributes to lowest rate of overall growth since 1998.
Health Affairs
2009
, vol. 
28
 
1
(pg. 
246
-
261
)
37
Svahn
 
BM
Remberger
 
M
Myrback
 
KE
, et al. 
Home care during the pancytopenic phase after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation is advantageous compared with hospital care.
Blood
2002
, vol. 
100
 
13
(pg. 
4317
-
4324
)
38
Espérou
 
H
Brunot
 
A
Roudot-Thoraval
 
F
, et al. 
Predicting the costs of allogeneic sibling stem-cell transplantation: results from a prospective, multicenter, French study.
Transplantation
2004
, vol. 
77
 
12
(pg. 
1854
-
1858
)
39
Sonis
 
ST
Oster
 
G
Fuchs
 
H
, et al. 
Oral mucositis and the clinical and economic outcomes of hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation.
J Clin Oncol
2001
, vol. 
19
 
8
(pg. 
2201
-
2205
)
40
Barr
 
R
Furlong
 
W
Henwood
 
J
, et al. 
Economic evaluation of allogeneic bone marrow transplantation: a rudimentary model to generate estimates for the timely formulation of clinical policy.
J Clin Oncol
1996
, vol. 
14
 
5
(pg. 
1413
-
1420
)
41
Bennett
 
C
Waters
 
T
Stinson
 
T
, et al. 
Valuing clinical strategies early in development: a cost analysis of allogeneic peripheral blood stem cell transplantation.
Bone Marrow Transplant
1999
, vol. 
24
 
5
(pg. 
555
-
560
)
42
Dufoir
 
T
Saux
 
MC
Terraza
 
B
, et al. 
Comparative cost of allogeneic or autologous bone marrow transplantation and chemotherapy in patients with acute myeloid leukaemia in first remission.
Bone Marrow Transplant
1992
, vol. 
10
 
4
(pg. 
323
-
329
)
43
Stewart
 
BL
Storer
 
B
Storek
 
J
, et al. 
Duration of immunosuppressive treatment for chronic graft-versus-host disease.
Blood
2004
, vol. 
104
 
12
(pg. 
3501
-
3506
)
44
Pechlivanoglou
 
P
De Vries
 
R
Daenen
 
SM
Postma
 
MJ
Cost benefit and cost effectiveness of antifungal prophylaxis in immunocompromised patients treated for haematological malignancies: reviewing the available evidence.
Pharmacoeconomics
2011
, vol. 
29
 
9
(pg. 
737
-
751
)
45
Ruiz-Delgado
 
GJ
Ruiz-Arqüelles
 
G
The Mexican way to cope with stem cell grafting.
Hematology
2012
, vol. 
17
 
Suppl 1
(pg. 
S195
-
S197
)
46
Laupacis
 
A
Feeny
 
D
Detsky
 
AS
Tugwell
 
PX
How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations.
CMAJ
1992
, vol. 
146
 
4
(pg. 
473
-
481
)
47
Gratwohl
 
A
Baldomero
 
H
Schwendener
 
A
Gratwohl
 
M
Urbano-Ispizua
 
A
Frauendorfer
 
K
Hematopoietic stem cell transplants for chronic myeloid leukemia in Europe: impact of cost considerations.
Leukemia
2007
, vol. 
21
 
3
(pg. 
383
-
386
)
48
Ruiz-Argüelles
 
GJ
Tarin-Arzaga
 
LC
Gonzalez-Carrillo
 
ML
, et al. 
Therapeutic choices in patients with Ph-positive CML living in Mexico in the tyrosine kinase inhibitor era: SCT or TKIs?
Bone Marrow Transplant
2008
, vol. 
42
 
1
(pg. 
23
-
28
)
49
Hwang
 
W
Weller
 
W
Ireys
 
H
Anderson
 
G
Out-of-pocket medical spending for care of chronic conditions.
Health Aff (Millwood)
2001
, vol. 
20
 
6
(pg. 
267
-
278
)
50
Solomon
 
MD
Goldman
 
DP
Joyce
 
GF
Escarce
 
JJ
Cost sharing and the initiation of drug therapy for the chronically ill.
Arch Intern Med
2009
, vol. 
169
 
8
(pg. 
740
-
748
discussion 748-749
51
Ramsey
 
SD
Snell
 
KS
Kirchhoff
 
AC
Hollingworth
 
W
Blough
 
DK
Cancer diagnosis as a risk factor for personal bankruptcy [abstract].
J Clin Oncol
2011
, vol. 
29
 
Suppl
 
Abstract 6007
52
Charlson
 
ME
Charlson
 
RE
Peterson
 
JC
Marinopoulos
 
SS
Briggs
 
WM
Hollenberg
 
JP
The Charlson Comorbidity Index is adapted to predict costs of chronic disease in primary care patients.
J Clin Epidemiol
2008
, vol. 
61
 
12
(pg. 
1234
-
1240
)
53
Hollenbeak
 
CS
Stack
 
BC
Daley
 
SM
Piccirillo
 
JF
Using comorbidity indexes to predict costs for head and neck cancer.
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg
2007
, vol. 
133
 
1
(pg. 
24
-
27
)
54
Gajewski
 
JL
Robinson
 
P
Do affluent societies have the only options for the best therapy?
Leukemia
2007
, vol. 
21
 
3
(pg. 
387
-
388
)
55
Preussler
 
J
Denzen
 
EM
Majhail
 
NS
Costs and cost-effectiveness of hematopoietic cell transplantation [published online ahead of print April 3, 2012].
Biol Blood Marrow Transplant
 
56
Waters
 
TM
Bennett
 
CL
Pajeau
 
TS
, et al. 
Economic analyses of bone marrow and blood stem cell transplantation for leukemias and lymphoma: what do we know?
Bone Marrow Transplant
1998
, vol. 
21
 
7
(pg. 
641
-
650
)
57
Sullivan
 
R
Peppercorn
 
J
Sikora
 
K
, et al. 
Delivering affordable cancer care in high-income countries.
Lancet Oncol
2011
, vol. 
12
 
10
(pg. 
933
-
980
)
58
Smith
 
TJ
Hillner
 
BE
Bending the cost curve in cancer care.
N Engl J Med
2011
, vol. 
364
 
21
(pg. 
2060
-
2065
)
59
Miller
 
DC
Gust
 
C
Dimick
 
JB
Birkmeyer
 
N
Skinner
 
J
Birkmeyer
 
JD
Large variations in Medicare payments for surgery highlight savings potential from bundled payment programs.
Health Affairs
2011
, vol. 
30
 
11
(pg. 
2107
-
2115
)
60
Bodenheimer
 
T
The Oregon Health Plan: lessons for the nation. First of two parts.
N Engl J Med
1997
, vol. 
337
 
9
(pg. 
651
-
655
)
61
Mello
 
MM
Brennan
 
TA
The controversy over high-dose chemotherapy with autologous bone marrow transplant for breast cancer.
Health Affairs
2001
, vol. 
20
 
5
(pg. 
101
-
117
)
62
van Agthoven
 
M
Groot
 
MT
Verdonck
 
LF
, et al. 
Cost analysis of HLA-identical sibling and voluntary unrelated allogeneic bone marrow and peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in adults with acute myelocytic leukaemia or acute lymphoblastic leukaemia.
Bone Marrow Transplant
2002
, vol. 
30
 
4
(pg. 
243
-
251
)
63
Welch
 
HG
Larson
 
EB
Cost effectiveness of bone marrow transplantation in acute nonlymphocytic leukemia.
N Engl J Med
1989
, vol. 
321
 
12
(pg. 
807
-
812
)
64
Costa
 
V
McGregor
 
M
Laneuville
 
P
Brophy
 
JM
The cost-effectiveness of stem cell transplantations from unrelated donors in adult patients with acute leukemia.
Value Health
2007
, vol. 
10
 
4
(pg. 
247
-
255
)
65
Skrepnek
 
GH
Ballard
 
EE
Cost-efficacy of imatinib versus allogeneic bone marrow transplantation with a matched unrelated donor in the treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia: a decision-analytic approach.
Pharmacotherapy
2005
, vol. 
25
 
3
(pg. 
325
-
334
)
66
Breitscheidel
 
L
Cost utility of allogeneic stem cell transplantation with matched unrelated donor versus treatment with imatinib for adult patients with newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukaemia.
J Med Econ
2008
, vol. 
11
 
4
(pg. 
571
-
584
)
67
Kouroukis
 
CT
O'Brien
 
BJ
Benger
 
A
, et al. 
Cost-effectiveness of a transplantation strategy compared to melphalan and prednisone in younger patients with multiple myeloma.
Leuk Lymphoma
2003
, vol. 
44
 
1
(pg. 
29
-
37
)
68
Messori
 
A
Bosi
 
A
Bacci
 
S
, et al. 
Retrospective survival analysis and cost-effectiveness evaluation of second allogeneic bone marrow transplantation in patients with acute leukemia: Gruppo Italiano Trapianto di Midollo Osseo.
Bone Marrow Transplant
1999
, vol. 
23
 
5
(pg. 
489
-
495
)