0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Article |

The Economic Cost of Squamous Cell Cancer of the Head and Neck:  Findings From Linked SEER-Medicare Data FREE

Kathleen Lang, PhD; Joseph Menzin, PhD; Craig C. Earle, MD; Jerilynn Jacobson, MA; Ming-Ann Hsu, MPH
[+] Author Affiliations

Financial Disclosure: None.


Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;130(11):1269-1275. doi:10.1001/archotol.130.11.1269.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Objective  To evaluate the excess mortality, resource use, and costs associated with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) among elderly Medicare beneficiaries.

Design  Retrospective cohort analysis using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program of the National Cancer Institute and Medicare claims.

Subjects  Study cohorts included patients aged 65 years and older who were newly diagnosed as having SCCHN in a SEER registry between 1991 and 1993 (N = 4536) and controls matched 1:1 by age and sex. Patients were followed up for 5 years or until death, whichever occurred first.

Results  Initial treatment was primarily surgery and/or radiation among patients with early-stage SCCHN, with only modest use of chemotherapy. Patients with SCCHN had significantly (P<.001) higher 5-year mortality (64% vs 25%) and health care costs than controls. Average Medicare payments (1998 US dollars) among patients with SCCHN were $25 542 higher than those of matched comparison patients (P<.001), with monthly payments 3 times as high ($1428 vs $446). Patients diagnosed as having advanced SCCHN had shorter survival times (5-year mortality, 85%, 75%, 47%, and 35% among patients diagnosed as having distant, regional, local, and in situ cancer, respectively) and higher costs (average total Medicare payments, $53 741, $58 387, $42 698, and $37 434, respectively).

Conclusion  These results suggest that the health economic burden of SCCHN is substantial, with costs that are comparable with or higher than those of other solid tumors.

Figures in this Article

Squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN), including cancers of the oral cavity, the oropharynx, the hypopharynx, and the larynx, composes about 5% of all cancers in males and about 2% in females. It is associated with a poor prognosis, with the 5-year survival rate being less than 50%.16 This year, more than 50 000 new cases of SCCHN are expected to be diagnosed, and approximately 13 000 patients with SCCHN are expected to die.14 The average age at diagnosis is approximately 60 years.1

About 75% of cases of SCCHN are associated with heavy tobacco and/or alcohol use. Each factor alone accounts for a 2- to 3-fold increase in risk; jointly, they can increase risk to more than 15 times that experienced by individuals who neither smoke nor drink.1 Approximately half of all SCCHN cases diagnosed each year are curable by conventional treatments, such as surgery and radiotherapy.1 However, a substantial number of patients either present with advanced disease or have recurrences after primary therapy for localized cancer. Only a small percentage of these patients benefit from further treatments, given mainly to palliate symptoms,2,7 as they often lead to substantial toxicity and morbidity.1,7

Currently, there are limited population-based data describing treatment patterns and costs associated with SCCHN. Most studies of prognosis, treatment patterns, and costs to date have been based on individual cancers (eg, glottic cancer only),8 or small samples with selected patients from one or a few institutions, and follow-up also has been limited.921 To gain detailed insight into the clinical and health economic burden of SCCHN, we used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program cancer registries and Medicare claims data to (1) evaluate initial treatment practices for patients with SCCHN; (2) assess the excess mortality, resource use, and medical costs associated with SCCHN among elderly Medicare beneficiaries; and (3) explore the relationship between cancer stage at diagnosis and these outcomes. These data have been used previously to compare survival among US and Canadian patients with cancers of the upper aerodigestive tract,6 and to compare the treatment of patients with glottic cancer in the United States and Canada.8

DATA SOURCE

The analysis linked clinical data from the SEER Program of the National Cancer Institute and Medicare claims. The SEER-Medicare database is a collaborative effort of the National Cancer Institute, the SEER registries, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). SEER is an epidemiologic surveillance system consisting of 11 population-based tumor registries designed to track cancer incidence and survival in the United States. The registries routinely collect information on patients with newly diagnosed cancer in geographically defined areas that represent approximately 14% of the US population. The registries ascertain all newly diagnosed cancer cases from multiple reporting sources.22

The linked data include a SEER data file as well as Medicare claims covering the period from 1991 through 1998. The SEER file includes demographics (eg, age, sex, race, date of death); SEER diagnostic information for up to 10 different incident cancer cases for each person, including date of cancer diagnosis, cancer site/type (eg, oral cavity, pharynx), and cancer stage at diagnosis (ie, in situ, local, regional, distant, unstaged); and indicators for surgery and radiation in the 4 months after diagnosis. The Medicare claims files include enrollment data (eg, health maintenance organization [HMO] enrollment, months of Part A and/or Part B eligibility) and details on inpatient, outpatient, physician, home health, hospice, and skilled nursing facility utilization, including dates of service (for calculating length of hospitalization), type of service (eg, inpatient, skilled nursing facility, outpatient clinic, hospice, home health, or physician), International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) (sixth edition) diagnosis codes (up to 10), ICD-9-CM procedure codes (up to 10), diagnosis related group (1 in inpatient file), Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes (1 in outpatient and physician files), and Medicare payment amounts. Combining the SEER and Medicare data provided us with information on both the initial diagnosis and later cancer treatment, as well as the downstream medical care for patients with cancer.

COHORT SELECTION

Two mutually exclusive groups were selected for inclusion in the analysis and followed up for 5 years or until death, whichever occurred first: patients with a diagnosis consistent with SCCHN (SCCHN cohort) and those without any such diagnosis (comparison cohort).

SCCHN Cohort

All patients aged 65 years and older with a new diagnosis of SCCHN reported to a SEER registry between January 1991 and December 1993 (with no evidence of previous cancer) were selected for inclusion in the SCCHN cohort. The diagnosis of SCCHN included cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx (ie, lip, tongue, salivary gland, floor of mouth, gum, nasopharynx, tonsil, oropharynx, and hypopharynx) and cancers of the nasal cavity and larynx, as identified through the SEER site recode variable (values 1-10, 37, and 38). Patients enrolled in HMOs and those not eligible for Part A and Part B Medicare benefits at any time during the 5 years after diagnosis were excluded from the analyses because complete claims may not have been available for them. Because only the month and year of SCCHN diagnosis were available in the SEER data file, the index date was defined by means of the first day of the month of diagnosis (eg, a person diagnosed in January of 1991 was assigned an index date of January 1, 1991), so as not to miss any health care utilization claims surrounding diagnosis.

Comparison Cohort

For comparison purposes, an age- and sex-matched comparison cohort without cancer was selected from Medicare enrollment files by using a 5% sample of Medicare beneficiaries residing in SEER areas. From this pool, one patient of the same age and sex was randomly selected and matched to each patient with SCCHN and was assigned the same index date as the matched patient with SCCHN. Patients in the comparison cohort were not required to have used services to be selected for inclusion and could develop cancers other than SCCHN after their index date. However, as in the SCCHN group, patients enrolled in HMOs and those not eligible for Part A and Part B Medicare benefits during the study period were not eligible for inclusion in the comparison cohort.

STUDY MEASURES

For the SCCHN cohort only, the use of surgery and/or radiotherapy as initial treatment was identified on the basis of data from the SEER file supplemented by selected diagnosis related groups, ICD-9-CM diagnosis and procedure codes, and Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes in the Medicare claims data. Initial surgery and radiation treatment were defined during the first 4 months after diagnosis, consistent with the reporting period for the SEER data. In addition, the use of Medicare-covered chemotherapy was assessed during the initial period by means of diagnosis related groups, ICD-9-CM procedure codes, and Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes in the Medicare claims data. Treatments received beyond 4 months after diagnosis were not evaluated.

Differences in outcomes between the cohorts were considered attributable to SCCHN. Survival was evaluated from the index date during a period of 5 years in terms of the percentage of patients alive in each month after SCCHN diagnosis as well as the median number of months of survival. Health care resource use for all causes was evaluated in terms of the percentage of patients hospitalized and the percentages who received skilled nursing care, outpatient hospital or clinic care, hospice care, home health care, and physician or medical services during 5 years. Total hospital and skilled nursing facility days also were tabulated. Medicare payments were evaluated overall (calculated as the sum of payments for hospital, skilled nursing, home health, hospice, outpatient, and physician services) as well as by individual category of care. To account for differences in follow-up between cohorts, costs also were evaluated on a monthly basis. All payments were converted to 1998 dollars by means of the medical care component of the Consumer Price Index.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Initial treatment among patients with SCCHN was evaluated during the first 4 months of follow-up (eg, surgery, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy). Kaplan-Meier survival curves were generated for each cohort. To account for the matched design in comparisons between study cohorts, paired-sample statistical techniques were used to test the significance of differences in outcomes (ie, McNemar test for differences in 5-year mortality and the proportions using various services, and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test for differences in levels of resource use and Medicare payments, which were not normally distributed). Differences were analyzed overall, as well as stratified by year of follow-up, age, sex, race, region, metropolitan residence, comorbidity, and development of cancer subsequent to study entry. In addition, multivariate analyses based on analysis of variance techniques were undertaken to estimate the impact of potentially confounding influences on study outcomes. These included multiple linear regressions for continuous measures (eg, natural logarithms of hospital days, Medicare payments) and a logistic regression for survival. These models controlled for race, non–cancer-related comorbidity, development of other cancers subsequent to study entry, geographic region, metropolitan residence, and duration of follow-up. Comorbidity was defined during the entire study period by means of the Deyo et al23 adaptation of the Charlson comorbidity index, which involved creating 17 binary variables to indicate the presence of ICD-9-CM codes representing 17 comorbid conditions, and scoring those conditions to create a single comorbidity index. Comorbidities related to SCCHN (ie, malignancy, solid tumors, chronic pulmonary disease) were excluded from the index. Since findings did not differ on the basis of multivariate analyses, those results are not reported herein. Finally, study measures were analyzed by cancer stage (excluding unstaged patients) among patients within the SCCHN cohort to aid in understanding the drivers behind resource use and costs within the cohort.

PATIENT CHARACTERISTICS

From an initial sample of 6592 Medicare beneficiaries 65 years and older with a diagnosis of SCCHN between 1991 and 1993, approximately 30% of patients (n = 2056) were excluded. The reasons included enrollment in an HMO (n = 1463), missing diagnosis dates or claims details (n = 350), and lack of entitlement to Medicare benefits during the study period (n = 243). This left a total of 4536 Medicare beneficiaries 65 years and older with an initial diagnosis of SCCHN in a SEER registry between January 1, 1991, and December 31, 1993, for inclusion in the SCCHN cohort. An age- and sex-matched comparison cohort of 4536 Medicare enrollees also was selected randomly from among those residing in the SEER areas who had no evidence of cancer and who had the same HMO and eligibility status as their respective SCCHN matches.

Patients in the SCCHN cohort were evenly distributed by year of diagnosis. The majority of patients (66%) had cancer of the oral cavity and pharynx (ie, 19% mouth or gums, 13% tongue, 11% pharynx, 9% lip, 7% salivary gland, 5% tonsil, and 2% other), while 29% had cancer of the larynx and 5% had cancer of the nose or nasal cavity. With respect to disease stage, most patients were diagnosed as having local (37%) or regional (34%) cancer. Approximately 10% of patients were diagnosed as having distant cancer, 4% in situ cancer, and the remaining 16% unstaged cancer.

The average age among patients in both cohorts was 74 years, and 34% of patients in each cohort were female (Table 1), as these were the matching variables. The majority of patients were white and most resided in metropolitan counties, with a similar distribution by geographic region. Finally, the cohorts were similar with respect to major chronic conditions unrelated to SCCHN.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1 Demographic and Baseline Characteristics of Patients With SCCHN and Matched Control Patients Without SCCHN*
INITIAL TREATMENT PRACTICES FOR PATIENTS WITH SCCHN

Initial treatment (received in the first 4 months after SCCHN diagnosis) was primarily surgery and/or radiation among patients in the early stages of disease (Table 2). Medicare-covered chemotherapy was rarely used as part of initial treatment among early-stage patients and was used only modestly among patients with advanced disease, almost always in combination with radiotherapy.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2 Treatment Received in First 4 Months After Diagnosis Among Patients With SCCHN, by Cancer Stage
EXCESS MORTALITY AND HEALTH CARE RESOURCE USE AND COSTS

During 5 years, 64% of patients with SCCHN died, compared with 25% of controls (Figure 1). Median survival was 33 months among patients with SCCHN vs 60 months among the comparison group (P<.001), with mean ± SD survival of 34 ± 23 months among patients with SCCHN and 52 ± 16 months among controls.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Kaplan-Meier survival curves for patients diagnosed as having squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) in a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program registry and a matched comparison cohort (from SEER-Medicare data, 1991-1998).

Graphic Jump Location

Approximately 82% of patients with SCCHN were hospitalized during the 5-year follow-up period, compared with 55% of the comparison cohort (P<.001), for an average of 2.5 vs 1.4 hospitalizations, respectively (P<.001). The corresponding mean ± SD numbers of inpatient days were 24 ± 29 and 12 ± 27 days (P<.001). Approximately 22% of patients with SCCHN received care in a skilled nursing facility, compared with 13% of comparison patients (P<.001), for an average of 9 vs 5 days, respectively (P<.001). The levels of use of outpatient hospital and physician services also were higher in the SCCHN cohort. Finally, large differences in the use of home health and hospice care were detected, with approximately 48% of patients with SCCHN receiving home care and 14% receiving hospice care, compared with 26% and 3% among comparison patients (both P<.001).

Reflecting differences in resource use, mean and median Medicare expenditures in the SCCHN cohort averaged approximately $25 000 higher than those for the comparison group (mean ± SD, $48 847±$47 999 vs $23 305 ± $33 425; median, $36 482 vs $10 550; P<.001) (Table 3). This difference was driven primarily by the $13 821 difference in hospital payments ($25 711 ± $33 821 vs $11 890 ± $21 334; median, $15 851 vs $3352; P<.001). On a monthly basis, differences between cohorts also were large, with average Medicare payments of $1428 per month of follow-up among patients with SCCHN vs $446 per month of follow-up for the comparison group (P<.001). More than 85% of the total difference in payments between cohorts was incurred in the first year of follow-up (Figure 2). Even among patients who survived at least 5 years, 85% of the difference in costs was incurred in the first year, with cost differences leveling off by the fifth year.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3 Medicare Payments Among Patients With SCCHN and Matched Control Patients*
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Medicare payments among patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) and matched control patients, by year of follow-up (1998 US dollars). All patients were followed up for 5 years; patients who died during follow-up were assigned zero costs in the years after death (from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results [SEER] Program–Medicare data, 1991-1998).

Graphic Jump Location

In stratified analyses, differences in outcomes between the cohorts were similar on the basis of sex, race, geographic region, and residence in a metropolitan area, with patients with SCCHN consistently having lower survival and higher costs. Differences were somewhat narrower among the oldest patients ($21 313 vs $58 341 among the youngest patients) and those with the highest Charlson comorbidity index scores ($10 702 vs $51 659 among those with the lowest scores), reflecting higher mortality in general among older and sicker patients, regardless of whether they had SCCHN. Excluding patients who developed other cancers after study entry had no substantive impact on findings. Finally, within the SCCHN cohort, outcomes by cancer site were generally similar.

OUTCOMES BY CANCER STAGE WITHIN THE SCCHN COHORT

Patients diagnosed as having SCCHN in the advanced stages of disease had the highest 5-year mortality (85% among patients with distant cancer vs 75% among those with regional cancer, 47% among those with local cancer, and 35% among those with in situ cancer). Despite their shorter follow-up, resource use and costs were highest among patients with the most advanced disease. For example, patients with distant cancer spent an average of 30 days in the hospital compared with an average of 16 for those diagnosed as having in situ cancer. Similar differences were noted in the use of home health care (56% among patients with distant disease vs 37% among patients with in situ cancer) and hospice services (22% and 8%, respectively).

Reflecting these differences in resource utilization, there were substantial differences across disease stages in Medicare payments (Figure 3). Patients diagnosed as having regional and distant cancer had the highest average total Medicare expenditures during 5 years ($58 387 and $53 741, respectively), while those diagnosed as having in situ and localized cancer had the lowest expenditures ($37 434 and $42 698, respectively). Within each stage, patients with the highest comorbidity scores had costs that were more than 2 times those of patients with the lowest comorbidity scores. On an average monthly basis, thereby controlling for survival time, differences by stage were even more striking, with average monthly payments of $747 per month of follow-up among patients diagnosed as having in situ cancer, $968 for patients with localized cancer, $2059 for patients with regional cancer, and $2547 among patients with distant-staged cancer.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 3.

Medicare payments (1998 US dollars) among patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, by cancer stage. SNF indicates skilled nursing facility.

Graphic Jump Location

This study examined mortality and longitudinal Medicare cost data among a large population-based cohort of elderly patients with SCCHN. Our findings are similar to those from other studies of survival among patients with SCCHN,16 as well as results from studies of other cancers, which have indicated that health care costs among patients with cancer are dominated by hospitalization costs.2426 Our estimate of the annual excess cost attributable to SCCHN (approximately $12 000) ranks at the upper end of the range of excess cost estimates (in 1998 dollars) for other solid tumors, with lung and ovarian cancer having higher annual excess costs ($13 000-$14 000), and breast, prostate, colon, and rectum cancer having lower annual excess costs (ranging from $5000-$9600).25,26

Initial treatment among patients with SCCHN in our study was primarily surgery and/or radiation, with only modest use of chemotherapy. While there is inconclusive evidence that chemotherapy prolongs survival among patients with advanced SCCHN, its role may be expanding given some evidence of modest benefits when used in combination with radiation for localized disease.2729 Recent and ongoing clinical trials to assess the combined use of chemotherapy and other new targeted anticancer treatments will be of use in shaping a future role for chemotherapy for this disease.

It is interesting that the use of hospice care was relatively uncommon (14% of all patients with SCCHN), even among decedents in their last 6 months of life (22%), despite the fact that Medicare hospice program costs have more than doubled in the past decade.30 This level of hospice use is in the range observed in several other studies among terminal patients.3134

While a complete analysis of the excess burden of SCCHN to the Medicare program is beyond the scope of this study, we expect it to be substantial. During our period of analysis (1991 to 1993), approximately 1500 patients were diagnosed as having SCCHN in a SEER registry each year. Since SEER covers approximately 14% of cancer cases in the United States, we would expect approximately 10 000 elderly Medicare patients to be diagnosed as having SCCHN in the United States each year. On this basis, the expected excess burden to Medicare for incident cases of SCCHN in a given year followed for up to 5 years would be more than $250 million.

Our study is subject to several limitations. First, we relied on administrative claims data, which are not collected specifically for research purposes and have known limitations,35 to assess chemotherapy use and health care costs since these were unavailable in the SEER registry data. As a result, we were able to observe only Medicare-covered chemotherapy (ie, we could not observe oral medications). However, because most chemotherapy regimens for SCCHN are parenteral, we do not expect this to have greatly affected our results. In addition, SEER-Medicare files do not allow cancer outcomes, such as remission rates, disease-free survival, and quality of life, to be assessed. Furthermore, patients from SEER registries may not be representative of all US patients with SCCHN. While SEER data cover about 14% of all cancer cases, certain groups are underrepresented or overrepresented (eg, African Americans and other races, respectively).36,37 Nonetheless, the linked SEER-Medicare database has proved extremely useful for case selection and profiling oncology treatment patterns and survival for many different cancer types, including cancers of the lungs, ovaries, breast, prostate, colon, and rectum and acute myeloid leukemia.22,2426,32,3844 While both individual data sources have their limitations,22 together they have the enormous advantages of broad population-based coverage over multiple years and accessibility.

Costs were evaluated from a limited perspective (ie, single payer) and in a limited population (ie, patients 65 years and older who were Medicare-eligible and not in HMOs). Because our interest was in the elderly, most of whom are eligible for Medicare, we expect that the bulk of costs among elderly patients were captured in our analysis. Furthermore, the percentage of patients excluded because of HMO enrollment (20%) was consistent with HMO penetration in the United States (15%).45 Since the excluded patients were similar to the study population, their exclusion is not likely to have affected our results. Finally, it is possible that differences in outcomes between the cohorts were due at least partly to unobserved differences in socioeconomic status between study groups. However, because most comparison group patients (76%) were from the same ZIP code areas as patients with SCCHN, we believe it is unlikely that socioeconomic factors influenced outcomes.

This study suggests that the health economic burden of SCCHN to the Medicare program is substantial, with annual excess costs that are comparable with or higher than those of other solid tumors.

Correspondence: Joseph Menzin, PhD, Boston Health Economics Inc, 20 Fox Rd, Waltham, MA 02451 (jmenzin@bhei.com).

Submitted for Publication: February 4, 2004; final revision received April 29, 2004; accepted June 22, 2004.

Funding/Support: This study was supported by Pfizer Inc, Groton, Conn.

Disclaimer: The interpretation and reporting of these data are the sole responsibility of the authors.

Acknowledgment: We acknowledge the efforts of the Applied Research Program, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md; the Office of Research, Development, and Information, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Washington, DC; Information Management Services Inc, Silver Spring, Md; and the SEER Program tumor registries in the creation of the SEER-Medicare database. We also thank Rick deFriesse, MA, for his expert programming assistance and Talia Foster, MA, for her help with manuscript preparation.

National Cancer Institute Cancer Facts. Head and Neck Cancer: Questions and Answers. Available at: http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/6_37.htm. Accessed February 5, 2003
Correa  AJBurkey  BB Otolaryngology for the internist: current options in management of head and neck cancer patients. Med Clin North Am 1999;83235- 246
PubMed
Vokes  EEWeischselbaum  RRLippman  SMHong  WK Head and neck cancer. N Engl J Med 1993;328184- 193
PubMed
Arthur G James Cancer Hospital & Research Institute The James Line: Head and Neck Cancers.  Available at: http://www.jamesline.com/headandneck/. Accessed February 5, 2003
Jones  ASBeasley  NHoughton  DHusband  DJ The effects of age on survival and other parameters in squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity, pharynx and larynx. Clin Otolaryngol 1998;2351- 56
PubMed
Skarsgard  DPGroome  PAMackillop  WJ  et al.  Cancers of the upper aerodigestive tract in Ontario, Canada, and the United States. Cancer 2000;881728- 1735
PubMed
Clark  JRFallon  BGFrei  E Induction chemotherapy as initial treatment for advanced head and neck cancer: a model for the multidisciplinary treatment of solid tumors.  In: Devita  VT, Hellman  S, Rosenberg  SA, eds. Important Advances in Oncology. Philadelphia, Pa: JB Lippincott Co; 1987:175-195
Groome  PAO’Sullivan  BIrish  JC  et al.  Glottic cancer in Ontario, Canada and the SEER areas of the United States: do different management philosophies produce different outcome profiles? J Clin Epidemiol 2001;54301- 315
PubMed
Selke  BAllenet  BBercez  C  et al.  Economic assessments of head and neck cancers: a review. Bull Cancer 2001;88759- 764
PubMed
Soni  ASonnenberg  A Healthcare resource utilization in the management of oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2001;15945- 951
PubMed
Reid  BCWinn  DMMorse  DEPendrys  DG Head and neck in situ carcinoma: incidence, trends, and survival. Oral Oncol 2000;36414- 420
PubMed
León  XQuer  MOrus  CLopez-Pousa  APericay  CVega  M How much does it cost to preserve a larynx? an economic study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2000;25772- 76
PubMed
Goodwin  WJ  Jr Salvage surgery for patients with recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the upper aerodigestive tract: when do the ends justify the means? Laryngoscope 2000;1101- 18
PubMed
Sherman  EJRuchlin  HSHolden  JSPfister  DG Clinical economics of head and neck malignancies. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 1999;13867- 881
PubMed
Poulsen  MDenham  JSpry  N  et al.  Acute toxicity and cost analysis of a phase III randomized trial of accelerated and conventional radiotherapy for squamous carcinoma of the head and neck: a Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group study. Australas Radiol 1999;43487- 494
PubMed
Grégoire  VHamoir  MRosier  JF  et al.  Cost-minimization analysis of treatment options for T1N0 glottic squamous cell carcinoma: comparison between external radiotherapy, laser microsurgery and partial laryngectomy. Radiother Oncol 1999;531- 13
PubMed
Pfister  DGRuchlin  HSElkin  EB Economic considerations in the care of patients with head and neck malignancies. Curr Opin Oncol 1997;9241- 246
PubMed
Coyle  DDrummond  MFMedical Research Council CHART Steering Committee, Costs of conventional radical radiotherapy versus continuous hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy (CHART) in the treatment of patients with head and neck cancer or carcinoma of the bronchus. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 1997;9313- 321
PubMed
O’Sullivan  BMackillop  WGilbert  R  et al.  Controversies in the management of laryngeal cancer: results of an international survey of patterns of care. Radiother Oncol 1994;3123- 32
PubMed
Myers  ENWagner  RLJohnson  JT Microlaryngoscopic surgery for T1 glottic lesions: a cost-effective option. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1994;10328- 30
PubMed
Mittal  BRao  DVMarks  JEOgura  JH Comparative cost analysis of hemilaryngectomy and irradiation for early glottic carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1983;9407- 408
PubMed
Du  XFreeman  JLGoodwin  JS Information on radiation treatment in patients with breast cancer: the advantages of the linked Medicare and SEER data. J Clin Epidemiol 1999;52463- 470
PubMed
Deyo  RACherkin  DCCiol  MA Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol 1992;45613- 619
PubMed
Riley  GFPotosky  ALLubitz  JDKessler  LG Medicare payments from diagnosis to death for elderly cancer patients by stage at diagnosis. Med Care 1995;33828- 841
PubMed
Etzioni  RUrban  NBaker  M Estimating the costs attributable to a disease with application to ovarian cancer. J Clin Epidemiol 1996;4995- 103
PubMed
Fireman  BHQuesenberry  CPSomkin  CP  et al.  Cost of care for cancer in a health maintenance organization. Health Care Financ Rev 1997;1851- 76
PubMed
Bourhis  JPignon  JP Meta-analyses in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: what is the role of chemotherapy? Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 1999;13769- 775
PubMed
Suntharalingam  MHaas  MLVanEcho  DA  et al.  Predictors of response and survival after concurrent chemotherapy and radiation for locally advanced squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck. Cancer 2001;91548- 554
PubMed
Forastiere  AKoch  WTrotti  ASidransky  D Medical progress: head and neck cancer. N Engl J Med 2001;3451890- 1900
PubMed
US Department of Health and Human Services Health Care Financing Review, Medicare and Medicaid Statistical Supplement, 1998.  Washington, DC: Health Care Financing Administration, Office of Research and Demonstration; 1998
Addington-Hall  JAltmann  DMcCarthy  M Which terminally ill cancer patients receive hospice in-patient care? Soc Sci Med 1998;461011- 1016
PubMed
Menzin  JLang  KEarle  CCKerney  DMallick  R The outcomes and costs of acute myeloid leukemia among the elderly. Arch Intern Med 2002;1621597- 1603
PubMed
Virnig  BAKind  SMcBean  AMFisher  E Geographic variation in hospice use prior to death. J Am Geriatr Soc 2000;481117- 1125
PubMed
Virnig  BAMarshall McBean  AKind  SDholakia  R Hospice use before death: variability across cancer diagnoses. Med Care 2002;4073- 78
PubMed
Iezzoni  LI Assessing quality using administrative data. Ann Intern Med 1997;127666- 674
PubMed
Warren  JLRiley  GFMcBean  AMHakim  R Use of Medicare data to identify incident breast cancer cases. Health Care Financ Rev 1996;18237- 246
PubMed
Frey  CMMcMillen  MMCowan  CDHorm  JWKessler  LG Representativeness of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program data: recent trends in cancer mortality rates. J Natl Cancer Inst 1992;84872- 877
PubMed
Potosky  ALRiley  GFLubitz  JDMentnech  RMKessler  LG Potential for cancer related health services research using a linked Medicare tumor registry database. Med Care 1993;31732- 748
PubMed
Deleyiannis  FWWeymuller  EA  JrGarcia  IPotosky  AL Geographic variation in the utilization of esophagoscopy and bronchoscopy in head and neck cancer. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1997;1231203- 1210
PubMed
Cooper  GSYuan  ZStange  KCAmini  SBDennis  LKRimm  AA The utility of the Medicare claims data for measuring cancer stage. Med Care 1999;37706- 711
PubMed
Cooper  GSYuan  ZStange  KCDennis  LKAmini  SBRimm  AA The sensitivity of Medicare claims data for case ascertainment of six common cancers. Med Care 1999;37436- 444
PubMed
Warren  JLFeuer  EPotosky  ALRiley  GFLynch  CF Use of Medicare hospital and physician data to assess breast cancer incidence. Med Care 1999;37445- 456
PubMed
Ballard-Barbash  RPotosky  ALHarlan  LCNayfield  SGKessler  LG Factors associated with surgical and radiation therapy for early stage breast cancer in older women. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996;88716- 726
PubMed
Lu-Yao  GLPotosky  ALAlbertsen  PCWasson  JHBarry  MJWennberg  JE Follow-up prostate cancer treatments after radical prostatectomy: a population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996;88166- 172
PubMed
US Department of Health and Human Services Health Care Financing Review: Medicare and Medicaid Statistical Supplement, 1999.  Washington, DC: Health Care Financing Administration, Office of Research and Demonstration; 1999

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Kaplan-Meier survival curves for patients diagnosed as having squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) in a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program registry and a matched comparison cohort (from SEER-Medicare data, 1991-1998).

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Medicare payments among patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) and matched control patients, by year of follow-up (1998 US dollars). All patients were followed up for 5 years; patients who died during follow-up were assigned zero costs in the years after death (from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results [SEER] Program–Medicare data, 1991-1998).

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 3.

Medicare payments (1998 US dollars) among patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, by cancer stage. SNF indicates skilled nursing facility.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1 Demographic and Baseline Characteristics of Patients With SCCHN and Matched Control Patients Without SCCHN*
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2 Treatment Received in First 4 Months After Diagnosis Among Patients With SCCHN, by Cancer Stage
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3 Medicare Payments Among Patients With SCCHN and Matched Control Patients*

References

National Cancer Institute Cancer Facts. Head and Neck Cancer: Questions and Answers. Available at: http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/6_37.htm. Accessed February 5, 2003
Correa  AJBurkey  BB Otolaryngology for the internist: current options in management of head and neck cancer patients. Med Clin North Am 1999;83235- 246
PubMed
Vokes  EEWeischselbaum  RRLippman  SMHong  WK Head and neck cancer. N Engl J Med 1993;328184- 193
PubMed
Arthur G James Cancer Hospital & Research Institute The James Line: Head and Neck Cancers.  Available at: http://www.jamesline.com/headandneck/. Accessed February 5, 2003
Jones  ASBeasley  NHoughton  DHusband  DJ The effects of age on survival and other parameters in squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity, pharynx and larynx. Clin Otolaryngol 1998;2351- 56
PubMed
Skarsgard  DPGroome  PAMackillop  WJ  et al.  Cancers of the upper aerodigestive tract in Ontario, Canada, and the United States. Cancer 2000;881728- 1735
PubMed
Clark  JRFallon  BGFrei  E Induction chemotherapy as initial treatment for advanced head and neck cancer: a model for the multidisciplinary treatment of solid tumors.  In: Devita  VT, Hellman  S, Rosenberg  SA, eds. Important Advances in Oncology. Philadelphia, Pa: JB Lippincott Co; 1987:175-195
Groome  PAO’Sullivan  BIrish  JC  et al.  Glottic cancer in Ontario, Canada and the SEER areas of the United States: do different management philosophies produce different outcome profiles? J Clin Epidemiol 2001;54301- 315
PubMed
Selke  BAllenet  BBercez  C  et al.  Economic assessments of head and neck cancers: a review. Bull Cancer 2001;88759- 764
PubMed
Soni  ASonnenberg  A Healthcare resource utilization in the management of oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2001;15945- 951
PubMed
Reid  BCWinn  DMMorse  DEPendrys  DG Head and neck in situ carcinoma: incidence, trends, and survival. Oral Oncol 2000;36414- 420
PubMed
León  XQuer  MOrus  CLopez-Pousa  APericay  CVega  M How much does it cost to preserve a larynx? an economic study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2000;25772- 76
PubMed
Goodwin  WJ  Jr Salvage surgery for patients with recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the upper aerodigestive tract: when do the ends justify the means? Laryngoscope 2000;1101- 18
PubMed
Sherman  EJRuchlin  HSHolden  JSPfister  DG Clinical economics of head and neck malignancies. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 1999;13867- 881
PubMed
Poulsen  MDenham  JSpry  N  et al.  Acute toxicity and cost analysis of a phase III randomized trial of accelerated and conventional radiotherapy for squamous carcinoma of the head and neck: a Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group study. Australas Radiol 1999;43487- 494
PubMed
Grégoire  VHamoir  MRosier  JF  et al.  Cost-minimization analysis of treatment options for T1N0 glottic squamous cell carcinoma: comparison between external radiotherapy, laser microsurgery and partial laryngectomy. Radiother Oncol 1999;531- 13
PubMed
Pfister  DGRuchlin  HSElkin  EB Economic considerations in the care of patients with head and neck malignancies. Curr Opin Oncol 1997;9241- 246
PubMed
Coyle  DDrummond  MFMedical Research Council CHART Steering Committee, Costs of conventional radical radiotherapy versus continuous hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy (CHART) in the treatment of patients with head and neck cancer or carcinoma of the bronchus. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 1997;9313- 321
PubMed
O’Sullivan  BMackillop  WGilbert  R  et al.  Controversies in the management of laryngeal cancer: results of an international survey of patterns of care. Radiother Oncol 1994;3123- 32
PubMed
Myers  ENWagner  RLJohnson  JT Microlaryngoscopic surgery for T1 glottic lesions: a cost-effective option. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1994;10328- 30
PubMed
Mittal  BRao  DVMarks  JEOgura  JH Comparative cost analysis of hemilaryngectomy and irradiation for early glottic carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1983;9407- 408
PubMed
Du  XFreeman  JLGoodwin  JS Information on radiation treatment in patients with breast cancer: the advantages of the linked Medicare and SEER data. J Clin Epidemiol 1999;52463- 470
PubMed
Deyo  RACherkin  DCCiol  MA Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol 1992;45613- 619
PubMed
Riley  GFPotosky  ALLubitz  JDKessler  LG Medicare payments from diagnosis to death for elderly cancer patients by stage at diagnosis. Med Care 1995;33828- 841
PubMed
Etzioni  RUrban  NBaker  M Estimating the costs attributable to a disease with application to ovarian cancer. J Clin Epidemiol 1996;4995- 103
PubMed
Fireman  BHQuesenberry  CPSomkin  CP  et al.  Cost of care for cancer in a health maintenance organization. Health Care Financ Rev 1997;1851- 76
PubMed
Bourhis  JPignon  JP Meta-analyses in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: what is the role of chemotherapy? Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 1999;13769- 775
PubMed
Suntharalingam  MHaas  MLVanEcho  DA  et al.  Predictors of response and survival after concurrent chemotherapy and radiation for locally advanced squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck. Cancer 2001;91548- 554
PubMed
Forastiere  AKoch  WTrotti  ASidransky  D Medical progress: head and neck cancer. N Engl J Med 2001;3451890- 1900
PubMed
US Department of Health and Human Services Health Care Financing Review, Medicare and Medicaid Statistical Supplement, 1998.  Washington, DC: Health Care Financing Administration, Office of Research and Demonstration; 1998
Addington-Hall  JAltmann  DMcCarthy  M Which terminally ill cancer patients receive hospice in-patient care? Soc Sci Med 1998;461011- 1016
PubMed
Menzin  JLang  KEarle  CCKerney  DMallick  R The outcomes and costs of acute myeloid leukemia among the elderly. Arch Intern Med 2002;1621597- 1603
PubMed
Virnig  BAKind  SMcBean  AMFisher  E Geographic variation in hospice use prior to death. J Am Geriatr Soc 2000;481117- 1125
PubMed
Virnig  BAMarshall McBean  AKind  SDholakia  R Hospice use before death: variability across cancer diagnoses. Med Care 2002;4073- 78
PubMed
Iezzoni  LI Assessing quality using administrative data. Ann Intern Med 1997;127666- 674
PubMed
Warren  JLRiley  GFMcBean  AMHakim  R Use of Medicare data to identify incident breast cancer cases. Health Care Financ Rev 1996;18237- 246
PubMed
Frey  CMMcMillen  MMCowan  CDHorm  JWKessler  LG Representativeness of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program data: recent trends in cancer mortality rates. J Natl Cancer Inst 1992;84872- 877
PubMed
Potosky  ALRiley  GFLubitz  JDMentnech  RMKessler  LG Potential for cancer related health services research using a linked Medicare tumor registry database. Med Care 1993;31732- 748
PubMed
Deleyiannis  FWWeymuller  EA  JrGarcia  IPotosky  AL Geographic variation in the utilization of esophagoscopy and bronchoscopy in head and neck cancer. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1997;1231203- 1210
PubMed
Cooper  GSYuan  ZStange  KCAmini  SBDennis  LKRimm  AA The utility of the Medicare claims data for measuring cancer stage. Med Care 1999;37706- 711
PubMed
Cooper  GSYuan  ZStange  KCDennis  LKAmini  SBRimm  AA The sensitivity of Medicare claims data for case ascertainment of six common cancers. Med Care 1999;37436- 444
PubMed
Warren  JLFeuer  EPotosky  ALRiley  GFLynch  CF Use of Medicare hospital and physician data to assess breast cancer incidence. Med Care 1999;37445- 456
PubMed
Ballard-Barbash  RPotosky  ALHarlan  LCNayfield  SGKessler  LG Factors associated with surgical and radiation therapy for early stage breast cancer in older women. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996;88716- 726
PubMed
Lu-Yao  GLPotosky  ALAlbertsen  PCWasson  JHBarry  MJWennberg  JE Follow-up prostate cancer treatments after radical prostatectomy: a population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996;88166- 172
PubMed
US Department of Health and Human Services Health Care Financing Review: Medicare and Medicaid Statistical Supplement, 1999.  Washington, DC: Health Care Financing Administration, Office of Research and Demonstration; 1999

Correspondence

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 21

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Topics
PubMed Articles
JAMAevidence.com

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
Example 3: Squamous Cell Carcinoma