Browsing by Subject "15D-intstrument"

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men in Finland. Health care costs increase annually and cost of cancer is significant to the society. Because resources are scarce more information is needed about the costs of diseases as well as treatment effectiveness. In addition to clinical effectiveness it is important to assess the value of healthcare technologies from the patient's point of view by measuring the treatment's effect on patients' quality of life. In this thesis a literature review was made on the following topics: cost of treating prostate cancer, prostate cancer patients' quality of life and cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer. The aim of the research was to determine what the drug costs are in relation to the total cost of treatment for prostate cancer in different stages of the disease and assess how the quality of life changes during the first year of treatment depending on the form of treatment. Drug costs were calculated from the health care payer's perspective in a six month cross-sectional study. The study population included a total of 629 prostate cancer patients treated in the Helsinki and Uudenmaa hospital district (HUS). The quality of life study population (N=367) was different of that used to calculate drug costs. The quality of life was measured according to an ongoing cost-effectiveness research at HUS. It was measured with 15D-instrument before receiving cancer treatment and three, six and twelve months after the beginning of treatment. Drug costs in relation to the total cost of prostate cancer treatment were significant. In patients with meta-static cancer drugs were 53 % of the total cost of cancer treatment. In remission patients the total costs of cancer treatment were the lowest compared to other diseases stages, but drug costs were still 30 % of the total costs. For patients receiving palliative treatment, local or relapse cancer patients, and patients whose cancer was just diagnosed, the total drug costs were 19%, 13% and 0%, respectively. Policlinic visits and policlinic procedures were also a significant cause of the total costs. Quality of life of prostate cancer patients is incredibly good compared to age-standardized population. However the patients' quality of life decreases statistically and clinically significantly during the first year of treatment. Before treatment 15D score was 0,91 and after 12 months it was 0,88. When assessed in different treatment groups the quality of life decreased the least in patients treated with waiting. The largest statistically significant change occurred in patients treated with radiation. The strength of the study is that the costs were calculated per patient according to real resource use. The study also had limitations. The costs of primary care were not included in the calculations. Also cancer related pain medication, depression and erectile dysfunction drugs should be included in the drug costs. The follow-up time of measuring quality of life was too short. In the future it would be important to study the cost-effectiveness of medication as well as the cost-effectiveness of the different forms of treatment in prostate cancer.