Cost and cost-effectiveness of childhood cancer treatment in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review

• Published in: BMJ global health 2019-10, Vol.4 (5), p.e001825
• Main Authors: Fung, Alastair, Horton, Susan, Zabih, Veda, Denburg, Avram, Gupta, Sumit
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Cancer therapies; Chemotherapy; Child mortality; Childhood; Childrens health; Cost analysis; Economics; GDP; Global health; Gross Domestic Product; Income; Infectious diseases; Leukemia; Life expectancy; Low income groups; Lymphoma; Oncology; Pediatrics; Radiation therapy; Systematic review
• ISSN: 2059-7908; 2059-7908
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001825

IntroductionA major barrier to improving childhood cancer survival is the perception that paediatric oncology services are too costly for low-income and middle-income country (LMIC) health systems. We conducted a systematic review to synthesise existing evidence on the costs and cost-effectiveness of treating childhood cancers in LMICs.MethodsWe searched multiple databases from their inception to March 2019. All studies reporting costs or cost-effectiveness of treating any childhood cancer in an LMIC were included. We appraised included articles using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. Where possible, we extracted or calculated the cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted using reported survival and country-specific life expectancy. Cost/DALY averted was compared with per capita gross domestic product (GDP) as per WHO-Choosing Interventions that are Cost-Effective guidelines to determine cost-effectiveness.ResultsOf 2802 studies identified, 30 met inclusion criteria. Studies represented 22 countries and nine different malignancies. The most commonly studied cancers were acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (n=10), Burkitt lymphoma (n=4) and Wilms tumour (n=3). The median CHEERS checklist score was 18 of 24. Many studies omitted key cost inputs. Notably, only 11 studies included healthcare worker salaries. Cost/DALY averted was extracted or calculated for 12 studies and ranged from US$22 to US$4475, although the lower-end costs were primarily from studies that omitted key cost components. In all 12, cost/DALY averted through treatment was substantially less than country per capita GDP, and therefore considered very cost-effective.ConclusionMany included studies did not account for key cost inputs, thus underestimating true treatment costs. Costs/DALY averted were nonetheless substantially lower than per capita GDP, suggesting that even if all relevant inputs are included, LMIC childhood cancer treatment is consistently very cost-effective. While additional rigorous economic evaluations are required, our results can inform the development of LMIC national childhood cancer strategies.