To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of moderate Hypofractionated Radiotherapy (H-RT) compared to Conventional Radiotherapy (C-RT) for intermediate-risk prostate caner (PCa). A prospective randomized clinical trial including 222 patients from six French cancer centers was conducted as an ancillary study of the international PROstate Fractionated Irradiation Trial (PROFIT). We carried-out a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) from the payer's perspective, with a time horizon of 48 months. Patients assigned to the H-RT arm received 6000 cGy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks, or 7800 cGy in 39 fractions over 7 to 8 weeks in the C-RT arm. Patients completed quality of life (QoL) questionnaire: Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) at baseline, 24 and 48 months, which were mapped to obtain a EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D) equivalent to generate Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY). We assessed differences in QALYs and costs between the two arms with Generalized Linear Models (GLMs). Costs, estimated in euro (€) 2020, were combined with QALYs to estimate the Incremental Cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with non-parametric bootstrap. Total costs per patien were lower in the H-RT arm compared to the C-RT arm €3,062 (95 % CI: 2,368 to 3,754) versus €4,285 (95 % CI: 3,355 to 5,215), (p < 0.05). QALY were marginally higher in the H-RT arm, however this difference was not significant: 0.044 (95 % CI: - 0.016 to 0.099). Treating localized prostate cancer with moderate H-RT could reduce national health insurance spending. Adopting such a treatment with an updated reimbursement tariff would result in improving resource allocation in RT management.

In sub-Saharan African countries, out-of-pocket payments can be a major barrier to accessing appropriate healthcare services. Community-based health insurance (CBHI) has emerged as a context-appropriate risk-pooling mechanism to provide some financial protection to populations without access to formal health insurance. The aim of this rapid review was to examine the peer-reviewed literature on the impact of CBHI on the use of healthcare services as well as its capacity to improve equity in the use of healthcare between different socio-economic groups. A systematic search of three electronic databases (Pubmed, Cochrane Library and Littérature en Santé) was performed. Data were extracted on scheme and study characteristics, as well as the impact of the schemes on relevant outcomes. Sixteen publications met the inclusion criteria, studying schemes from seven different countries. They provide strong evidence that community-based health insurance can contribute to improving access to outpatient care and weak evidence that they improve access to inpatient care. There was low evidence on their capacity to improve equity in access to healthcare among insured members. In the absence of sufficient public spending for healthcare, such schemes may be able to provide some valuable benefits for communities with limited access to primary-level care in sub-Saharan Africa. The overall high risk of bias of the studies and the wide existing variety of insurance arrangements suggest caution in generalizing these results. These findings need to be validated and further developed by rigorous studies.

In a multicenter prospective cohort of cancer patients (CP; n = 840) and healthcare workers (HCWs; n = 935) vaccinated against COVID-19, we noticed the following: i/after vaccination, 4.4% of HCWs and 5.8% of CP were infected; ii/no characteristic was associated with post-vaccine COVID-19 infections among HCWs; iii/CP who developed infections were younger, more frequently women (NS), more frequently had gastrointestinal, gynecological, or breast cancer and a localized cancer stage; iv/CP vaccinated while receiving chemotherapy or targeted therapy had (NS) more breakthrough infections after vaccination than those vaccinated after these treatments; the opposite was noted with radiotherapy, immunotherapy, or hormonotherapy; v/most COVID-19 infections occurred either during the Alpha wave (11/41 HCW, 20/49 CP), early after the first vaccination campaign started, or during the Omicron wave (21/41 HCW, 20/49 CP), more than 3 months after the second dose; vi/risk of infection was not associated with values of antibody titers; vii/the outcome of these COVID-19 infections after vaccination was not severe in all cases. To conclude, around 5% of our CPs or HCWs developed a COVID-19 infection despite previous vaccination. The outcome of these infections was not severe.

Background: Cancer patients may fail to distinguish COVID-19 symptoms such as anosmia, dysgeusia/ageusia, anorexia, headache, and fatigue, which are frequent after cancer treatments. We aimed to identify symptoms associated with COVID-19 and to assess the strength of their association in cancer and cancer-free populations. Methods: The multicenter cohort study PAPESCO-19 included 878 cancer patients and 940 healthcare workers (HCWs). At baseline and quarterly thereafter, they reported the presence or absence of 13 COVID-19 symptoms observed over 3 months and the results of routine screening RT-PCR, and they were systematically tested for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies. We identified the symptom combinations significantly associated with COVID-19. Results: Eight percent of cancer patients were COVID-19 positive, and 32% were symptomatic. Among the HCWs, these proportions were 9.5 and 52%, respectively. Anosmia, anorexia, fever, headache, and rhinorrhea together accurately discriminated (c-statistic = 0.7027) COVID-19 cases from cancer patients. Anosmia, dysgeusia/ageusia, muscle pain, intense fatigue, headache, and chest pain better discriminated (c-statistic = 0.8830) COVID-19 cases among the HCWs. Anosmia had the strongest association in both the cancer patients (OR = 7.48, 95% CI: 2.96–18.89) and HCWs (OR = 5.71, 95% CI: 2.21–14.75). Conclusions: COVID-19 symptoms and their diagnostic performance differ in the cancer patients and HCWs. Anosmia is associated with COVID-19 in cancer patients, while dysgeusia/ageusia is not. Cancer patients deserve tailored preventive measures due to their particular COVID-19 symptom pattern.

Risk management programs targeting women with genetic predispositions to breast cancer (BC), eg, BRCA1 and BRCA2, are effective assuming full adherence with the program protocol. However, high risk to BC in women and equal access to care may not result in high and uniform adherence with the program. To elucidate factors influencing adherence with screening program in women with genetic predispositions to BC. We retrieved data from a multicenter pathogenic-related BC surveillance program across 4 French regions. We used multilevel logistic modeling to analyze factors of adherence with the program, with “on-time” or postponed screening as the dependent variable. Seven hundred and seventy-eight participants were followed for a 4.7-year median. We observed 2796 annual screening rounds and 5.4% postponed rounds with a 6-month margin. Women with prevalent BC and carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations did not have on-time annual screenings any more than women low cancer risk. Better adherence was observed with screenings after the 2nd round, with higher total number of rounds. Having one or more recalls was significantly associated with worse adherence. No contextual factors affected adherence. Furthermore, postponed rounds increased between 2018 and 2020 compared to 2015 and 2017. Having a higher BC risk status does not result in better adherence to the risk management program. However, factors directly related to screening rounds reduced postponements. Future research should address the benefits of screening-related organizational factors that contribute to adherence improvement.