IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v22y2021i5d10.1007_s10198-021-01290-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Has the development of cancer biomarkers to guide treatment improved health outcomes?

Author

Listed:
  • Ana Beatriz D′Avó Luís

    (University of Bergen
    University of Bergen)

  • Mikyung Kelly Seo

    (University of Bergen
    London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
    Imperial College London)

Abstract

During the last decade, testing the patient’s biomarker status prior to the administration of corresponding co-dependent therapies has been emerging in clinical practice. These biomarker-guided therapies have promoted the promise of more personalized medicine, with the prescription of the right treatment to the right patient, while avoiding expensive ineffective drugs and adverse drug reactions. Cancer treatments have especially taken advantage of this technology. We assess how the introduction of biomarker tests guiding cancer therapy have affected the premature mortality and survival of cancer patients in Norway. Our findings suggest that, in general, cancer patients have benefited from both biomarker testing and more cancer drugs. Furthermore, we find that the total effect of biomarker testing on 3-year survival decreases as the number of drugs available increases, suggesting that the matching of patients with the appropriate treatment is better when fewer drugs are available.

Suggested Citation

  • Ana Beatriz D′Avó Luís & Mikyung Kelly Seo, 2021. "Has the development of cancer biomarkers to guide treatment improved health outcomes?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 789-810, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:22:y:2021:i:5:d:10.1007_s10198-021-01290-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-021-01290-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-021-01290-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10198-021-01290-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kyle, Margaret & Dubois, Pierre, 2016. "The Effects of Pharmaceutical Innovation on Cancer Mortality," CEPR Discussion Papers 11487, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. David Roodman & James G. MacKinnon & Morten Ørregaard Nielsen & Matthew D. Webb, 2019. "Fast and wild: Bootstrap inference in Stata using boottest," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 19(1), pages 4-60, March.
    3. Frank Lichtenberg, 2009. "The effect of new cancer drug approvals on the life expectancy of American cancer patients, 1978-2004," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(5), pages 407-428.
    4. Luiz Andrade & Catherine Sermet & Sylvain Pichetti, 2016. "Entry time effects and follow-on drug competition," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 17(1), pages 45-60, January.
    5. Dubois, Pierre & Kyle, Margaret, 2016. "The Effects of Pharmaceutical Innovation on Cancer Mortality Rates," TSE Working Papers 16-688, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    6. Frank Lichtenberg, 2013. "The impact of new (orphan) drug approvals on premature mortality from rare diseases in the United States and France, 1999–2007," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 41-56, February.
    7. Romer, Paul M, 1990. "Endogenous Technological Change," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(5), pages 71-102, October.
    8. Fiva, Jon H. & Hægeland, Torbjørn & Rønning, Marte & Syse, Astri, 2014. "Access to treatment and educational inequalities in cancer survival," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 98-111.
    9. Mikyung Kelly Seo & John Cairns, 2018. "Do cancer biomarkers make targeted therapies cost-effective? A systematic review in metastatic colorectal cancer," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-23, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. David Bardey & Philippe de Donder & Vera Zaporozhets, 2024. "Economic Incentives to Develop and to Use Diagnostic Tests - A Literature Review," Working Papers hal-04472497, HAL.
    2. De Donder, Philippe & Bardey, David & Zaporozhets, Vera, 2024. "The Health Technology Assessment Approach of the Economic Value of Diagnostic Tests - A Literature Review," TSE Working Papers 24-1508, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Frank R. Lichtenberg, 2015. "Pharmaceutical Innovation, Longevity, and Medical Expenditure in Greece, 1995-2010," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(2), pages 277-299, July.
    2. Frank R. Lichtenberg & Billie Pettersson, 2014. "The impact of pharmaceutical innovation on longevity and medical expenditure in Sweden, 1997-2010: evidence from longitudinal, disease-level data," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(3), pages 239-273, April.
    3. Frank Lichtenberg, 2015. "The impact of pharmaceutical innovation on premature cancer mortality in Canada, 2000–2011," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 339-359, September.
    4. Jason J Sandvik & Richard E Saouma & Nathan T Seegert & Christopher T Stanton, 2020. "Workplace Knowledge Flows," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 135(3), pages 1635-1680.
    5. Lichtenberg, Frank R., 2014. "The impact of pharmaceutical innovation on longevity and medical expenditure in France, 2000–2009," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 107-127.
    6. Michela Giorcelli & Nicola Lacetera & Astrid Marinoni, 2022. "How does scientific progress affect cultural changes? A digital text analysis," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 415-452, September.
    7. repec:ilo:ilowps:366690 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Frank R. Lichtenberg, 2014. "Has Medical Innovation Reduced Cancer Mortality?," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 60(1), pages 135-177.
    9. Chu, Angus C. & Cozzi, Guido & Furukawa, Yuichi, 2016. "Unions, innovation and cross-country wage inequality," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 104-118.
    10. Heijs, Joost, 2003. "Freerider behaviour and the public finance of R&D activities in enterprises: the case of the Spanish low interest credits for R&D," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 445-461, March.
    11. Jeffrey Frankel, 2014. "Mauritius: African Success Story," NBER Chapters, in: African Successes, Volume IV: Sustainable Growth, pages 295-342, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Kawalec Paweł, 2020. "The dynamics of theories of economic growth: An impact of Unified Growth Theory," Economics and Business Review, Sciendo, vol. 6(2), pages 19-44, June.
    13. Lutz Arnold & Christian Bauer, 2009. "On the growth and welfare effects of monopolistic distortions," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 97(1), pages 19-40, May.
    14. Yew-Kwang Ng & Xiaokai Yang, 2005. "Specialization, Information, And Growth: A Sequential Equilibrium Analysis," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: An Inframarginal Approach To Trade Theory, chapter 20, pages 447-474, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    15. Loebbing, Jonas, 2018. "An Elementary Theory of Endogenous Technical Change and Wage Inequality," VfS Annual Conference 2018 (Freiburg, Breisgau): Digital Economy 181603, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    16. Grimaud, Andre & Rouge, Luc, 2003. "Non-renewable resources and growth with vertical innovations: optimum, equilibrium and economic policies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(2, Supple), pages 433-453, March.
    17. Liliana Meza-González & Jaime Marie Sepulveda, 2019. "The impact of competition with China in the US market on innovation in Mexican manufacturing firms," Latin American Economic Review, Springer;Centro de Investigaciòn y Docencia Económica (CIDE), vol. 28(1), pages 1-21, December.
    18. Brautzsch, Hans-Ulrich & Günther, Jutta & Loose, Brigitte & Ludwig, Udo & Nulsch, Nicole, 2015. "Can R&D subsidies counteract the economic crisis? – Macroeconomic effects in Germany," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 623-633.
    19. van de Klundert, T.C.M.J. & Smulders, J.A., 1991. "Reconstructing growth theory : A survey," Other publications TiSEM 19355c51-17eb-4d5d-aa66-b, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    20. Tung Liu & Kui-Wai Li, 2008. "Revisiting Solow’s Decomposition of Economic and Productivity Growth," Working Papers 200805, Ball State University, Department of Economics, revised Dec 2008.
    21. Kumar, Sanjesh & Singh, Baljeet, 2019. "Barriers to the international diffusion of technological innovations," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 74-86.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Biomarker; Personalized medicine; Cancer; Mortality;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I11 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Analysis of Health Care Markets
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:22:y:2021:i:5:d:10.1007_s10198-021-01290-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.