Article Text

Download PDFPDF
EP374 Humanistic and economic burden associated with cervical cancer in japan
  1. NA Way1,
  2. C Nwankwo2 and
  3. VW Li3
  1. 1Kantar Health, San Mateo, CA
  2. 2Merck and Co., Inc., Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp., a Subsidiary of Merck and Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ
  3. 3Kantar Health, New York, NY, USA


Introduction/Background Although much is known about the prevention, screening, and treatment of cervical cancer (CC), less is known about its humanistic and economic burden. This study compared patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between women diagnosed with CC and women without CC.

Methodology Data were aggregated from the 2016 and 2017 Japan National Health and Wellness Survey, a nationally-representative, self-administered, internet-based survey of adults (N=69,001). Controlling for baseline demographics and characteristics, two matched cohorts were compared in bivariate analysis (i.e., t-tests): CC and no CC. Respondents with other forms of cancer were excluded from analyses. Humanistic burden was assessed via Mental Component Summary (MCS) score, Physical Component Summary (PCS) score, and SF-6D Utility score from the Medical Outcomes Study 12-Item or 36-item Version 2 Short Form Survey Instrument (SF-12v2 or SF-36v2). Economic burden was assessed via healthcare resource use (HRU) during the past six months: healthcare professional (HCP) visits, emergency room (ER) visits, and hospitalizations. Annualized direct costs were calculated using MEDIAS, Eurostat, and Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare data.

Results Adjusted means are reported. CC (N=197) and no CC (N=197) differed by PCS score (51.70 vs. 53.01, p =0.048), but did not differ by MCS score (47.13 vs. 46.53, ns) nor SF-6D Utility score (0.74 vs. 0.75, ns) (figure 1). CC and no CC differed by HCP visits (7.93 vs. 4.47, p =.001), but did not differ by ER visits (0.17 vs. 0.08, ns) nor hospitalizations (1.19 vs. 0.56, ns). CC and no CC differed by HCP direct costs (¥135656 vs. ¥76464, p =.001), but did not differ by ER direct costs (¥10795 vs. ¥5234, ns) nor hospitalization direct costs (¥2546173 vs. ¥1191826, ns) (figure 2).

Conclusion In this study, CC was associated with at least one aspect of humanistic burden (physical burden) and at least one aspect of economic burden (HCP visits and associated direct costs).

Disclosure This study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. Chizoba Nwankwo is an employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. Nate Way and Vicky Li are employees of Kantar Health, who received funding from Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA to conduct this study.

Abstract EP374 Figure 1

PCS and MCS by cervical cancer cohort

Abstract EP374 Figure 2

Direct costs by cervical cancer cohort

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.