No expenditure difference among patients with liver cancer at stage I-IV: Findings from a multicenter cross-sectional study in China.

Objective The number of liver cancer patients in China accounts for more than half of the world. However, China currently lacks national, multicenter economic burden data, and meanwhile, measuring the differences among different subgroups will be informative to formulate corresponding policies in liver cancer control. Thus, the aim of the study was to measure the economic burden of liver cancer by various subgroups. Methods A hospital-based, multicenter and cross-sectional survey was conducted during 2012-2014, covering 39 hospitals and 21 project sites in 13 provinces across China. The questionnaire covers clinical information, sociology, expenditure, and related variables. All expenditure data were reported in Chinese Yuan (CNY) using 2014 values. Results A total of 2,223 liver cancer patients were enrolled, of whom 59.61% were late-stage cases (III-IV), and 53.8% were hepatocellular carcinoma. The average total expenditure per liver cancer patient was estimated as 53,220 CNY, including 48,612 CNY of medical expenditures (91.3%) and 4,608 CNY of non-medical expenditures (8.7%). The average total expenditures in stage I, II, III and stage IV were 52,817 CNY, 50,877 CNY, 50,678 CNY and 54,089 CNY (P>0.05), respectively. Non-medical expenditures including additional meals, additional nutrition care, transportation, accommodation and hired informal nursing were 1,453 CNY, 839 CNY, 946 CNY, 679 CNY and 200 CNY, respectively. The one-year out-of-pocket expenditure of a newly diagnosed patient was 24,953 CNY, and 77.2% of the patients suffered an unmanageable financial burden. Multivariate analysis showed that overall expenditure differed in almost all subgroups (P<0.05), except for sex, clinical stage, and pathologic type. Conclusions There was no difference in treatment expenditure for liver cancer patients at different clinical stages, which suggests that maintaining efforts on treatment efficacy improvement is important but not enough. To furtherly reduce the overall economic burden from liver cancer, more effort should be given to primary and secondary prevention strategies.