{rfName}
Co

License and Use

Icono OpenAccess

Altmetrics

Analysis of institutional authors

Laudicella, MauroCorresponding Author

Share

September 23, 2024
Publications
>
Article
Hybrid Gold

Cost of care for cancer patients in England: evidence from population-based patient-level data

Publicated to: British Journal Of Cancer. 114 (11): 1286-1292 - 2016-05-24 114(11), DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2016.77

Authors:

Laudicella, Mauro; Walsh, Brendan; Burns, Elaine; Smith, Peter C
[+]

Affiliations

City Univ London, Sch Hlth Sci, London EC1V 0HB, England - Author
Univ London Imperial Coll Sci Technol & Med, Dept Surg & Canc, St Marys Campus, London W2 1NY, England - Author
Univ London Imperial Coll Sci Technol & Med, Sch Business, Tanaka Bldg,South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ, England - Author
See more

Abstract

Background: Health systems are facing the challenge of providing care to an increasing population of patients with cancer. However, evidence on costs is limited due to the lack of large longitudinal databases. Methods: We matched cost of care data to population-based, patient-level data on cancer patients in England. We conducted a retrospective cohort study including all patients age 18 and over with a diagnosis of colorectal (275 985 patients), breast (359 771), prostate (286 426) and lung cancer (283 940) in England between 2001 and 2010. Incidence costs, prevalence costs, and phase of care costs were estimated separately for patients age 18-64 and >= 65. Costs of care were compared by patients staging, before and after diagnosis, and with a comparison population without cancer. Results: Incidence costs in the first year of diagnosis are noticeably higher in patients age 18-64 than age >= 65 across all examined cancers. A lower stage diagnosis is associated with larger cost savings for colorectal and breast cancer in both age groups. The additional costs of care because of the main four cancers amounts to 1.5 pound billion in 2010, namely 3.0% of the total cost of hospital care. Conclusions: Population-based, patient-level data can be used to provide new evidence on the cost of cancer in England. Early diagnosis and cancer prevention have scope for achieving large cost savings for the health system.
[+]

Keywords

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overColorectal-cancerCostsEconomic burdenEnglandFemaleHealth care costsHospitalHumansIncidenceMaleMiddle agedNeoplasmsPopulation-based dataPrevalenceProjectionRetrospective studiesStaginStagingState medicineUnited-statesYoung adult

Quality index

Bibliometric impact. Analysis of the contribution and dissemination channel

The work has been published in the journal British Journal Of Cancer due to its progression and the good impact it has achieved in recent years, according to the agency WoS (JCR), it has become a reference in its field. In the year of publication of the work, 2016, it was in position 32/217, thus managing to position itself as a Q1 (Primer Cuartil), in the category Oncology.

From a relative perspective, and based on the normalized impact indicator calculated from World Citations provided by WoS (ESI, Clarivate), it yields a value for the citation normalization relative to the expected citation rate of: 3.24. This indicates that, compared to works in the same discipline and in the same year of publication, it ranks as a work cited above average. (source consulted: ESI Nov 13, 2025)

This information is reinforced by other indicators of the same type, which, although dynamic over time and dependent on the set of average global citations at the time of their calculation, consistently position the work at some point among the top 50% most cited in its field:

  • Weighted Average of Normalized Impact by the Scopus agency: 3.33 (source consulted: FECYT Mar 2025)

Specifically, and according to different indexing agencies, this work has accumulated citations as of 2026-04-05, the following number of citations:

  • WoS: 113
  • Scopus: 116
  • Europe PMC: 83
  • Google Scholar: 176
[+]

Impact and social visibility

From the perspective of influence or social adoption, and based on metrics associated with mentions and interactions provided by agencies specializing in calculating the so-called "Alternative or Social Metrics," we can highlight as of 2026-04-05:

  • The use, from an academic perspective evidenced by the Altmetric agency indicator referring to aggregations made by the personal bibliographic manager Mendeley, gives us a total of: 282.
  • The use of this contribution in bookmarks, code forks, additions to favorite lists for recurrent reading, as well as general views, indicates that someone is using the publication as a basis for their current work. This may be a notable indicator of future more formal and academic citations. This claim is supported by the result of the "Capture" indicator, which yields a total of: 282 (PlumX).

With a more dissemination-oriented intent and targeting more general audiences, we can observe other more global scores such as:

  • The Total Score from Altmetric: 86.
  • The number of mentions on the social network Facebook: 1 (Altmetric).
  • The number of mentions on the social network X (formerly Twitter): 54 (Altmetric).
  • The number of mentions in news outlets: 4 (Altmetric).

It is essential to present evidence supporting full alignment with institutional principles and guidelines on Open Science and the Conservation and Dissemination of Intellectual Heritage. A clear example of this is:

  • The work has been submitted to a journal whose editorial policy allows open Open Access publication.
[+]

Leadership analysis of institutional authors

This work has been carried out with international collaboration, specifically with researchers from: United Kingdom.

There is a significant leadership presence as some of the institution’s authors appear as the first or last signer, detailed as follows: First Author (LAUDICELLA, MAURO) .

the author responsible for correspondence tasks has been LAUDICELLA, MAURO.

[+]

Awards linked to the item

We are grateful to the research staff at the National Cancer Intelligence Network within Public Health England and Macmillan Cancer Support for their useful comments on this report and support in accessing the data. We also thank Lucy Irvine (Public Health England), Sean McPhail (Public Health England), Ranjeeta Thomas (Imperial College London) and Paolo Li Donni (University of Palermo) for useful comments to the analysis. The views expressed are ours and not necessarily those of Macmillan. This work was supported by Macmillan Cancer Support (Grant number: 4644727). Funders had no active role in any stage of the research.
[+]