Background: Cancer is the third cause of death following cardiovascular disease and accidents, in Iran. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the economic burden of cancer studies in Iran. Methods: This systematic review examined the types of direct medical and non-medical costs and indirect costs in cancer patients and includes studies in English and Persian that were reviewed in Scopus, Web of science, SID, Iranmedex, Magiran and databases of Medline, etc., from 1995-2019. Results: Twenty-one articles were included. Most studies have examined the direct costs of all types of cancers. The articles reviewed different types of cancer, such as prostate cancer (n=2), colorectal cancer (n=2), breast cancer (n=4), gastric cancer (n=2), oral and pharyngeal cancer (n=1), lung cancer (n=3), and blood cancer (n=4). The great number of studies were related to the gastrointestinal, breast and blood cancers. The gastrointestinal (gastric and colorectal) and breast cancer had the major economic burden than others. Conclusion: It is necessary that special attention to patients, supportive measures to reduce the share of costs, and more budget allocation for prevention, screening and early detection being at priorities in the health system planning.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Context: If the diameter of an aneurysm increases by more than 6 cm, the risk of aortic rupture increases by 50% within 10 years. Therefore, rupture of aneurysm, which is usually asymptomatic, can lead to severe complications and increase the risk of mortality. The current study aimed to systematically review studies comparing the cost-effective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and open surgical repair (OSR) as the primary treatment options for patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). Methods: An electronic search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Science Direct, Scopus, and other scientific economic databases. Relevant articles were searched from 1999 to 2020 using keywords, such as “abdominal aortic aneurysm”, “endovascular”, “open surgery”, “rupture”, “economic evaluation”, and “cost-effectiveness”. The quality of articles was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic studies (QHES) checklist; finally, five articles were included in this review. Results: The results of the QHES checklist showed that most studies had a good quality. A third-party payer’s perspective was the dominant perspective in all selected studies, comparing EVAR with OSR. All studies considered the direct medical costs and did not disclose any discount rates, except for one study, reporting a 3.5% discount rate. Almost all included studies found EVAR to be a cost-effective intervention; only one study concluded that EVAR, with a cost-effectiveness ratio of €424,542, was not the best treatment option. Conclusion: In patients with ruptured AAAs, the EVAR intervention improved the quality of life, decreased the mortality rate, and shortened the hospital stay as compared to OSR.