These are separate studies about specific cancers, and interesting.
But the biggest point in the study I remember reading was that it mixed up all the "not easy to treat [1]" cancers together, pondering each cost and survival time with the cancer incidence. It gave a better picture of the "less known" cancers - which is addressing the real question with universal healthcare.
I mean, if overall the expansive cancer or deadly cancers are rare they we can afford them - but they weren't, and overall outside specific case, even if one tried the best healthcare, it was not a very efficient outcome.
I'll love to find it back - that or a study sharing the methodology. IIRC it was in USD.
[1] : by easy to treat I mean cancer which is very unlikely to reoccur if properly treated, for which one or more therapies are known to be effective, with costs and morbidity well known - like skin cancer.
The Australian Dollar is roughly at parity with the US at the moment (Currently $1 AUD = $1.03 USD) and has been for sometime... so if the observations from the study still hold today, the amount would be about equal in either currency.
Here's one about women with ovarian cancer (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20973265)
Here's one about the cost effectiveness of skin cancer prevention (http://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/1/73.full)
Here's one about skin cancer prevention using sun screen for white populations in sunny locations (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22433757)
Here's one about the skin care costs of skin cancer caused by UV (http://www.rand.org/pubs/notes/N2538.html)
Some of these look interesting, but obviously I haven't had a thorough read yet.