Cost-Effectiveness of Active Surveillance, Radical Prostatectomy and External Beam Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: An Analysis of the ProtecT Trial.

PURPOSE: Despite increasing emphasis on value based care, to our knowledge the cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer management options has not been compared using prospective clinical trial data. The ProtecT (Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment) trial demonstrated no difference in survival in patients randomized to active surveillance, external beam radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy. We compared cost-effectiveness among the arms of ProtecT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a Markov model we compared the cost-effectiveness of active surveillance, radical prostatectomy and external beam radiotherapy based on ProtecT outcomes, specifically 6-year quality of life data and 10-year oncologic data. Costs were based on 2017 Medicare reimbursement while utility values were assigned using the literature. Univariable and multivariable sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Six years after randomization the mean costs per patient were $12,143 for active surveillance, $17,781 for radical prostatectomy and $29,238 for external beam radiotherapy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio relative to active surveillance was $127,752/QALY for radical prostatectomy and $381,894/QALY for external beam radiotherapy. Ten years after randomization radical prostatectomy ($5,627/QALY) and external beam radiotherapy ($78,291/QALY) were more cost-effective than active surveillance. The model was sensitive to the metastasis rate on active surveillance with a threshold of 2.4% at 10 years, below which active surveillance was more cost-effective than radical prostatectomy. On multivariable sensitivity analysis at 10 years using a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000/QALY the most cost-effective strategy was radical prostatectomy in 45% of model microsimulations, external beam radiotherapy in 30% and active surveillance in 25%. CONCLUSIONS: Although active surveillance represents a cost-effective strategy to manage localized prostate cancer during the initial several years after diagnosis, the relative cost-effectiveness of treatment emerges with extended followup.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of intensity-modulated radiation therapy with normal and hypofractionated schemes for the treatment of localised prostate cancer.

The aim of our analysis was to compare the cost-effectiveness of high-dose intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (HF-IMRT) versus conventional dose three-dimensional radiation therapy (3DCRT) for the treatment of localised prostate cancer. A Markov model was constructed to calculate the incremental quality-adjusted life years and costs. Transition probabilities, adverse events and utilities were derived from relevant systematic reviews. Microcosting in a large university hospital was applied to calculate cost vectors. The expected mean lifetime cost of patients undergoing 3DCRT, IMRT and HF-IMRT were 7,160 euros, 6,831 euros and 6,019 euros respectively. The expected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were 5.753 for 3DCRT, 5.956 for IMRT and 5.957 for HF-IMRT. Compared to 3DCRT, both IMRT and HF-IMRT resulted in more health gains at a lower cost. It can be concluded that high-dose IMRT is not only cost-effective compared to the conventional dose 3DCRT but, when used with a hypofractionation scheme, it has great cost-saving potential for the public payer and may improve access to radiation therapy for patients.

[A microcost analysis of radiation therapy of localized prostate cancer]. / A prosztatadaganatos betegek sugárterápiájának mikroköltség-számítása.

INTRODUCTION: Development of radiation technology provides new opportunities for the treatment of prostate cancer, but little is known about the costs of novel technologies. AIM: The aim of this analysis was to compare the costs of conventional three-dimensional radiation therapy to normal and hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. METHOD: The cost-analysis was performed based on the data of a Hungarian oncology center from health care provider's perspective. Irradiation time was assessed from the data of 100 fractions delivered in 20 patients. Unit costs for each component were calculated based on actual costs retrieved from the accounting system of the oncology center. RESULTS: Average treatment delivery times were 14.5 minutes for three-dimensional radiation therapy, 16.2 minutes for intensity-modulated radiation therapy with image-guided and 14 minutes without image-guided method. Expected mean cost of patients undergoing conventional three-dimensional radiation therapy, normal and hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy were 619 000 HUF, 933 000 HUF and 692 000 HUF, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although normal and hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapies have already been proven to be cost-effective, current reimbursement rates do not encourage healthcare providers to use the more effective therapy techniques.

Toxicity and cost-effectiveness analysis of intensity modulated radiation therapy versus 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy for postoperative treatment of gynecologic cancers.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate toxicity and cost-effectiveness of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) versus 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) in the postoperative treatment of uterine and cervical cancer. METHODS: Between 2000 and 2012, eighty patients at our institution received post-hysterectomy 3DCRT (46) or IMRT (34) for uterine or cervical cancer. Baseline characteristics, outcome, and ≥CTCAE grade 2 toxicities were compared between the two groups. Predictors of toxicity-free survival were identified. A decision analysis model was designed to capture individual health states at 1, 2, and 3 years after treatment. Micro-costing technique and estimated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: Utilization of IMRT increased from 25% (2005-2007) to 75% (2008-2012). Recurrence-free and overall survival rates were not different between the two groups. Toxicity rates were reduced with IMRT versus 3DCRT (HR 0.42, p=0.04). Women who received IMRT had numerically lower rates of late gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity and significantly lower rates of late overall toxicity at 3 years (16% vs. 45%, p=0.04). On univariate analysis, IMRT was associated with decreased late toxicity (HR 0.43, p=0.04). Treatment costs were higher and toxicity costs were lower with IMRT. IMRT had an ICER of $235,233 (year 1), $114,270 (year 2), and $75,555 (year 3) per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: IMRT is associated with reduced late overall toxicity compared to 3DCRT without compromising clinical outcome. IMRT is not cost-effective during the early chronic toxicity phase, but it becomes more cost-effective over time.

Cost-efficacy of acceleration partial-breast irradiation compared with whole-breast irradiation.

The purpose of this study was to analyze the cost-efficacy of multiple accelerated partial-breast irradiation (APBI) techniques compared with whole breast irradiation (WBI) delivered utilizing 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). A previously reported matched-pair analysis consisting of 199 patients receiving WBI and 199 patients receiving interstitial APBI formed the basis of this analysis. Cost analyses included a cost minimization analysis, incremental cost- effectiveness ratio (ICER) analysis, and cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) analysis. Per 1,000 patients treated, the cost savings with the utilization of APBI compared to WBI IMRT is $14.9 million, $10.9 million, $8.8 million, $5.0 million, and $9.7 million for APBI 3D-CRT, APBI IMRT, APBI single-lumen (SL), APBI multi-lumen (ML), and APBI interstitial, respectively. Per 1,000 patients treated, the cost savings with the utilization of APBI compared to WBI 3D-CRT is $6.0 million, $2.0 million, and $0.7 million for APBI 3D-CRT, APBI IMRT, and APBI interstitial, respectively. The cost per QALY for APBI SL, APBI ML, and APBI interstitial compared with APBI 3D-CRT are $12,273, $66,032, and $546, respectively. When incorporating non-medical costs and cost of recurrences the cost per QALY was $54,698 and $49,009 for APBI ML compared with APBI 3D-CRT. When compared to WBI IMRT, all APBI techniques are cost-effective based on cost minimization, ICER, and QALY analyses. When compared to WBI 3D-CRT, external beam APBI techniques represent a more cost-effective approach based on cost minimization with brachytherapy representing a cost-effective approach based on cost per QALY.

Proton beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer-is the hype (and the cost) justified?

Although in use for over 40 years, proton beam therapy for prostate cancer has only recently come under public scrutiny, due to its increased cost compared to other forms of treatment. While the last decade has seen a rapid accumulation of evidence to suggest that proton beam therapy is both safe and effective in this disease site, a rigorous comparison to other radiotherapy techniques has not yet been completed. In this review, we provide an in-depth look at the evidence both supporting and questioning proton beam therapy's future role in the treatment of prostate cancer, with emphasis on its history, physical properties, comparative clinical and cost effectiveness, advances in its delivery and future promise.

The Cost of Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer in Thailand: an Empirical Study for Economic Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate cost of illness of locally advanced cervical cancer patients from societal perspective in three scenarios including completely cured without severe late side effects (S1), completely cured with late grade 3-4 gastrointestinal side effects (S2.1) or genitourinary side effects (S2.2), and disease recurrence and death (S3). METHODS:  The incidence-based approach was conducted. The cost was calculated for 5-year time horizon starting for the treatment initiation. Direct medical costs were extracted from hospital database. Cost of using two-dimensional technique and three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy were calculated separately. Direct non-medical costs and indirect costs in terms of productivity loss were based on actual expenses from the interview of 194 locally advanced cervical cancer patients from two tertiary hospitals in Bangkok, during June to December 2019. All costs were converted to US dollar in 2019 values. RESULTS: For 5 years, cost of illness per patient for using two-dimensional technique and three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy were US $8,391 and US $10,418 for S1, US $18,018 and US $20,045 for S2.1, US $17,908 and US $19,936 for S2.2, and US $61,076 and US $63,103 for S3, respectively. The economic burden for newly diagnosed locally advanced cervical cancer patients in Thailand in 2018 was approximately US $129 million and US $131 million for using two-dimensional technique and three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy, respectively. Cost from S3 accounted for 70% of all total cost. Premature death was the most important cost driver of cost of illness accounted for 64 % of the total cost estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Cost of illness of locally advanced cervical cancer patients produced significant economic burden from societal perspective. Disease recurrence and early death from cancer was the most influential cause of this burden.

Partial versus whole breast irradiation: Side effects, patient satisfaction and costs.

PURPOSE: Since accelerated partial breast irradiation has demonstrated non-inferiority to whole breast irradiation regarding recurrence rate in patients with early stage breast cancer, our objective was to compare its impact on short-term adverse events, patient satisfaction and costs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with early stage breast cancer treated by breast-conserving surgery between 2007 and 2012 were included: 48 women who received three-dimensional conformal accelerated partial breast irradiation in a multicentre phase-II trial were paired with 48 patients prospectively treated with whole breast irradiation. Adverse events, and patients' opinions concerning cosmesis, satisfaction and pain, were gathered 1 month after treatment. Direct and indirect costs were collected from the French National Health Insurance System perspective until the end of radiotherapy. RESULTS: When comparing its impact, skin reactions occurred in 37% of patients receiving three-dimensional conformal accelerated partial breast radiotherapy and 60% of patients receiving whole breast irradiation (P=0.07); 98% were very satisfied in the group three-dimensional conformal accelerated partial breast radiotherapy versus 46% in the group treated with whole breast irradiation (P<0.001); direct costs were significantly lower in the group treated with partial breast irradiation (mean cost: 2510€ versus 5479€/patient), due to less radiation sessions. CONCLUSION: In patients with early-stage breast cancer, partial irradiation offered a good alternative to whole breast irradiation, as it was less expensive and satisfactory. These, and the clinical safety and tolerance results, need to be confirmed by long-term accelerated partial breast irradiation results in on-going phase III trials.

Self-reported Conflicts of Interest and Trial Sponsorship of Clinical Trials in Prostate Cancer Involving Radiotherapy.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the association between trial sponsorship and conflicts of interest (COI) with clinical trial conclusions for prostate cancer trials related to radiotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The MEDLINE database was searched for all prostate cancer clinical trials published between 2004 and 2013 and identified 1396 studies. Two investigators independently identified trials published in the English language of ≥30 patients, and extracted relevant data. Clinical trials were classified according to trial characteristics, sponsorship source and type, COI, and study conclusion, and analyzed by univariable and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 240 eligible trials, 160 (67.5%) evaluated drugs without radiotherapy, 60 (25%) involved radiotherapy, and 18 (7.5%) involved procedures without radiotherapy. Of the 60 radiotherapy trials eligible for analysis, positive sponsorship and potential COI were present in 58.3% and 20% of trials, respectively. Study conclusions were positive, negative, or neutral in 78.3%, 5%, and 16.7% of trials, respectively. No association was found between positive conclusions and either industry support of potential COI. Positive conclusions were reported in 86.7% and 83.3% of trials with sponsorship and COI, respectively, as compared with 75.6% and 77.1% of those without sponsorship (P=0.37) and COI (P=0.64). Sponsorship was significantly associated with radiotherapy trials combined with drugs (odds ratio 5.5, P=0.01) and higher-risk disease (odds ratio 4.71, P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of sponsorship was associated with radiotherapy trials involving drugs or studying higher-risk prostate cancer. However, there were no identified associations between study conclusion and sponsorship type or COI.

Evaluation of Delivery Costs for External Beam Radiation Therapy and Brachytherapy for Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer Using Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the delivery costs, using time-driven activity-based costing, and reimbursement for definitive radiation therapy for locally advanced cervical cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Process maps were created to represent each step of the radiation treatment process and included personnel, equipment, and consumable supplies used to deliver care. Personnel were interviewed to estimate time involved to deliver care. Salary data, equipment purchasing information, and facilities costs were also obtained. We defined the capacity cost rate (CCR) for each resource and then calculated the total cost of patient care according to CCR and time for each resource. Costs were compared with 2016 Medicare reimbursement and relative value units (RVUs). RESULTS: The total cost of radiation therapy for cervical cancer was $12,861.68, with personnel costs constituting 49.8%. Brachytherapy cost $8610.68 (66.9% of total) and consumed 423 minutes of attending radiation oncologist time (80.0% of total). External beam radiation therapy cost $4055.01 (31.5% of total). Personnel costs were higher for brachytherapy than for the sum of simulation and external beam radiation therapy delivery ($4798.73 vs $1404.72). A full radiation therapy course provides radiation oncologists 149.77 RVUs with intensity modulated radiation therapy or 135.90 RVUs with 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy, with total reimbursement of $23,321.71 and $16,071.90, respectively. Attending time per RVU is approximately 4-fold higher for brachytherapy (5.68 minutes) than 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (1.63 minutes) or intensity modulated radiation therapy (1.32 minutes). CONCLUSIONS: Time-driven activity-based costing was used to calculate the total cost of definitive radiation therapy for cervical cancer, revealing that brachytherapy delivery and personnel resources constituted the majority of costs. However, current reimbursement policy does not reflect the increased attending physician effort and delivery costs of brachytherapy. We hypothesize that the significant discrepancy between treatment costs and physician effort versus reimbursement may be a potential driver of reported national trends toward poor compliance with brachytherapy, and we suggest re-evaluation of payment policies to incentivize quality care.

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) versus 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) for head and neck cancer: cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: A cost-effectiveness analysis of IMRT compared to 3D-CRT for head and neck cancer patients (HNCPs) was conducted in the Brazilian Public Health System. METHODS: A Markov model was used to simulate radiation therapy-induced dysphagia and xerostomia in HNCPs. Data from the PARSPORT trial and the quality-of-life study were used as parameters. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained were calculated. RESULTS: At 2 years, IMRT was associated with an incremental benefit of 0.16 QALYs gained per person, resulting in an ICER of BRL 31,579 per QALY gained. IMRT was considered cost-effective when using the guideline proposed by the World Health Organization (WHO) of three times the national gross domestic product (GDP) per capita (BRL 72,195). Regarding life expectancy (15 years), the incremental benefit of IMRT was 1.16 QALYs gained per person, with an ICER of BRL 4,341. IMRT was also cost-effective using the WHO definition, which states that the maximum cost is equal to the GDP per capita (BRL 24,065). CONCLUSIONS: IMRT was considered cost-effective from the perspective of the Brazilian public health system.

Impact of Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy on Health Care Costs of Patients With Anal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Drivers of variation in the cost of care after chemoradiotherapy for the management of anal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) have not been fully elucidated. We sought to characterize the direct and indirect impact of radiotherapy modality on health care costs among patients with anal SCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed using the 2014 linkage of the SEER-Medicare database. We identified 1,025 patients with anal SCC diagnosed between 2001 and 2011 and treated with chemoradiotherapy. Propensity score matching was used to balance baseline differences between patients treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and those treated with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT). Differences in total, cancer-attributable, and procedure-specific costs between groups were measured. RESULTS: Radiation-related, patient out-of-pocket, and total costs in the 1-year period after radiotherapy start were all higher for the IMRT group than the 3D-CRT group (median total cost, $35,890 v $27,262, respectively; P < .001). Patients who received IMRT had lower cumulative costs associated with urgent hospitalizations and emergency department visits at both 9 months and 1 year after treatment start compared with a matched cohort of patients who received 3D-CRT (median, $711 v $4,957 at 1 year, respectively; P = .021). CONCLUSION: Although total costs of care were higher for IMRT compared with 3D-CRT, primarily as a result of higher radiotherapy-specific costs, IMRT was associated with decreased unplanned health care utilization costs starting at 9 months after treatment start. Radiotherapy-centered episodes of care may need to encompass a longer time horizon to capture the full cost savings associated with more advanced radiation modalities.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Preoperative Versus Postoperative Radiation Therapy in Extremity Soft Tissue Sarcoma.

PURPOSE: Surgery combined with radiation therapy (RT) is the cornerstone of multidisciplinary management of extremity soft tissue sarcoma (STS). Although RT can be given in either the preoperative or the postoperative setting with similar local recurrence and survival outcomes, the side effect profiles, costs, and long-term functional outcomes are different. The aim of this study was to use decision analysis to determine optimal sequencing of RT with surgery in patients with extremity STS. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a state transition Markov model, with quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) as the primary outcome. A time horizon of 5 years, a cycle length of 3 months, and a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY was used. One-way deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the thresholds at which each strategy would be preferred. The robustness of the model was assessed by probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Preoperative RT is a more cost-effective strategy ($26,633/3.00 QALYs) than postoperative RT ($28,028/2.86 QALYs) in our base case scenario. Preoperative RT is the superior strategy with either 3-dimensional conformal RT or intensity-modulated RT. One-way sensitivity analyses identified the relative risk of chronic adverse events as having the greatest influence on the preferred timing of RT. The likelihood of preoperative RT being the preferred strategy was 82% on probabilistic sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative RT is more cost effective than postoperative RT in the management of resectable extremity STS, primarily because of the higher incidence of chronic adverse events with RT in the postoperative setting.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Radiation Therapy Versus Transoral Robotic Surgery for Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of transoral robotic surgery (TORS) versus the standard treatment modality for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC), radiation therapy (RT), in a subset of patients with early-stage OPSCC. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We developed a microsimulation state-transition model associated with RT and TORS for patients with clinically staged T1N0M0 to T2N1M0 OPSCC. Transition probabilities, utilities, and costs for each health state were estimated from recently published data and discounted by 3% annually over a lifetime time horizon. Model outcomes included lifetime costs (in 2014 US dollars), health benefits (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]), and cost-effectiveness ratios from a societal perspective. RESULTS: Under base-case assumptions, TORS was associated with modest gains in QALYs. RT yielded 10.43 QALYs at a cost of $123,410 per patient, whereas TORS yielded 11.10 QALYs at a cost of $178,480. This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $82,190/QALY gained. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was most sensitive to the need for adjuvant therapy, cost of late toxicity, age at diagnosis, disease state utilities, and discount rate. Accounting for joint parameter uncertainty, RT had a higher probability of demonstrating a cost-effective profile compared with TORS, at 54% compared with 46%. CONCLUSIONS: By use of standard benchmarks for cost-effectiveness in the United States, TORS may be a cost-effective alternative for the subset of patients with early-stage OPSCC but demonstrates considerable sensitivity to assumptions around quality of life.

Using decision analysis to determine the cost-effectiveness of intensity-modulated radiation therapy in the treatment of intermediate risk prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: The specific aim of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) compared with three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) in the treatment of a 70-year-old with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: A Markov model was designed with the following states; posttreatment, hormone therapy, chemotherapy, and death. Transition probabilities from one state to another were calculated from rates derived from the literature for IMRT and 3D-CRT. Utility values for each health state were obtained from preliminary studies of preferences conducted at Fox Chase Cancer Center. The analysis took a payer's perspective. Expected mean costs, cost-effectiveness scatterplots, and cost acceptability curves were calculated with commercially available software. RESULTS: The expected mean cost of patients undergoing IMRT was $47,931 with a survival of 6.27 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The expected mean cost of patients having 3D-CRT was $21,865 with a survival of 5.62 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness comparing IMRT with CRT was $40,101/QALYs. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve analysis revealed a 55.1% probability of IMRT being cost-effective at a $50,000/QALY willingness to pay. CONCLUSION: Intensity-modulated radiation therapy was found to be cost-effective, however, at the upper limits of acceptability. The results, however, are dependent on the assumptions of improved biochemical disease-free survival with fewer patients undergoing subsequent salvage therapy and improved quality of life after the treatment. In the absence of prospective randomized trials, decision analysis can help inform physicians and health policy experts on the cost-effectiveness of emerging technologies.

Accelerated partial breast irradiation using proton beams: Initial dosimetric experience.

PURPOSE: The unique dosimetric features of proton radiotherapy make it an attractive modality for normal tissue sparing. We present our initial experience with protons for three-dimensional, conformal, external-beam accelerated partial breast irradiation (3D-CPBI). METHODS AND MATERIALS: From March 2004 to June 2005, 25 patients with tumors < or =2 cm and negative axillary nodes were treated with proton 3D-CPBI. The prescribed dose was 32 Cobalt Gray Equivalents (CGE) in 4 CGE fractions given twice daily. One to three fields were used to provide adequate planning target volume (PTV) coverage and dose homogeneity. RESULTS: Excellent PTV coverage and dose homogeneity were obtained in all patients with one to three proton beams. The median PTV receiving 95% of the prescribed dose was 100%. Dose inhomogeneity exceeded 10% in only 1 patient (4%). The median volume of nontarget breast tissue receiving 50% of the prescribed dose was 23%. Median volumes of ipsilateral lung receiving 20 CGE, 10 CGE, and 5 CGE were 0%, 1%, and 2%, respectively. The contralateral lung and heart received essentially no radiation dose. Cost analysis suggests that proton 3D-CPBI is only modestly more expensive (25%) than traditional whole-breast irradiation (WBI). CONCLUSION: Proton 3D-CPBI is technically feasible, providing both excellent PTV coverage and normal tissue sparing. It markedly reduces the volume of nontarget breast tissue irradiated compared with photon-based 3D-CPBI, addressing a principle disadvantage of external-beam approaches to PBI. As proton therapy becomes more widely available, it may prove an attractive tool for 3D-CPBI.

Impact of image guidance during whole-brain radiation therapy.

PURPOSE: Radiation oncologists are rapidly adopting image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT), warranting further evaluation of its role and value. We analyzed the impact of IGRT for one of the most common radiation treatments. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We retrospectively identified patients who received whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) with mask immobilization and who underwent routine IGRT with kilovoltage imaging. We calculated IGRT shifts by comparing couch positions before and after imaging. We determined the dosimetric impact of IGRT on lens maximum and dose received by 95% (D95%) of the brain and cribriform region. We calculated episode of care costs using the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. RESULTS: A total of 206 patients received 2392 image-guided fractions. The median absolute shift was 1 mm, 1 mm, and 2 mm in the vertical, lateral, and longitudinal directions, respectively. Ninety-nine percent of shifts were ≤6 mm, 7 mm, and 9 mm in the vertical, lateral, and longitudinal directions, respectively. For the 22 patients with the largest average shift per fraction, treating without IGRT would have changed D95% brain by a median 3 cGy (interquartile range, 2-9) and D95% cribriform region by a median 39 cGy (interquartile range, 7-116). Without IGRT, lens doses would have increased for 11/22 patients and decreased for 11/22. Using a 700 cGy lens threshold, there was no net change in the proportion of patients above and below the threshold regardless of IGRT use. For a 10-fraction course, daily IGRT accounted for 10% of the total episode of care cost. CONCLUSIONS: IGRT results in small positional corrections during WBRT. Even among cases with the largest shifts, the dosimetric impact is minor for the brain and modest for the cribriform region and lenses. This study suggests mask immobilization alone is sufficient for routine cases, and it may help clinicians make evidence-based decisions about IGRT in this setting.

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy: the inverse, the converse, and the perverse.

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is a refinement of current radiotherapy techniques rather than a major breakthrough. The term IMRT includes several different techniques that all share with classical arc therapy the principle of using multiple fields to reduce the dose to normal tissues, but integrating to a higher dose throughout the tumor volume itself. This paper reviews not only the putative upside but also the downside of the development of IMRT. Theoretical, practical, and cost considerations, both positive and negative, are discussed. There are several issues to be considered, but the most important perversely predict a significant increase in radiation-induced neoplasms, resulting not only from larger volumes of tissue exposed to more modest but still mutagenic doses, but also from a significant increase in total body dose from leakage, because the beam is typically on for a considerably longer period of time than is conventional. A plea is made for radiation oncologists to maintain a strong biologic and cellular orientation as oncology rapidly becomes more molecular in its orientation.