Efficacy and cost of high-frequency IGRT in elderly stage III non-small-cell lung cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: High-frequency image-guided radiotherapy (hfIGRT) is ubiquitous but its benefits are unproven. We examined the cost effectiveness of hfIGRT in stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: We selected stage III NSCLC patients ≥66 years old who received definitive radiation therapy from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End-Results-Medicare database. Patients were stratified by use of hfIGRT using Medicare claims. Predictors for hfIGRT were calculated using a logistic model. The impact of hfIGRT on lung toxicity free survival (LTFS), esophageal toxicity free survival (ETFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), overall survival (OS), and cost of treatment was calculated using Cox regressions, propensity score matching, and bootstrap methods. RESULTS: Of the 4,430 patients in our cohort, 963 (22%) received hfIGRT and 3,468 (78%) did not. By 2011, 49% of patients were receiving hfIGRT. Predictors of hfIGRT use included treatment with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) (OR = 7.5, p < 0.01), recent diagnosis (OR = 51 in 2011 versus 2006, p < 0.01), and residence in regions where the Medicare intermediary allowed IMRT (OR = 1.50, p < 0.01). hfIGRT had no impact on LTFS (HR 0.97; 95% CI 0.86-1.09), ETFS (HR 1.05; 95% CI 0.93-1.18), CSS (HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.84-1.04), or OS (HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.87-1.04). Mean radiotherapy and total medical costs six months after diagnosis were $17,330 versus $15,024 (p < 0.01) and $71,569 versus $69,693 (p = 0.49), respectively. CONCLUSION: hfIGRT did not affect clinical outcomes in elderly patients with stage III NSCLC but did increase radiation cost. hfIGRT deserves further scrutiny through a randomized controlled trial.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of radiotherapy techniques for whole breast irradiation.

BACKGROUND: The current standard of care (SOC) for whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT) in the US is conventional tangential photon fields. Advanced WBRT techniques may provide similar tumor control and better normal tissue sparing, but it is controversial whether the medical benefits of an advanced technology are significant enough to justify its higher cost. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the cost-effectiveness of six advanced WBRT techniques compared with SOC. METHODS: We developed a Markov model to simulate health states for one cohort of women (65-year-old) with early-stage breast cancer over 15 years after WBRT. The cost effectiveness analyses of field-in-field (FIF), hybrid intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), full IMRT, standard volumetric modulated arc therapy (STD-VMAT), multiple arc VMAT (MA-VMAT), non-coplanar VMAT (NC-VMAT) compared with SOC were performed with both tumor control and radiogenic side effects considered. Transition probabilities and utilities for each health state were obtained from literature. Costs incurred by payers were adopted from literature and Medicare data. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to evaluate the impact of uncertainties on the final results. RESULTS: FIF has the lowest ICER value of 1,511 $/QALY. The one-way analyses show that the cost-effectiveness of advanced WBRT techniques is most sensitive to the probability of developing contralateral breast cancer. PSAs show that SOC is more cost effective than almost all advanced WBRT techniques at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 50,000 $/QALY, while FIF, hybrid IMRT and MA-VMAT are more cost-effective than SOC with a probability of 59.2%, 72.3% and 72.6% at a WTP threshold of 100,000 $/QALY, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: FIF might be the most cost-effective option for WBRT patients at a WTP threshold of 50,000 $/QALY, while hybrid IMRT and MA-VMAT might be the most cost-effective options at a WTP threshold of 100,000 $/QALY.

Cost-effectiveness of treating head and neck cancer using intensity-modulated radiation therapy: implications for cancer control program in India.

BACKGROUND: The newer cancer treatment technologies hold the potential of providing improved health outcomes at an additional cost. So it becomes obligatory to assess the costs and benefits of a new technology, before defining its clinical value. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) as compared to 2-dimensional radiotherapy (2-DRT) and 3-dimensional radiotherapy (3D-CRT) for treating head and neck cancers (HNC) in India. The cost-effectiveness of 3-DCRT as compared to 2-DRT was also estimated. METHODS: A probabilistic Markov model was designed. Using a disaggregated societal perspective, lifetime study horizon and 3 percent discount rate, future costs and health outcomes were compared for a cohort of 1000 patients treated with any of the three radiation techniques. Data on health system cost, out of pocket expenditure, and quality of life was assessed through primary data collected from a large tertiary care public sector hospital in India. Data on xerostomia rates following each of the radiation techniques was extracted from the existing randomized controlled trials. RESULTS: IMRT incurs an incremental cost of $7,072 (2,932-13,258) and $5,164 (463-10,954) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained compared to 2-DRT and 3D-CRT, respectively. Further, 3D-CRT as compared to 2-DRT requires an incremental cost of $8,946 (1,996-19,313) per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: Both IMRT and 3D-CRT are not cost-effective at 1 times GDP per capita for treating HNC in India. The costs and benefits of using IMRT for other potential indications (e.g. prostate, lung) require to be assessed before considering its introduction in India.

Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing Comparison of Stereotactic Radiosurgery to Multiple Brain Lesions Using Single-Isocenter Versus Multiple-Isocenter Technique.

PURPOSE: Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) historically has been used to treat multiple brain lesions using a multiple-isocenter technique-frequently associated with significant complexity in treatment planning and long treatment times. Recently, given innovations in planning algorithms, patients with multiple brain lesions may now be treated with a single-isocenter technique using fewer total arcs and less time spent during image guidance (though with stricter image guided radiation therapy tolerances). This study used time-driven activity-based costing to determine the difference in cost to a provider for delivering SRS to multiple brain lesions using single-isocenter versus multiple-isocenter techniques. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Process maps, consisting of discrete steps, were created for each phase of the SRS care cycle and were based on interviews with department personnel. Actual treatment times (including image guidance) were extracted from treatment record and verify software. Additional sources of data to determine costs included salary/benefit data of personnel and average list price/maintenance costs for equipment. RESULTS: Data were collected for 22 patients who underwent single-isocenter SRS (mean lesions treated, 5.2; mean treatment time, 30.2 minutes) and 51 patients who underwent multiple-isocenter SRS (mean lesions treated, 4.4; mean treatment time, 75.2 minutes). Treatment time for multiple-isocenter SRS varied substantially with increasing number of lesions (11.8 minutes/lesion; P < .001), but to a much lesser degree in single-isocenter SRS (1.8 minutes/lesion; P = .029). The resulting cost savings from single-isocenter SRS based on number of lesions treated ranged from $296 to $3878 for 2 to 10 lesions treated. The 2-mm planning treatment volume margin used with single-isocenter SRS resulted in a mean 43% increase of total volume treated compared with a 1-mm planning treatment volume expansion. CONCLUSIONS: In a comparison of time-driven activity-based costing assessment of single-isocenter versus multiple-isocenter SRS for multiple brain lesions, single-isocenter SRS appears to save time and resources for as few as 2 lesions, with incremental benefits for additional lesions treated.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of proton beam therapy for treatment decision making in paranasal sinus and nasal cavity cancers in China.

BACKGROUND: Cost-effectiveness is a pivotal consideration for clinical decision making of high-tech cancer treatment in developing countries. Intensity-modulated proton radiation therapy (IMPT, the advanced form of proton beam therapy) has been found to improve the prognosis of the patients with paranasal sinus and nasal cavity cancers compared with intensity-modulated photon-radiation therapy (IMRT). However, the cost-effectiveness of IMPT has not yet been fully evaluated. This study aimed at evaluating the cost-effectiveness of IMPT versus IMRT for treatment decision making of paranasal sinus and nasal cavity cancers in Chinese settings. METHODS: A 3-state Markov model was designed for cost-effectiveness analysis. A base case evaluation was performed on a patient of 47-year-old (median age of patients with paranasal sinus and nasal cavity cancers in China). Model robustness was examined by probabilistic sensitivity analysis, Markov cohort analysis and Tornado diagram. Cost-effective scenarios of IMPT were further identified by one-way sensitivity analyses and stratified analyses were performed for different age levels. The outcome measure of the model was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). A strategy was defined as cost-effective if the ICER was below the societal willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of China (30,828 US dollars ($) / quality-adjusted life year (QALY)). RESULTS: IMPT was identified as being cost-effective for the base case at the WTP of China, providing an extra 1.65 QALYs at an additional cost of $38,928.7 compared with IMRT, and had an ICER of $23,611.2 / QALY. Of note, cost-effective scenarios of IMPT only existed in the following independent conditions: probability of IMPT eradicating cancer ≥0.867; probability of IMRT eradicating cancer ≤0.764; or cost of IMPT ≤ $52,163.9. Stratified analyses for different age levels demonstrated that IMPT was more cost-effective in younger patients than older patients, and was cost-effective only in patients ≤56-year-old. CONCLUSIONS: Despite initially regarded as bearing high treatment cost, IMPT could still be cost-effective for patients with paranasal sinus and nasal cavity cancers in China. The tumor control superiority of IMPT over IMRT and the patient's age should be the principal considerations for clinical decision of prescribing this new irradiation technique.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of endocrine therapy alone versus partial-breast irradiation alone versus combined treatment for low-risk hormone-positive early-stage breast cancer in women aged 70 years or older.

PURPOSE: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of three strategies for the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer in women age 70 years or older: an aromatase inhibitor (AI-alone) for 5 years, a 5-fraction course of accelerated partial-breast irradiation using intensity-modulated radiation therapy (APBI-alone), or their combination. METHODS: We constructed a patient-level Markov microsimulation from the societal perspective. Effectiveness data (local recurrence, distant metastases, survival), and toxicity data were obtained from randomized trials when possible. Costs of side effects were included. Costs were adjusted to 2019 US dollars and extracted from Medicare reimbursement data. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) were calculated using utilities extracted from the literature. RESULTS: The strategy of AI-alone ($12,637) was cheaper than both APBI-alone ($13,799) and combination therapy ($18,012) in the base case. All approaches resulted in similar QALY outcomes (AI-alone 7.775; APBI-alone 7.768; combination 7.807). In the base case, AI-alone was the cost-effective strategy and dominated APBI-alone, while combined therapy was not cost-effective when compared to AI-alone ($171,451/QALY) or APBI-alone ($107,932/QALY). In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, AI-alone was cost-effective at $100,000/QALY in 50% of trials, APBI-alone in 28% and the combination in 22%. Scenario analysis demonstrated that APBI-alone was more effective than AI-alone when AI compliance was lower than 26% at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a Markov microsimulation analysis, both AI-alone and APBI-alone are appropriate options for patients 70 years or older with early breast cancer with small cost differences noted. A prospective trial comparing the approaches is warranted.

Comparative cost of transoral robotic surgery and radiotherapy (IMRT) in early stage tonsil cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare treatment costs and cost-effectiveness for transoral robotic surgery (TORS) and definitive intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in managing early stage tonsil cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Direct treatment costs for surgery and IMRT were calculated from SEER-Medicare data for a cohort with clinically early stage (cT1/2N0) p16+ tonsillar squamous cell carcinoma from Kaiser Permanente Southern California Health Plan between 2012 and 2017. A Markov decision tree model with a 5-year time horizon was then applied to the cohort which incorporated costs associated with treatment, surveillance, and recurrence. RESULTS: IMRT cost up to $19,000 more (35%) than TORS in direct treatment costs. When input into the Markov model, TORS dominated IMRT with lower cost and better effectiveness over a range of values. CONCLUSION: TORS is a more cost-effective treatment method than IMRT in early stage (cT1/2N0) tonsil cancer.

Proton therapy for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Radiation therapy is an essential component of treatment for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) but can be technically challenging because of the proximity of lung tumors to nearby critical organs or structures. The most effective strategy for reducing radiation-induced toxicity is to reduce unnecessary exposure of normal tissues by using advanced technology; examples from photon (X-ray) therapy have included three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy versus its predecessor, two-dimensional radiation therapy, and intensity-modulated photon radiation therapy versus its predecessor, three-dimensional conformal therapy. Using particle-beam therapy rather than photons offers the potential for further advantages because of the unique depth-dose characteristics of the particles, which can be exploited to allow still higher dose escalation to tumors with greater sparing of normal tissues, with the ultimate goal of improving local tumor control and survival while preserving quality of life by reducing treatment-related toxicity. However, the costs associated with particle therapy with protons are considerably higher than the current state of the art in photon technology, and evidence of clinical benefit from protons is increasingly being demanded to justify the higher financial burden on the healthcare system. Some such evidence is available from preclinical studies, from retrospective, single-institution clinical series, from analyses of national databases, and from single-arm prospective studies in addition to several ongoing randomized comparative trials. This review summarizes the rationale for and challenges of using proton therapy to treat thoracic cancers, reviews the current clinical experience, and suggests topics for future research.

Clinical Evaluation of Onrad, A New Low-cost Version of TomoTherapy that Uses Only Static Beams.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the clinical feasibility of a new low-cost TomoTherapy system (OnradTM) and compared it with low-cost linear accelerator models (linacs). METHODS: Various aspects of treatment and cost were compared between Onrad and linacs for 3-dimensional radiotherapy (3DCRT). Dosimetric comparisons of 10 patients each with breast, stage III lung, prostate, head and neck, and cervical cancers were carried out (total 100 plans). RESULTS: Onrad had advantages in terms of availability of long treatment fields and a smaller mechanical footprint. For breast cancers and lung cancers, target dose homogeneity in Onrad plans was better than that in 3DCRT. In the prostate plans, Onrad plans provided superior D95, conformity and homogeneity. The rectum doses of Onrad plans were lower than those with 3DCRT. Onrad plans provided superior homogeneity and D95 in head and neck cancer. The mean dose and V10-40 Gy of the parotid glands was lower using Onrad. In the cervical cancer plans, target doses were similar with both systems. Normal tissue doses were equal. CONCLUSIONS: Onrad is useful in the clinical setting. Onrad can achieve favorable or comparable dose distributions compared with those of 3DCRT in actual clinical treatment of breast, lung, prostate, head and neck, and cervical cancers.

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of IMRT plus C12 boost vs IMRT only in adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) of the head and neck.

BACKGROUND: Particle therapy provides steep dose gradients to facilitate dose escalation in challenging anatomical sites which has been shown not only to improve local control but also overall survival in patients with ACC. Cost-effectiveness of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plus carbon ion (C12) boost vs IMRT alone was performed in order to objectivise and substantiate more widespread use of this technology in ACC. METHODS: Patients with pathologically confirmed ACC received a combination regimen of IMRT plus C12 boost. Patients presenting outside C12 treatment slots received IMRT only. Clinical results were published; economic analysis on patient-level data was carried out from a healthcare purchaser's perspective based on costs of healthcare utilization. Cost histories were generated from resource use recorded in individual patient charts and adjusted for censoring using the Lin I method. Cost-effectiveness was measured as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sensitivity analysis was performed regarding potentially differing management of recurrent disease. RESULTS: The experimental treatment increased overall costs by € 18,076 (€13,416 - €22,922) at a mean survival benefit of 0.86 years. Despite improved local control, following costs were also increased in the experimental treatment. The ICER was estimated to 26,863 €/LY. After accounting for different management of recurrent disease in the two cohorts, the ICER was calculated to 20,638 €/LY. CONCLUSION: The combined treatment (IMRT+C12 boost) substantially increased initial and overall treatment cost. In view of limited treatment options in ACC, costs may be acceptable though. Investigations into quality of life measures may support further decisions in the future.

Minimally invasive surgery alone compared with intensity-modulated radiotherapy for primary stage I nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) as the primary curative treatment for newly diagnosed nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC), but the radiation-related complications and relatively high medical costs remain a consequential burden for the patients. Endoscopic nasopharyngectomy (ENPG) was successfully applied in recurrent NPC with radiation free and relatively low medical costs. In this study, we examined whether ENPG could be an effective treatment for localized stage I NPC. METHODS: Ten newly diagnosed localized stage I NPC patients voluntarily received ENPG alone from June 2007 to September 2017 in Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center. Simultaneously, the data of 329 stage I NPC patients treated with IMRT were collected and used as a reference cohort. The survival outcomes, quality of life (QOL), and medical costs between two groups were compared. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 59.0 months (95% CI 53.4-64.6), no death, locoregional recurrence, or distant metastasis was observed in the 10 patients treated with ENPG. The 5-year overall survival, local relapse-free survival, regional relapse-free survival, and distant metastasis-free survival among the ENPG-treated patients was similar to that among the IMRT-treated patients (100% vs. 99.1%, 100% vs. 97.7%, 100% vs. 99.0%, 100% vs. 97.4%, respectively, P > 0.05). In addition, compared with IMRT, ENPG was associated with decreased total medical costs ($ 4090.42 ± 1502.65 vs. $ 12620.88 ± 4242.65, P < 0.001) and improved QOL scores including dry mouth (3.3 ± 10.5 vs. 34.4 ± 25.8, P < 0.001) and sticky saliva (3.3 ± 10.5 vs. 32.6 ± 23.3, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: ENPG alone was associated with promising long-term survival outcomes, low medical costs, and satisfactory QOL and might therefore be an alternative strategy for treating newly diagnosed localized stage I NPC patients who refused radiotherapy. However, the application of ENPG should be prudent, and prospective clinical trials were needed to further verify the results.

SUPR-3D: A randomized phase iii trial comparing simple unplanned palliative radiotherapy versus 3d conformal radiotherapy for patients with bone metastases: study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Bone metastases in the lower spine and pelvis are effectively palliated with radiotherapy (RT), though this can come with side effects such as radiation induced nausea and vomiting (RINV). We hypothesize that high rates of RINV occur in part because of the widespread use of inexpensive simple unplanned palliative radiotherapy (SUPR), over more complex and resource intensive 3D conformal RT, such as volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). METHODS: This is a randomized, multi-centre phase III trial of SUPR versus VMAT. We will accrue 250 patients to assess the difference in patient-reported RINV. This study is powered to detect a difference in quality of life between patients treated with VMAT vs. SUPR. DISCUSSION: This trial will determine if VMAT reduces early toxicity compared to SUPR and may provide justification for this more resource-intensive and costly form of RT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03694015 . Date of registration: October 3, 2018.

Intensity modulated radiation therapy following lumpectomy in early-stage breast cancer: Patterns of use and cost consequences among Medicare beneficiaries.

PURPOSE: In 2013, the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) issued a Choosing Wisely recommendation against the routine use of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for whole breast irradiation. We evaluated IMRT use and subsequent impact on Medicare expenditure in the period immediately preceding this recommendation to provide a baseline measure of IMRT use and associated cost consequences. METHODS AND MATERIALS: SEER records for women ≥66 years with first primary diagnosis of Stage I/II breast cancer (2008-2011) were linked with Medicare claims (2007-2012). Eligibility criteria included lumpectomy within 6 months of diagnosis and radiotherapy within 6 months of lumpectomy. We evaluated IMRT versus conventional radiotherapy (cRT) use overall and by SEER registry (12 sites). We used generalized estimating equations logit models to explore adjusted odds ratios (OR) for associations between clinical, sociodemographic, and health services characteristics and IMRT use. Mean costs were calculated from Medicare allowable costs in the year after diagnosis. RESULTS: Among 13,037 women, mean age was 74.4, 50.5% had left-sided breast cancer, and 19.8% received IMRT. IMRT use varied from 0% to 52% across SEER registries. In multivariable analysis, left-sided breast cancer (OR 1.75), living in a big metropolitan area (OR 2.39), living in a census tract with ≤$90,000 median income (OR 1.75), neutral or favorable local coverage determination (OR 3.86, 1.72, respectively), and free-standing treatment facility (OR 3.49) were associated with receipt of IMRT (p<0.001). Mean expenditure in the year after diagnosis was $8,499 greater (p<0.001) among women receiving IMRT versus cRT. CONCLUSION: We found highly variable use of IMRT and higher expenditure in the year after diagnosis among women treated with IMRT (vs. cRT) with early-stage breast cancer and Medicare insurance. Our findings suggest a considerable opportunity to reduce treatment variation and cost of care while improving alignment between practice and clinical guidelines.

Hypofractionated radiation in older women with breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: American Society of Radiation Oncology Choosing Wisely campaign recommends hypofractionated radiation and against routine use of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in early-stage estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. We analyzed guideline recommendation adherence and financial implications in a modern Medicare cohort of women treated across the southeastern United States. METHODS: Our study population comprised Medicare patients over 65 years of age with breast cancer diagnosis from 12 cancer centers in the Southeast United States with stage 0-II breast treated with lumpectomy from 2012 to 2015. Hypofractionation was defined as 4 or fewer weeks of radiation treatments. Factors associated with utilization of hypofractionation and IMRT were identified using Poisson regression. Median costs during radiation treatments were compared for hypofractionation and IMRT. RESULTS: In older women (median age 71), 75% were treated with conventional fractionation, and 20% received IMRT. Hypofractionated women were more likely to have a positive estrogen(ER) or progestorone(PR) receptor status, lower comorbidity scores, and be treated at a high volume center (all P < 0.05). IMRT was utilized in 20% of patients and was more common in women treated with conventional fractionation (P < 0.001). Positive ER/PR status (P < 0.001) and utilization of hormonal blockade (P = 0.02) were associated with increased utilization of IMRT. CONCLUSION: In an older cohort of patients with early-stage breast cancer, a majority were treated with conventional fractionated radiation, while approximately 20% were treated with IMRT. Both of which were associated with increased cost relative to hypofractionation.

The Financial Impact of Fractionation Scheme and Treatment Planning Method for Rectal Cancer in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative long-course chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and short-course radiotherapy (SCR) for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) were found to have equivalent outcomes in 3 randomized trials. SCR has not been widely adopted in the United States (US). Three-dimensional (3D) treatment planning is standard, whereas intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is controversial. In this study, we assessed the economic impact of fractionation scheme and planning method for payers in the US. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a population-based analysis of the total cost of radiotherapy for LARC in the US annually. The national annual target population was calculated using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Radiotherapy costs were based on billing codes and 2018 pricing by Medicare's Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System. RESULTS: We estimate that 12,945 patients with LARC are treated with radiotherapy annually in the US. The cost of CRT with 3D or IMRT is US $15,882 and $23,745 per patient, respectively. With SCR, the cost with 3D or IMRT is $5,458 and $7,323 per patient, respectively. The use of SCR would lead to 53% to 77% annual savings of $106,168,871 to $232,105,727 compared with CRT. IMRT increases the total cost of treatment by 34% to 50%, and if adopted widely, would lead to an excess cost of $24,152,134 and $101,784,723 annually with SCR and CRT, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: SCR may have the potential to save approximately US $106 to t232 million annually in the US, likely without impacting outcomes. Lack of evidence showing benefit with costly IMRT should limit its use to clinical trials. It would be reasonable for public and private payers to consider which type of radiation is most suited to reimbursement.

Proton versus photon-based radiation therapy for prostate cancer: emerging evidence and considerations in the era of value-based cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Advances in radiation technology have transformed treatment options for patients with localized prostate cancer. The evolution of three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) have allowed physicians to spare surrounding normal organs and reduce adverse effects. The introduction of proton beam technology and its physical advantage of depositing its energy in tissue at the end-of-range maximum may potentially spare critical organs such as the bladder and rectum in prostate cancer patients. Data thus far are limited to large, observational studies that have not yet demonstrated a definite benefit of protons over conventional treatment with IMRT. The cost of proton beam treatment adds to the controversy within the field. METHODS: We performed an extensive literature review for all proton treatment-related prostate cancer studies. We discuss the history of proton beam technology, as well as its role in the treatment of prostate cancer, associated controversies, novel technology trends, a discussion of cost-effectiveness, and an overview of the ongoing modern large prospective studies that aim to resolve the debate between protons and photons for prostate cancer. RESULTS: Present data have demonstrated that proton beam therapy is safe and effective compared with the standard treatment options for prostate cancer. While dosimetric studies suggest lower whole-body radiation dose and a theoretically higher relative biological effectiveness in prostate cancer compared with photons, no studies have demonstrated a clear benefit with protons. CONCLUSIONS: Evolving trends in proton treatment delivery and proton center business models are helping to reduce costs. Introduction of existing technology into proton delivery allows further control of organ motion and addressing organs-at-risk. Finally, the much-awaited contemporary studies comparing photon with proton-based treatments, with primary endpoints of patient-reported quality-of-life, will help us understand the differences between proton and photon-based treatments for prostate cancer in the modern era.

Quantifying institutional resource utilization of adjuvant brachytherapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy for endometrial cancer via time-driven activity-based costing.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to quantify the cost of resources required to deliver adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) for high- to intermediate-risk endometrial cancer using time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Comparisons were made for three and five fractions of vaginal cuff brachytherapy (VCB), 28 fractions of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and combined modality RT (25-fraction IMRT followed by 2-fraction VCB). Process maps were developed representing each phase of care. Salary and equipment costs were obtained to derive capacity cost rates, which were multiplied by process times and summed to calculate total costs. Costs were compared with 2018 Medicare physician fee schedule reimbursement. RESULTS: Full cycle costs for 5-fraction VCB, IMRT, and combined modality RT were 42%, 61%, and 93% higher, respectively, than for 3-fraction VCB. Differences were attributable to course duration and number of fractions/visits. Accumulation of cost throughout the cycle was steeper for VCB, rising rapidly within a shorter time frame. Personnel cost was the greatest driver for all modalities, constituting 76% and 71% of costs for IMRT and VCB, respectively, with VCB requiring 74% more physicist time. Total reimbursement for 5-fraction VCB was 40% higher than for 3-fractions. Professional reimbursement for IMRT was 31% higher than for 5-fraction VCB, vs. IMRT requiring 43% more physician TDABC than 5-fraction VCB. CONCLUSIONS: TDABC is a feasible methodology to quantify the cost of resources required for delivery of adjuvant IMRT and brachytherapy and produces directionally accurate costing data as compared with reimbursement calculations. Such data can inform institution-specific financial analyses, resource allocation, and operational workflows.