RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has become the standard treatment for patients with high-risk prostate cancer. Two techniques of rotational IMRT are commonly used in this indication: Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) and helical tomotherapy (HT). To the best of our knowledge, no study has compared their related costs and clinical effectiveness and/or toxicity in prostate cancer. We aimed to assess differences in costs and toxicity between VMAT and HT in patients with high-risk prostate cancer with pelvic irradiation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We used data from the "RCMI pelvis" prospective multicenter study (NCT01325961) including 155 patients. We used a micro-costing methodology to identify cost differences between VMAT and HT. To assess the effects of the two techniques on total actual costs per patient and on toxicity we used stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting. RESULTS: The mean total cost for HT, 2019 3,069 (95% CI, 2,885-3,285) was significantly higher than the mean cost for VMAT 2019 2,544 (95% CI, 2,443-2,651) (p <.0001). The mean ± SD labor and accelerator cost for HT was 2880 (± 583) and 1978 (± 475) for VMAT, with 81 and 76% for accelerator, respectively. Acute GI and GU toxicity were more frequent in VMAT than in HT (p = .021 and p = .042, respectively). Late toxicity no longer differed between the two groups up to 24 months after completion of treatment. CONCLUSION: Use of VMAT was associated with lower costs for IMRT planning and treatment than HT. Similar stabilized long-term toxicity was reported in both groups after higher acute GI and GU toxicity in VMAT. The estimates provided can benefit future modeling work like cost-effectiveness analysis.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: This cost analysis aimed to quantify the cost of IGRT in relation to IGRT frequency and modality with Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) or orthogonal electronic portal imaging with fiducial markers (EPI-FM). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients undergoing IGRT for localized prostate cancer were randomized into two prostate control frequencies (daily or weekly). Costs were calculated based on the micro-costing results according to hospitals' perspectives (in Euros, 2009) and the time horizon was radiation therapy. RESULTS: A total of 208 patients were enrolled in seven French cancer centers. A total of 6865 fractions were individually analyzed. The mean total treatment fraction duration was 21.0 min for daily CBCT and 18.3 min for daily EPI-FM. Increasing the control frequency from weekly to daily increased the mean treatment fraction duration by 7.3 min (+53%) for CBCT and 1.7 min (+10%) for EPI-FM (p ≤ 0.01). The mean additional cost per patient of daily controls compared with weekly controls was 679 and 187 for CBCT and EPI-FM, respectively (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The incremental costs due to different prostate IGRT strategies are relatively moderate, suggesting that daily IGRT combined with intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) could be administered in cases of high-dose radiation delivery to the prostate.