Cost effectiveness of proton versus photon radiation therapy with respect to the risk of growth hormone deficiency in children.

BACKGROUND: Proton therapy in pediatrics may improve the risk/benefit profile of radiotherapy at a greater upfront financial cost, but it may prove to be cost effective if chronic medical complications can be avoided. Tools to assist with decision making are needed to aid in selecting pediatric patients for protons, and cost-effectiveness models can provide an objective method for this. METHODS: A Markov cohort-simulation model was developed to assess the expected costs and effectiveness for specific radiation doses to the hypothalamus with protons versus photons in pediatric patients. Costing data included cost of investment and the diagnosis and management of growth hormone deficiency. Longitudinal outcomes data were used to inform risk parameters for the model. With costs in 2012 US dollars and effectiveness measured in quality-adjusted life years, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were used to measure outcomes. RESULTS: Proton therapy was cost effective for some scenarios based on the difference in hypothalamic sparing. Although some scenarios were not cost effective, others were not only cost effective for proton therapy but also demonstrated that protons were cost saving compared with photons. CONCLUSIONS: The current results provide the first evidence-based guide for identifying children with brain tumors who may benefit the most from proton therapy with respect to endocrine dysfunction. Proton therapy may be more cost effective for scenarios in which radiation dose to the hypothalamus can be spared, but protons may not be cost effective when tumors are involving or directly adjacent to the hypothalamus if there is a high dose to this structure.

Cost effectiveness of proton therapy compared with photon therapy in the management of pediatric medulloblastoma.

BACKGROUND: Proton therapy has been a hotly contested issue in both scientific publications and lay media. Proponents cite the modality's ability to spare healthy tissue, but critics claim the benefit gained from its use does not validate its cost compared with photon therapy. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of proton therapy versus photon therapy in the management of pediatric medulloblastoma. METHODS: A cost-effective analysis was performed from the societal perspective using a Monte Carlo simulation model. A population of pediatric medulloblastoma survivors aged 18 years was studied who had received treatment at age 5 years and who were at risk of developing 10 adverse events, such as growth hormone deficiency, coronary artery disease, ototoxicity, secondary malignant neoplasm, and death. Costing data included the cost of investment and the costs of diagnosis and management of adverse health states from institutional and Medicare data. Longitudinal outcomes data and recent modeling studies informed risk parameters for the model. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were used to measure outcomes. RESULTS: Results from the base case demonstrated that proton therapy was associated with higher quality-adjusted life years and lower costs; therefore, it dominated photon therapy. In 1-way sensitivity analyses, proton therapy remained the more attractive strategy, either dominating photon therapy or having a very low cost per quality-adjust life year gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis illustrated the domination of proton therapy over photon therapy in 96.4% of simulations. CONCLUSIONS: By using current risk estimates and data on required capital investments, the current study indicated that proton therapy is a cost-effective strategy for the management of pediatric patients with medulloblastoma compared with standard of care photon therapy.