Cost-effectiveness analysis of cochlear dose reduction by proton beam therapy for medulloblastoma in childhood.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of proton beam therapy with cochlear dose reduction compared with conventional X-ray radiotherapy for medulloblastoma in childhood. METHODS: We developed a Markov model to describe health states of 6-year-old children with medulloblastoma after treatment with proton or X-ray radiotherapy. The risks of hearing loss were calculated on cochlear dose for each treatment. Three types of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of EQ-5D, HUI3 and SF-6D were used for estimation of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for proton beam therapy compared with X-ray radiotherapy was calculated for each HRQOL. Sensitivity analyses were performed to model uncertainty in these parameters. RESULTS: The ICER for EQ-5D, HUI3 and SF-6D were $21 716/QALY, $11 773/QALY, and $20 150/QALY, respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses found that the results were sensitive to discount rate, the risk of hearing loss after proton therapy, and costs of proton irradiation. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve analysis revealed a 99% probability of proton therapy being cost effective at a societal willingness-to-pay value. CONCLUSIONS: Proton beam therapy with cochlear dose reduction improves health outcomes at a cost that is within the acceptable cost-effectiveness range from the payer's standpoint.

Assessment of organ dose reduction and secondary cancer risk associated with the use of proton beam therapy and intensity modulated radiation therapy in treatment of neuroblastomas.

BACKGROUND: To compare proton beam therapy (PBT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with conformal radiation therapy (CRT) in terms of their organ doses and ability to cause secondary cancer in normal organs. METHODS: Five patients (median age, 4 years; range, 2-11 years) who underwent PBT for retroperitoneal neuroblastoma were selected for treatment planning simulation. Four patients had stage 4 tumors and one had stage 2A tumor, according to the International Neuroblastoma Staging System. Two patients received 36 Gy, two received 21.6 Gy, and one received 41.4 Gy of radiation. The volume structures of these patients were used for simulations of CRT and IMRT treatment. Dose-volume analyses of liver, stomach, colon, small intestine, pancreas, and bone were performed for the simulations. Secondary cancer risks in these organs were calculated using the organ equivalent dose (OED) model, which took into account the rates of cell killing, repopulation, and the neutron dose from the treatment machine. RESULTS: In all evaluated organs, the mean dose in PBT was 20-80% of that in CRT. IMRT also showed lower mean doses than CRT for two organs (20% and 65%), but higher mean doses for the other four organs (110-120%). The risk of secondary cancer in PBT was 24-83% of that in CRT for five organs, but 121% of that in CRT for pancreas. The risk of secondary cancer in IMRT was equal to or higher than CRT for four organs (range 100-124%). CONCLUSION: Low radiation doses in normal organs are more frequently observed in PBT than in IMRT. Assessments of secondary cancer risk showed that PBT reduces the risk of secondary cancer in most organs, whereas IMRT is associated with a higher risk than CRT.