Cost-effectiveness of weekly adaptive radiotherapy versus standard IMRT in head and neck cancer alongside the ARTIX trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) comparing an adaptive radiotherapy (ART) strategy, based on weekly replanning, aiming to correct the parotid gland overdose during treatment and expecting therefore to decrease xerostomia, when compared to a standard IMRT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted the ARTIX trial, a randomized, parallel-group, multicentric study comparing a systematic weekly replanning ART to a standard IMRT. The primary endpoint was the frequency of xerostomia at 12 months, measured by stimulating salivary flow with paraffin. The CEA was designed alongside the ARTIX trial which was linked to the French national health data system (SNDS). For each patient, healthcare consumptions and costs were provided by the SNDS. The reference case analysis was based on the primary endpoint of the trial. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of the 129 patients randomly assigned between 2013 and 2018, only 2 records were not linked to the SNDS, which provides a linkage proportion of 98.4%. All of the other 127 records were linked with good to very good robustness. On the intent-to-treat population at 12 months, mean total costs per patient were €41,564 (SD 23,624) and €33,063 (SD 16,886) for ART and standard IMRT arms, respectively (p = 0.033). Incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) was €162,444 per xerostomia avoided. At 24 months, ICER was €194,521 per xerostomia avoided. For both progression-free and overall survival, ART was dominated by standard IMRT. CONCLUSION: The ART strategy was deemed to be not cost-effective compared with standard IMRT for patients with locally advanced oropharyngeal cancer.

Cost and Toxicity Comparisons of Two IMRT Techniques for Prostate Cancer: A Micro-Costing Study and Weighted Propensity Score Analysis Based on a Prospective Study.

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.

Clinical Outcomes of Several IMRT Techniques for Patients With Head and Neck Cancer: A Propensity Score-Weighted Analysis.

PURPOSE: The Advanced Radiotherapy Oto-Rhino-Laryngologie (ART-ORL) study (NCT02024035) was performed to prospectively evaluate the clinical and economic aspects of helical TomoTherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy (RapidArc, Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) for patients with head and neck cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Fourteen centers participated in this prospective comparative study. Randomization was not possible based on the availability of equipment. Patients with epidermoid or undifferentiated nasopharyngeal carcinoma or epidermoid carcinoma of the oropharynx and oral cavity (T1-T4, M0, N0-N3) were included between February 2010 and February 2012. Only the results of the clinical study are presented in this report, as the results of the economic assessment have been published previously. Inverse probability of treatment weighting using the propensity score analysis was undertaken in an effort to adjust for potential bias due to nonrandomization. Locoregional control, cancer-specific survival, and overall survival assessed 18 months after treatment, as well as long-term toxicity and salivary function, were evaluated. RESULTS: The analysis included 166 patients. The following results are given after inverse probability of treatment weighting adjustment. The locoregional control rate at 18 months was significantly better in the TomoTherapy group: 83.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 72.5%-90.2%) versus 72.7% (95% CI, 62.1%-80.8%) in the RapidArc group (P=.025). The cancer-specific survival rate was better in the TomoTherapy group: 97.2% (95% CI, 89.3%-99.3%) versus 85.5% (95% CI, 75.8%-91.5%) in the RapidArc group (P=.014). No significant difference was shown in progression-free or overall survival. TomoTherapy induced fewer acute salivary disorders (P=.012). Posttreatment salivary function degradation was worse in the RapidArc group (P=.012). CONCLUSIONS: TomoTherapy provided better locoregional control and cancer-specific survival than RapidArc treatment, with fewer salivary disorders. No significant difference was shown in progression-free and overall survival. These results should be explored in a randomized trial.

Cost Analysis of Complex Radiation Therapy for Patients With Head and Neck Cancer.

PURPOSE: This cost analysis aimed to prospectively assess differences in costs between TomoTherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in patients with head and neck cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Economic data were gathered from a multicenter study. However, randomization was not possible due to the availability of equipment. Costs were calculated using the microcosting technique from the hospital's perspective (in 2013 euros), and the time horizon was radiation therapy. Only resources that entered the hospital production process and which were likely to vary between the strategies being compared were considered. Acute adverse events observed within the time horizon were also assessed. RESULTS: The cost analysis was based on a total of 173 patient treatments given between 2010 and 2012 in 14 French cancer centers: 73 patients were treated with TomoTherapy, 92 with VMAT RapidArc, and 8 with VMAT SmartArc. Estimated costs of SmartArc were removed from the comparison due to the small sample size. The mean ± SD cost per patient of the treatment planning phase was €314 (±€214) for TomoTherapy and €511 (±€590) for RapidArc. Mean costs ± SD per patient of irradiation reached €3144 (±€565) for TomoTherapy and €1350 (±€299) for RapidArc. The most sensitive parameter of irradiation was the annual operating time of accelerators. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals for the mean costs of irradiation were €3016 to €3272 for TomoTherapy and €1281 to €1408 for RapidArc. The number of acute adverse events during radiation therapy was not significantly different between strategies. CONCLUSIONS: TomoTherapy appeared to be more expensive than RapidArc mainly due to the higher price of the accelerator, the higher costs of maintenance, and the longer duration of treatment sessions. Because strategies were not significantly different in clinical effect, RapidArc appeared to be the strategy to be recommended at this stage of knowledge.

Cost of prostate image-guided radiation therapy: results of a randomized trial.

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.

Simulating demand for innovative radiotherapies: an illustrative model based on carbon ion and proton radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Innovative therapies are not only characterized by major uncertainties regarding clinical benefit and cost but also the expected recruitment of patients. An original model was developed to simulate patient recruitment to a costly particle therapy by varying layout of the facility and patient referral (one vs. several countries) and by weighting the treated indication by the expected benefit of particle therapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A multi-step probabilistic spatial model was used to allocate patients to the optimal treatment strategy and facility taking into account the estimated therapeutic gain from the new therapy for each tumour type, the geographical accessibility of the facilities and patient preference. Recruitment was simulated under different assumptions relating to the demand and supply. RESULTS: Extending the recruitment area, reducing treatment capacity, equipping all treatment rooms with a carbon ion gantry and inclusion of proton protocols in carbon ion facilities led to an increased proportion of indications with the highest expected benefit. Assuming the existence of a competing carbon ions facility, lower values of therapeutic gain, and a greater unwillingness of patients to travel for treatment increased the proportion of indications with low expected benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Modelling patient recruitment may aid decision-making when planning new and expensive treatments.

Cost-effectiveness of particle therapy: current evidence and future needs.

PURPOSE: Questions are being raised regarding the cost of particle therapy (PT), and with them criticism that PT is too expensive to allow the expected gain in effectiveness. This paper aims to get more insight in the cost and cost-effectiveness of particle therapy and to discuss a future strategy that allows for critical assessment of this health technology. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic literature review based on an earlier published comprehensive review was performed and updated until June 1st 2008. Besides, current business plans of PT projects were examined. Additionally, results retrieved from a cost-simulation tool developed under auspice of the ENLIGHT were discussed. RESULTS: The current literature on cost-effectiveness of PT is scarce, non-comparable, and largely not performed according to standard health technology assessment criteria. Besides, different perspectives for cost evaluations have been used, making it difficult to compare and to determine the relative impact in terms of costs for this new treatment modality. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on the cost-effectiveness of PT is scarce. Adequate reimbursement is necessary to support such innovative yet costly treatments. For now, model-based economic evaluations performed at least from a health care perspective may help us to gain evidence-based insight into cost-effectiveness.

Assessing short-term effects and costs at an early stage of innovation: the use of positron emission tomography on radiotherapy treatment decision making.

OBJECTIVES: Positron emission tomography (PET) is an innovative imaging tool. Associated with computed tomography (CT), it allows a better definition for the tumor volume for radiotherapy, compared with CT only. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of PET on resource allocation (costs and savings) and on the choice of the following treatment in radiotherapy. METHODS: In 2004 and 2005, 209 patients were enrolled (97 patients with Hodgkin's disease and 112 with non-small cell lung cancer) in a national study conducted in eight hospitals. Two treatment decisions made on the basis of CT only or CT associated with PET, were compared in a prospective study where each subject was his/her own control. The direct medical cost of using PET was assessed by microcosting, using data collected from specific questionnaires. The costs of new tests and the costs and savings associated with changes in the chosen treatment were calculated on the basis of reimbursement rates. RESULTS: The mean cost of using PET was approximately euro 800 per patient (50 percent for the radionuclide 18F-FDG [2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose]). Radiotherapy treatments were modified for 10 percent of patients with Hodgkin's disease versus 40 percent of patients with lung cancer. Overall, the use of PET induced both increases and decreases in the mean cost per patient: the net effect was a euro 425 and euro 931 cost increase in lung cancer and Hodgkin's disease, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The use of PET for radiotherapy decision making seems more valuable for lung cancer than for Hodgkin's disease, both in terms of costs and changes in radiotherapy treatment. This result might help policy makers for prioritization.

Radiochemotherapy of locally advanced anal canal carcinoma: prospective assessment of early impact on the quality of life (randomized trial ACCORD 03).

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to prospectively assess the quality of life (QOL) of patients treated by concomitant chemo radiation for locally advanced anal canal carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We report on a subgroup of 119 patients enrolled in a 306-patient therapeutic intensification prospective trial (ACCORD 03). This trial evaluated the impact on colostomy-free survival of induction chemotherapy and/or high dose radiotherapy (factorial design 2 *2 treatment arms). QOL was assessed both before and 2 months after treatment using the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire as well as a questionnaire relating to anal sphincter conservative treatment (AS-CT). RESULTS: Compared to pre-treatment scores, patients reported significant improvement in their emotional function (+8.4 points p=0.002), global health status (+5.9 points p=0.0007), as well as a decrease in insomnia (-13.8 points p<0.0001), constipation (-12.0 points p<0.0001), appetite loss (-10.3 points p<0.0001) and pain (-9.6 points p=0.0002). The AS-CT degree of satisfaction with intestinal functions score was increased (+11.2 points p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: This is the first prospective study comparing QOL of patients with advanced anal canal carcinoma, before and 2 months after conservative treatment. Two months after treatment, QOL was improved. Induction chemotherapy and/or high dose radiotherapy did not provide a negative impact on QOL.

Brachytherapy versus prostatectomy in localized prostate cancer: results of a French multicenter prospective medico-economic study.

PURPOSE: To prospectively compare health-related quality of life (HRQOL), patient-reported treatment-related symptoms, and costs of iodine-125 permanent implant interstitial brachytherapy (IB) with those of radical prostatectomy (RP) during the first 2 years after these treatments for localized prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 435 men with localized low-risk prostate cancer, from 11 French hospitals, treated with IB (308) or RP (127), were offered to complete the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer core Quality of Life Questionnaire QLQ-C30 version 3 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the prostate cancer specific EORTC QLQ-PR25 module before and at the end of treatment, 2, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after treatment. Repeated measures analysis of variance and analysis of covariance were conducted on HRQOL changes. Comparative cost analysis covered initial treatment, hospital follow-up, outpatient and production loss costs. RESULTS: Just after treatment, the decrease of global HRQOL was less pronounced in the IB than in the RP group, with a 13.5 points difference (p < 0.0001). A difference slightly in favor of RP was observed 6 months after treatment (-7.5 points, p = 0.0164) and was maintained at 24 months (-8.2 points, p = 0.0379). Impotence and urinary incontinence were more pronounced after RP, whereas urinary frequency, urgency, and urination pain were more frequent after IB. Mean societal costs did not differ between IB (8,019 euros at T24) and RP (8,715 euros at T24, p = 0.0843) regardless of the period. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests a similar cost profile in France for IB and RP but with different HRQOL and side effect profiles. Those findings may be used to tailor localized prostate cancer treatments to suit individual patients' needs.

Light ion facility projects in Europe: methodological aspects for the calculation of the treatment cost per protocol.

In the framework of the European Network for Research in Light Ion Hadron Therapy (ENLIGHT), the health economics group develops a methodology for assessing important investment and operating costs of this innovative treatment against its expected benefits. The main task is to estimate the cost per treated patient. The cost analysis is restricted to the therapeutic phase from the hospital point of view. An original methodology for cost assessment per treatment protocol is developed based on standard costs. Costs related to direct medical activity are based on the production process analysis, whereas indirect and non direct medical costs are allocated to each protocol using relevant cost-drivers. The resulting cost model will take into account the specificities of each therapeutic protocol as well as the particularities of each of the European projects.