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.

[The cost of intensity modulated radiation therapy in head and neck cancers: results of the 2002 STIC study]. / Le coût de la radiothérapie conformationnelle avec modulation d'intensité dans les cancers ORL: l'étude STIC 2002.

An economic evaluation of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in head and neck cancer was carried out to assess the cost of treatment and compare it to reimbursement paid to hospitals in the French Prospective Payment System. Planning required in average 20 hours of work for the physician and 6 hours for the radiation oncologist. Radiation consisted of 33 fractions in average and required 29 hours of work for the radiotherapy technician, 8 hours for the physician and 3 hours for the radiation oncologist. Mean cost of IMRT treatment was estimated at euro 10,916 (euro 2,773 for planning and euro 8,143 for radiation). The variability of costs was important and was in a large extent attributable to learning effects. As more patients were treated, unit cost of treatment was decreasing. In the French Prospective Payment System, mean reimbursement of IMRT was euro 6,987. For 70 % of the patients, reimbursement did not offset the cost of treatment. A financial support for hospitals implementing the technique is essential during the whole learning period.