Better preservation of erectile function in localized prostate cancer patients with modern proton therapy: Is it cost-effective?

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has gradually been recognized as favorable curative treatment for localized prostate cancer (PC). However, the high rate of erectile dysfunction (ED) after traditional photon-based SBRT remains an ongoing challenge that greatly impacts the quality of life of PC survivors. Modern proton therapy allows higher conformal SBRT delivery and has the potential to reduce ED occurrence but its cost-effectiveness remains uninvestigated. METHODS: A Markov decision model was designed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of proton SBRT versus photon SBRT in reducing irradiation-related ED. Base-case evaluation was performed on a 66-year-old (median age of PC) localized PC patient with normal pretreatment erectile function. Further, stratified analyses were performed for different age groups (50, 55, 60, 65, 70, and 75 years) and threshold analyses were conducted to estimate cost-effective scenarios. A Chinese societal willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold (37,653 US dollars [$])/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) was adopted. RESULTS: For the base case, protons provided an additional 0.152 QALY at an additional cost of $7233.4, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $47,456.5/QALY. Protons was cost-effective for patients ≤62-year-old at the WTP of China (≤66-year-old at a WTP of $50,000/QALY; ≤73-year-old at a WTP of $100,000/QALY). For patients at median age, once the current proton cost ($18,000) was reduced to ≤$16,505.7 or the patient had a life expectancy ≥88 years, protons were cost-effective at the WTP of China. CONCLUSIONS: Upon assumption-based modeling, the results of current study support the use of proton SBRT in younger localized PC patients who are previously potent, for better preservation of erectile function. The findings await further validation using data from future comparative clinical trials.

Optimizing oropharyngeal cancer management by using proton beam therapy: trends of cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Proton beam therapy (PBT) is a new-emerging cancer treatment in China but its treatment costs are high and not yet covered by Chinese public medical insurance. The advanced form of PBT, intensity-modulated proton radiation therapy (IMPT), has been confirmed to reduce normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) as compared to conventional intensity-modulated photon-radiation therapy (IMRT) in patients with oropharyngeal cancer (OPC). Herein, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness and applicability of IMPT versus IMRT for OPC patients in China, aiming at guiding the proper use of PBT. METHODS: A 7-state Markov model was designed for analysis. Base-case evaluation was performed on a 56-year-old (median age of OPC in China) patient under the assumption that IMPT could provide a 25% NTCP-reduction in long-term symptomatic dysphagia and xerostomia. Model robustness was examined using probabilistic sensitivity analysis, cohort analysis, and tornado diagram. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to identify the cost-effective scenarios. IMPT was considered as cost-effective if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was below the societal willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. RESULTS: Compared with IMRT, IMPT provided an extra 0.205 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) at an additional cost of 34,926.6 US dollars ($), and had an ICER of $170,082.4/ QALY for the base case. At the current WTP of China ($33,558 / QALY) and a current IMPT treatment costs of $50,000, IMPT should provide a minimum NTCP-reduction of 47.5, 50.8, 55.6, 63.3 and 77.2% to be considered cost-effective for patient age levels of 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50-year-old, respectively. For patients at the median age level, reducing the current IMPT costs ($50,000) to a $30,000 level would make the minimum NTCP-reduction threshold for "cost-effective" decrease from 91.4 to 44.6%, at the current WTP of China (from 69.0 to 33.5%, at a WTP of $50,000 / QALY; and from 39.7 to 19.1%, at a WTP of $100,000 / QALY). CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effective scenarios of PBT exist in Chinese OPC patients at the current WTP of China. Considering a potential upcoming increase in PBT use in China, such cost-effective scenarios may further expand if a decrease of proton treatment costs occurs or an increase of WTP level.

Intensity-modulated proton radiation therapy as a radical treatment modality for nasopharyngeal carcinoma in China: Cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Compared to conventional intensity-modulated photon radiation therapy (IMRT), intensity-modulated proton radiation therapy (IMPT) has potential to reduce irradiation-induced late toxicities while maintaining excellent tumor control in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). However, the relevant cost-effectiveness remains controversial. METHODS: A Markov decision tree analysis was performed under the assumption that IMPT offered normal tissue complication probability reduction (NTCP reduction) in long-term dysphagia, xerostomia, and hearing loss, compared to IMRT. Base-case evaluation was performed on T2N2M0 NPC of median age (43 years old). A Chinese societal willingness-to-pay threshold (33558 US dollars [$])/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) was adopted. RESULTS: For patients at median age and having NTCP reduction of 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, and 60%, their incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $102684.0/QALY, $43161.2/QALY, $24134.7/QALY, $13991.6/QALY, $8259.8/QALY, and $4436.1/QALY, respectively; IMPT should provide an NTCP reduction of ≥24% to be considered cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: IMPT has potential to be cost-effective for average Chinese NPC patients and should be validated clinically.

Cost-effectiveness of using protons for breast irradiation aiming at minimizing cardiotoxicity: A risk-stratification analysis.

Background: Incidental exposure of the heart to ionizing irradiation is associated with an increased risk of ischemic heart disease and subsequent fatality in patients with breast cancer after radiotherapy. Proton beam therapy can limit the heart dose in breast irradiation to a negligible level. However, compared with conventional photon modality, proton breast irradiation is more expensive. In this study, we performed cost-effectiveness analyses to identify the type of patients who would be more suitable for protons. Methods: A Markov decision model was designed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of protons vs. photons in reducing the risk of irradiation-related ischemic heart disease. A baseline evaluation was performed on a 50-year-old woman patient without the preexisting cardiac risk factor. Furthermore, risk-stratification analyses for photon mean heart dose and preexisting cardiac risk were conducted on 40-, 50-, and 60-year-old women patients under different proton cost and willingness-to-pay (WTP) settings. Results: Using the baseline settings, the incremental effectiveness (protons vs. photons) increased from 0.043 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) to 0.964 QALY when preexisting cardiac risk increased to 10 times its baseline level. At a proton cost of 50,000 US dollars ($), protons could be cost-effective for ≤ 60-year-old patients with diabetes and ≤50-year-old patients with grade II-III hypertension at the WTP of China ($37,653/QALY); for ≤ 60-year-old patients with diabetes and ≤ 50-year-old patients with grade II-III hypertension or ≥ 2 major cardiac risk factors at a WTP of $50,000/QALY; and for ≤ 60-year-old patients with diabetes, grade II-III hypertension or ≥ 2 major cardiac risk factors and ≤ 50-year-old patients with total cholesterol ≥ 240 mg/dL at a WTP of $100,000/QALY. Conclusion: Patients' preexisting cardiac risk status was a key factor affecting the cardiac benefits gained from protons and should therefore be a major consideration for the clinical decision of using protons; cost-effective scenarios of protons exist in those patients with high risk of developing cardiac diseases.