The use of radiotherapy, surgery and chemotherapy in the curative treatment of cancer: results from the FORTY (Favourable Outcomes from RadioTherapY) project.

OBJECTIVES: Radiotherapy, surgery and chemotherapy play key roles in the curative treatment of cancer, alone and in combination. Quantifying their roles is essential for equipment provision and workforce planning. The estimate that 40% of cancer patients are cured by RT has been used extensively to inform and influence policy but is relatively old and warrants review. METHODS: Patient, tumour and treatment event data was obtained for the 5 year period from 2009 to 2013, allowing a further 5 years for survival outcomes to be known. We analysed patient-level data on utilisation of surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy in cancer patients in England. Data were sourced from Public Health England, using National Cancer Registrations, the National Radiotherapy Dataset (RTDS) and the Systemic Anti-Cancer Therapy Dataset (SACT). All tumour sites (excluding C44) and ages were included. We analysed three cohorts: all patients [n = 1,029,569], patients who survived 5 years or more [n = 537,970] and patients who survived <5 years [n = 491,599]. RESULTS: Overall cancer-specific 5-year survival was 52%, and in those patients, surgery was the most common curative treatment, with 80% receiving surgery, alone or in combination; radiotherapy was delivered to 39% and chemotherapy to 29%; 45% received two and 13% all three modalities. CONCLUSIONS: The high proportion receiving multi-modality treatment emphasises the importance of integrated, resourced, multidisciplinary cancer care. Radiotherapy was delivered to almost 40% of patients who survived 5 years which underlines its importance in cancer management. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The results are essential in planning cancer services. They also inform the public health narrative.

Variable and fixed costs in NHS radiotherapy; consequences for increasing hypo fractionation.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: The increased use of hypofractionated radiotherapy changes department activity. While expected to be cost-effective, departments' fixed costs may impede savings. Understanding radiotherapy's cost-drivers, to what extent these are fixed and consequences of reducing activity can help to inform reimbursement strategies. MATERIAL/METHODS: We estimate the cost of radiotherapy provision, using time-driven activity-based costing, for five bone metastases treatment strategies, in a large NHS provider. We compare these estimations to reimbursement tariff and assess their breakdown by cost types: fixed (buildings), semi-fixed (staff, linear accelerators) and variable (materials) costs. Sensitivity analyses assess the cost-drivers and impact of reducing departmental activity on the costs of remaining treatments, with varying disinvestment assumptions. RESULTS: The estimated radiotherapy cost for bone metastases ranges from 430.95€ (single fraction) to 4240.76€ (45 Gy in 25#). Provider costs align closely with NHS reimbursement, except for the stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) strategy (tariff exceeding by 15.3%). Semi-fixed staff costs account for 28.1-39.7% and fixed/semi-fixed equipment/space costs 38.5-54.8% of provider costs. Departmental activity is the biggest cost-driver; reduction in activity increasing cost, predominantly in fractionated treatments. Decommissioning linear accelerators ameliorates this, although can only be realised at equipment capacity thresholds. CONCLUSION: Hypofractionation is less burdensome to patients and long-term offers a cost-efficient mechanism to treat an increasing number of patients within existing capacity. As a large majority of treatment costs are fixed/semi-fixed, disinvestment is complex, within the life expectancy of a linac, imbalances between demand and capacity will result in higher treatment costs. With a per-fraction reimbursement, this may disincentivise delivery of hypofractionated treatments.

The financial impact of SBRT for oligometastatic disease: A population-level analysis in Belgium.

INTRODUCTION: There is a steady rise in Stereotactic Body RadioTherapy (SBRT) utilization in oligometastatic disease (OMD). This may generate important financial consequences for radiotherapy budgets. The National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance of Belgium (NIHDI) initiated a coverage with evidence development (CED) project for innovative radiotherapy, including SBRT, in 2011. A cost calculation and budget estimation for SBRT in the OMD setting was carried out. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Predictive growth scenarios for future uptake of SBRT for OMD in Belgium were developed using demographics and CED data. The provider cost of SBRT for OMD in Belgium was calculated using the Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing (TD-ABC) model developed by ESTRO-HERO, alimented with national data on resources, treatments and operational parameters, and compared to the new reimbursement. Combining these, the future financial impact of this novel treatment indication for healthcare providers and payers in Belgium was evaluated. RESULTS: The number of 428 OMDs treated with SBRT in Belgium in 2017 is expected to increase between 484 and 2073 courses annually by 2025. A provider cost of €4360 per SBRT was calculated (range: €3488-€5654), whereas the reimbursement covers between €4139 and €4654. Large variations in potential extra provider costs by 2025 ensue from the different scenarios, ranging between €1,765,993 and €9,038,754. Provider costs and reimbursement show good agreement. CONCLUSION: Although the financial impact of SBRT for OMD in Belgium is forecasted to remain acceptable, even in extreme scenarios, further clinical trials and real-life clinical and financial monitoring with prospective data gathering are necessary to refine the data.

How public health services pay for radiotherapy in Europe: an ESTRO-HERO analysis of reimbursement.

Reimbursement is a key factor in defining which resources are made available to ensure quality, efficiency, availability, and access to specific health-care interventions. This Policy Review assesses publicly funded radiotherapy reimbursement systems in Europe. We did a survey of the national societies of radiation oncology in Europe, focusing on the general features and global structure of the reimbursement system, the coverage scope, and level for typical indications. The annual expenditure covering radiotherapy in each country was also collected. Most countries have a predominantly budgetary-based system. Variability was the major finding, both in the components of the treatment considered for reimbursement, and in the fees paid for specific treatment techniques, fractionations, and indications. Annual expenses for radiotherapy, including capital investment, available in 12 countries, represented between 4·3% and 12·3% (average 7·8%) of the cancer care budget. Although an essential pillar in multidisciplinary oncology, radiotherapy is an inexpensive modality with a modest contribution to total cancer care costs. Scientific societies and policy makers across Europe need to discuss new strategies for reimbursement, combining flexibility with incentives to improve productivity and quality, allowing radiation oncology services to follow evolving evidence.

Critical review and quality-assessment of cost analyses in radiotherapy: How reliable are the data?

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE: Health economic evaluations (HEE) are increasingly having an impact on policymakers, although the results greatly depend on the quality of the methodology used and on transparent reporting. The two main objectives of this study were to evaluate the quality of cost analyses of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and to assess the comprehensiveness and relevance of cost criteria defined in three validated quality-assessment instruments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The selection of articles was based on a previous systematic literature review of EBRT-costing studies retrieved from January 2004 to January 2015 (Period 1) in MEDLINE, Embase, and NHS-EED databases and completed in a second time period from January 2015 to November 2018 (Period 2). Three validated instruments to assess the methodology quality with the CHEC and the QHES, and the methodology with the CHEERS checklists were used. The quality was evaluated by both quantitative and qualitative analyses. The scoring robustness was examined with the Kendall coefficient of concordance and inter-class correlation coefficients. RESULTS: In total, twenty-three articles were selected. The main geographic areas of cost analyses were Canada (n = 5), France (n = 4), and the USA (n = 4). The most commonly studied pathologies and technologies were prostate (n = 7) and head and neck cancer (n = 5) and IMRT (n = 8) and IGRT (n = 2), respectively. The mean instrument scores demonstrated a fair degree of methodological quality, with 69.7% for the CHEC, 73.6% for the QHES, as well as for the reporting quality, with 59.4% for CHEERS for Period 1 (74.4%, 71.5%, and 66.1%, respectively, for Period 2). An additional qualitative analysis per criterion revealed that certain items, essential for understanding the costing methodology and the results (e.g., the time horizon, discount rate, sensitivity analysis) were often only partially completed. Statistical analysis confirmed that the reviewers' scoring was consistent. The instruments identified the same top three articles, albeit with a degree of variation in the ranking. CONCLUSION: Qualitative and quantitative assessment of cost analyses in EBRT exhibits a fair level of study quality in terms of the methodology and reporting transparency. The impact of cost calculations on the final HEE result appears to be underestimated, and increased transparency of the data sources and the methodologies is needed.

National costs and resource requirements of external beam radiotherapy: A time-driven activity-based costing model from the ESTRO-HERO project.

BACKGROUND: The Health Economics in Radiation Oncology (ESTRO-HERO) project aims to provide a knowledge base for health economics in European radiotherapy. A cost-accounting model, providing data on national resource requirements and costs of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), was developed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Time-driven activity-based costing (TD-ABC) was applied from the healthcare provider perspective at national level. TD-ABC allocates resource costs to treatment courses through the activities performed, based on time estimates. RESULTS: The model is structured in three layers. The central layer, EBRT-Core, accounts for EBRT care-pathway activities and follows TD-ABC allocation principles. Activities supporting radiation oncology (RO) (RO-Support) and multidisciplinary oncology (Beyond-EBRT) follow standard allocation principles. To demonstrate the model's capabilities, a dataset was constructed for the hypothetical country Europalia, based on published evidence on resources and treatments, whereas time estimates were expert opinions. Applying the TD-ABC model to this example, treatment delivery activities represent 68.4% of the costs; treatment preparation 31.6%. The cost per course shows large variation for different indications, techniques, and fractionation schedules, ranging between €838 and €7193. Resource utilization was estimated to be within the available capacity. Scenario analyses on changes in fractionation and treatment complexity are presented. The ESTRO-HERO TD-ABC tool can model EBRT costs and resource requirements. While the Europalia example illustrates its potential, the results cannot be generalized nor used as a proxy for national evidence. Only real-world data, tailored to the specificities of individual countries, will support National Radiation Oncology Societies with investment planning and access to innovative radiotherapy.

Cost evaluations of radiotherapy: What do we know? An ESTRO-HERO analysis.

Although economic evidence is becoming mandatory to support health care decision-making, challenges remain in generating high quality cost data, especially for complex and rapidly evolving treatment modalities, such as radiotherapy. The overall aim of this systematic literature review was to critically analyse the type and quality of radiotherapy cost information available in cost calculation studies, from the health care provider's perspective, published since 1981. A selection process, based on strict and explicit criteria, yielded 52 articles. In spite of meeting our criteria these studies displayed large heterogeneity in scope, costing method, inputs and outputs. The limited use of conventional costing methodologies along with insufficient information on resource inputs hampered comparability across studies. A consistent picture of radiotherapy costs, based on methodologically sound costing studies, has yet to emerge. These results call for developing a well-defined and generally accepted cost methodology for performing economic evaluation studies in radiotherapy.

The optimal utilization proportion of external beam radiotherapy in European countries: An ESTRO-HERO analysis.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The absolute number of new cancer patients that will require at least one course of radiotherapy in each country of Europe was estimated. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The incidence and relative frequency of cancer types from the year 2012 European Cancer Observatory estimates were used in combination with the population-based stage at diagnosis from five cancer registries. These data were applied to the decision trees of the evidence-based indications to calculate the Optimal Utilization Proportion (OUP) by tumour site. RESULTS: In the minimum scenario, the OUP ranged from 47.0% in the Russian Federation to 53.2% in Belgium with no clear geographical pattern of the variability among countries. The impact of stage at diagnosis on the OUP by country was rather limited. Within the 24 countries where data on actual use of radiotherapy were available, a gap between optimal and actual use has been observed in most of the countries. CONCLUSIONS: The actual utilization of radiotherapy is significantly lower than the optimal use predicted from the evidence based estimates in the literature. This discrepancy poses a major challenge for policy makers when planning the resources at the national level to improve the provision in European countries.

The impact of cancer incidence and stage on optimal utilization of radiotherapy: Methodology of a population based analysis by the ESTRO-HERO project.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The impact of differences in the distribution of major cancer sites and stages at diagnosis among 4 European countries on the optimal utilization proportion (OUP) of patients who should receive external beam radiotherapy was assessed within the framework of the ESTRO-HERO project. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from Australian Collaboration for Cancer Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CCORE) were used. Population based stages at diagnosis from the cancer registries of Belgium, Slovenia, the Greater Poland region of Poland, and The Netherlands were used to assess the OUP for each country. A sensitivity analysis was carried out. RESULTS: The overall OUP by country varied from the lowest of 48.3% in Australia to the highest of 53.4% in Poland; among European countries the variation was limited to 3%. Cancer site specific OUPs showed differences according to the variability in stage at diagnosis across countries. The most important impact on the OUP by country was due to changes in relative frequency of tumours rather than stage at diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: This methodology can be adapted using European data, thus facilitating the planning of resources required to cope with the demand for radiotherapy in Europe, taking into account the national variability in cancer incidence.

Radiotherapy equipment and departments in the European countries: final results from the ESTRO-HERO survey.

BACKGROUND: Documenting the distribution of radiotherapy departments and the availability of radiotherapy equipment in the European countries is an important part of HERO - the ESTRO Health Economics in Radiation Oncology project. HERO has the overall aim to develop a knowledge base of the provision of radiotherapy in Europe and build a model for health economic evaluation of radiation treatments at the European level. The aim of the current report is to describe the distribution of radiotherapy equipment in European countries. METHODS: An 84-item questionnaire was sent out to European countries, principally through their national societies. The current report includes a detailed analysis of radiotherapy departments and equipment (questionnaire items 26-29), analyzed in relation to the annual number of treatment courses and the socio-economic status of the countries. The analysis is based on validated responses from 28 of the 40 European countries defined by the European Cancer Observatory (ECO). RESULTS: A large variation between countries was found for most parameters studied. There were 2192 linear accelerators, 96 dedicated stereotactic machines, and 77 cobalt machines reported in the 27 countries where this information was available. A total of 12 countries had at least one cobalt machine in use. There was a median of 0.5 simulator per MV unit (range 0.3-1.5) and 1.4 (range 0.4-4.4) simulators per department. Of the 874 simulators, a total of 654 (75%) were capable of 3D imaging (CT-scanner or CBCT-option). The number of MV machines (cobalt, linear accelerators, and dedicated stereotactic machines) per million inhabitants ranged from 1.4 to 9.5 (median 5.3) and the average number of MV machines per department from 0.9 to 8.2 (median 2.6). The average number of treatment courses per year per MV machine varied from 262 to 1061 (median 419). While 69% of MV units were capable of IMRT only 49% were equipped for image guidance (IGRT). There was a clear relation between socio-economic status, as measured by GNI per capita, and availability of radiotherapy equipment in the countries. In many low income countries in Southern and Central-Eastern Europe there was very limited access to radiotherapy and especially to equipment for IMRT or IGRT. CONCLUSIONS: The European average number of MV machines per million inhabitants and per department is now better in line with QUARTS recommendations from 2005, but the survey also showed a significant heterogeneity in the access to modern radiotherapy equipment in Europe. High income countries especially in Northern-Western Europe are well-served with radiotherapy resources, other countries are facing important shortages of both equipment in general and especially machines capable of delivering high precision conformal treatments (IMRT, IGRT).

Radiotherapy staffing in the European countries: final results from the ESTRO-HERO survey.

BACKGROUND: The ESTRO Health Economics in Radiation Oncology (HERO) project has the overall aim to develop a knowledge base of the provision of radiotherapy in Europe and build a model for health economic evaluation of radiation treatments at the European level. The first milestone was to assess the availability of radiotherapy resources within Europe. This paper presents the personnel data collected in the ESTRO HERO database. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An 84-item questionnaire was sent out to European countries, through their national scientific and professional radiotherapy societies. The current report includes a detailed analysis of radiotherapy staffing (questionnaire items 47-60), analysed in relation to the annual number of treatment courses and the socio-economic status of the countries. The analysis was conducted between February and July 2014, and is based on validated responses from 24 of the 40 European countries defined by the European Cancer Observatory (ECO). RESULTS: A large variation between countries was found for most parameters studied. Averages and ranges for personnel numbers per million inhabitants are 12.8 (2.5-30.9) for radiation oncologists, 7.6 (0-19.7) for medical physicists, 3.5 (0-12.6) for dosimetrists, 26.6 (1.9-78) for RTTs and 14.8 (0.4-61.0) for radiotherapy nurses. The combined average for physicists and dosimetrists is 9.8 per million inhabitants and 36.9 for RTT and nurses. Radiation oncologists on average treat 208.9 courses per year (range: 99.9-348.8), physicists and dosimetrists conjointly treat 303.3 courses (range: 85-757.7) and RTT and nurses 76.8 (range: 25.7-156.8). In countries with higher GNI per capita, all personnel categories treat fewer courses per annum than in less affluent countries. This relationship is most evident for RTTs and nurses. Different clusters of countries can be distinguished on the basis of available personnel resources and socio-economic status. CONCLUSIONS: The average personnel figures in Europe are now consistent with, or even more favourable than the QUARTS recommendations, probably reflecting a combination of better availability as such, in parallel with the current use of more complex treatments than a decade ago. A considerable variation in available personnel and delivered courses per year however persists among the highest and lowest staffing levels. This not only reflects the variation in cancer incidence and socio-economic determinants, but also the stage in technology adoption along with treatment complexity and the different professional roles and responsibilities within each country. Our data underpin the need for accurate prediction models and long-term education and training programmes.

Guidelines for equipment and staffing of radiotherapy facilities in the European countries: final results of the ESTRO-HERO survey.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In planning to meet evidence based needs for radiotherapy, guidelines for the provision of capital and human resources are central if access, quality and safety are not to be compromised. A component of the ESTRO-HERO (Health Economics in Radiation Oncology) project is to document the current availability and content of guidelines for radiotherapy in Europe. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An 84 part questionnaire was distributed to the European countries through their national scientific and professional radiotherapy societies with 30 items relating to the availability of guidelines for equipment and staffing and selected operational issues. Twenty-nine countries provided full or partial evaluable responses. RESULTS: The availability of guidelines across Europe is far from uniform. The metrics used for capital and human resources are variable. There seem to have been no major changes in the availability or specifics of guidelines over the ten-year period since the QUARTS study with the exception of the recent expansion of RTT staffing models. Where comparison is possible it appears that staffing for radiation oncologists, medical physicists and particularly RTTs tend to exceed guidelines suggesting developments in clinical radiotherapy are moving faster than guideline updating. CONCLUSION: The efficient provision of safe, high quality radiotherapy services would benefit from the availability of well-structured guidelines for capital and human resources, based on agreed upon metrics, which could be linked to detailed estimates of need.