Cost-effectiveness of proton therapy in treating base of skull chordoma.

While proton beam therapy (PBT) can offer increased sparing of healthy tissue, it is associated with large capital costs and as such, has limited availability. Furthermore, it has not been well established whether PBT has significant clinical advantages over conventional volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for all tumour types. PBT can potentially offer improved clinical outcomes for base of skull chordoma (BOSCh) patients compared with photon (X-ray) therapy, however the cost-effectiveness of these treatments is unclear. In this study, the cost-effectiveness of PBT in the treatment of BOSCh patients is assessed, based on an analysis of comparative radiotherapy treatment plans using a radiobiological Markov model. Seven BOSCh patients had treatment plans for the delivery of intensity modulated proton therapy and VMAT retrospectively analysed. The patient outcome (in terms of tumour local control and normal tissue complications) after receiving each treatment was estimated with a radiobiological Markov model. In addition, the model estimated the cost of both the primary treatment and treating any resultant adverse events. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was obtained for each patient. PBT was found to be cost-effective for 5 patients and cost-saving for 2. The mean ICER was AUD$1,990 per quality adjusted life year gained. Variation of model parameters resulted in the proton treatments remaining cost-effective for these patients. Based on this cohort, PBT is a cost-effective treatment for patients with BOSCh. This supports the inclusion of PBT for BOSCh in the Medicare Services Advisory Committee 1455 application.

EQ-5D Quality-of-Life Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness After Skull Base Meningioma Resection.

BACKGROUND: Skull base meningioma management is complicated by their proximity to intracranial neurovascular structures because complete resection may pose a risk of worsening morbidity. OBJECTIVE: To assess the influence of clinical outcomes and surgical management on patient-perceived quality-of-life outcomes, value, and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: Patients who underwent resection of a skull base meningioma, had adequate clinical follow-up, and completed EQ-5D-3L questionnaires preoperatively and at 1 mo and 1 yr postoperatively were identified in a retrospective review. Cost data from the Value Driven Outcomes database were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 52 patients (83.0% women, mean age 51.9 yr) were categorized by worsened (n = 7), unchanged (n = 24), or improved (n = 21) EQ-5D-3L index scores at 1-mo follow-up. No difference in subcategory cost contribution or total cost was seen in the 3 groups. Patients with improved scores showed a steady improvement through each follow-up period, whereas those with unchanged or worsened scores did not. Mean quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and cost per QALY improved for all groups but at a higher rate for patients with better outcomes at 30-d follow-up. Female sex, absence of proptosis, nonfrontotemporal approaches, no optic nerve decompression, and absence of surgical complications demonstrated improved EQ-5D-3L scores at 1-yr follow-up. A mean cost per QALY of $27 731.06 ± 22 050.58 was observed for the whole group and did not significantly differ among patient groups (P = .1). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing resection of skull base meningiomas and who experience an immediate improvement in EQ-5D are likely to show continued improvement at 1 yr, with improved QALY and reduced cost per QALY.

Socioeconomic costs of open surgery and gamma knife radiosurgery for benign cranial base tumors.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the relative socioeconomic costs of benign cranial base tumors treated with open surgery and gamma knife radiosurgery. METHODS: In a retrospective study, we studied 174 patients with benign cranial base tumors, less than 3 cm in diameter (or volume less than 30 ml), admitted in the past 5 years. Group A (n = 94) underwent open surgery for removal of the tumors, whereas Group B (n = 80) underwent gamma knife radiosurgery. The socioeconomic costs were evaluated by both direct and indirect cost. The direct costs comprised intensive care unit cost, ward cost, operating room cost, and outpatient visiting cost. The indirect costs included loss of workdays and mortality. The length of hospital stay, the number of lost workdays, surgical complications, mortality, and cost-effectiveness analysis were calculated as well. Student t test and chi test were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The mean length of hospital stay for open surgery was 18.2 +/- 30.4 days including 5.0 +/- 14.7 days of intensive care unit stay and 13.0 +/- 15.2 days of ward stay, P < 0.01. The mean hospital stay for gamma knife was 2.2 +/- 0.9 days with no need of intensive care unit stay, P < 0.01. The mean loss of workdays for open surgery was 160 +/- 158 days and 8.0 +/- 9.0 days for gamma knife, P < 0.01. The gamma knife cost per hour (1435 US dollars) is higher than the open surgery cost per hour (450 US dollars), P < 0.01. The direct cost for gamma knife (9677 US dollars +/- 6700 US dollars) is higher than that for open surgery (5837 US dollars +/- 6587 US dollars), P < 0.01. Open surgery had more complication rates (31.2%) than gamma knife (3.8%). Open surgery had a mortality rate of 5.3%; there was no mortality for gamma knife. The indirect costs, including loss of workdays and mortality, were significantly higher for open surgery than for gamma knife, P < 0.01. Finally, the socioeconomic cost (34,453 US dollars +/- 97,277 US dollars) is higher for open surgery than for gamma knife (10,044 US dollars +/- 7481 US dollars), P < 0.01. The CEA is significantly higher in gamma knife (3762 US dollars/quality-adjusted life year) than in open surgery (8996 US dollars/quality-adjusted life year), P < 0.01. CONCLUSION: Most of the socioeconomic loss with open surgery for benign cranial base tumors comes from the indirect costs of workdays lost and mortality. Gamma knife radiosurgery is a worthwhile treatment to our patients and to our society because it may shorten hospital stays and workdays lost and reduce complications, mortality, socioeconomic loss, and achieve better cost-effectiveness.