The Cost of Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer in Thailand: an Empirical Study for Economic Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate cost of illness of locally advanced cervical cancer patients from societal perspective in three scenarios including completely cured without severe late side effects (S1), completely cured with late grade 3-4 gastrointestinal side effects (S2.1) or genitourinary side effects (S2.2), and disease recurrence and death (S3). METHODS:  The incidence-based approach was conducted. The cost was calculated for 5-year time horizon starting for the treatment initiation. Direct medical costs were extracted from hospital database. Cost of using two-dimensional technique and three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy were calculated separately. Direct non-medical costs and indirect costs in terms of productivity loss were based on actual expenses from the interview of 194 locally advanced cervical cancer patients from two tertiary hospitals in Bangkok, during June to December 2019. All costs were converted to US dollar in 2019 values. RESULTS: For 5 years, cost of illness per patient for using two-dimensional technique and three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy were US $8,391 and US $10,418 for S1, US $18,018 and US $20,045 for S2.1, US $17,908 and US $19,936 for S2.2, and US $61,076 and US $63,103 for S3, respectively. The economic burden for newly diagnosed locally advanced cervical cancer patients in Thailand in 2018 was approximately US $129 million and US $131 million for using two-dimensional technique and three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy, respectively. Cost from S3 accounted for 70% of all total cost. Premature death was the most important cost driver of cost of illness accounted for 64 % of the total cost estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Cost of illness of locally advanced cervical cancer patients produced significant economic burden from societal perspective. Disease recurrence and early death from cancer was the most influential cause of this burden.

Cost-Effectiveness of Active Surveillance, Radical Prostatectomy and External Beam Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: An Analysis of the ProtecT Trial.

PURPOSE: Despite increasing emphasis on value based care, to our knowledge the cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer management options has not been compared using prospective clinical trial data. The ProtecT (Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment) trial demonstrated no difference in survival in patients randomized to active surveillance, external beam radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy. We compared cost-effectiveness among the arms of ProtecT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a Markov model we compared the cost-effectiveness of active surveillance, radical prostatectomy and external beam radiotherapy based on ProtecT outcomes, specifically 6-year quality of life data and 10-year oncologic data. Costs were based on 2017 Medicare reimbursement while utility values were assigned using the literature. Univariable and multivariable sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Six years after randomization the mean costs per patient were $12,143 for active surveillance, $17,781 for radical prostatectomy and $29,238 for external beam radiotherapy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio relative to active surveillance was $127,752/QALY for radical prostatectomy and $381,894/QALY for external beam radiotherapy. Ten years after randomization radical prostatectomy ($5,627/QALY) and external beam radiotherapy ($78,291/QALY) were more cost-effective than active surveillance. The model was sensitive to the metastasis rate on active surveillance with a threshold of 2.4% at 10 years, below which active surveillance was more cost-effective than radical prostatectomy. On multivariable sensitivity analysis at 10 years using a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000/QALY the most cost-effective strategy was radical prostatectomy in 45% of model microsimulations, external beam radiotherapy in 30% and active surveillance in 25%. CONCLUSIONS: Although active surveillance represents a cost-effective strategy to manage localized prostate cancer during the initial several years after diagnosis, the relative cost-effectiveness of treatment emerges with extended followup.

Partial versus whole breast irradiation: Side effects, patient satisfaction and costs.

PURPOSE: Since accelerated partial breast irradiation has demonstrated non-inferiority to whole breast irradiation regarding recurrence rate in patients with early stage breast cancer, our objective was to compare its impact on short-term adverse events, patient satisfaction and costs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with early stage breast cancer treated by breast-conserving surgery between 2007 and 2012 were included: 48 women who received three-dimensional conformal accelerated partial breast irradiation in a multicentre phase-II trial were paired with 48 patients prospectively treated with whole breast irradiation. Adverse events, and patients' opinions concerning cosmesis, satisfaction and pain, were gathered 1 month after treatment. Direct and indirect costs were collected from the French National Health Insurance System perspective until the end of radiotherapy. RESULTS: When comparing its impact, skin reactions occurred in 37% of patients receiving three-dimensional conformal accelerated partial breast radiotherapy and 60% of patients receiving whole breast irradiation (P=0.07); 98% were very satisfied in the group three-dimensional conformal accelerated partial breast radiotherapy versus 46% in the group treated with whole breast irradiation (P<0.001); direct costs were significantly lower in the group treated with partial breast irradiation (mean cost: 2510€ versus 5479€/patient), due to less radiation sessions. CONCLUSION: In patients with early-stage breast cancer, partial irradiation offered a good alternative to whole breast irradiation, as it was less expensive and satisfactory. These, and the clinical safety and tolerance results, need to be confirmed by long-term accelerated partial breast irradiation results in on-going phase III trials.

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) versus 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) for head and neck cancer: cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: A cost-effectiveness analysis of IMRT compared to 3D-CRT for head and neck cancer patients (HNCPs) was conducted in the Brazilian Public Health System. METHODS: A Markov model was used to simulate radiation therapy-induced dysphagia and xerostomia in HNCPs. Data from the PARSPORT trial and the quality-of-life study were used as parameters. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained were calculated. RESULTS: At 2 years, IMRT was associated with an incremental benefit of 0.16 QALYs gained per person, resulting in an ICER of BRL 31,579 per QALY gained. IMRT was considered cost-effective when using the guideline proposed by the World Health Organization (WHO) of three times the national gross domestic product (GDP) per capita (BRL 72,195). Regarding life expectancy (15 years), the incremental benefit of IMRT was 1.16 QALYs gained per person, with an ICER of BRL 4,341. IMRT was also cost-effective using the WHO definition, which states that the maximum cost is equal to the GDP per capita (BRL 24,065). CONCLUSIONS: IMRT was considered cost-effective from the perspective of the Brazilian public health system.

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) versus 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) for head and neck cancer: cost-effectiveness analysis

SUMMARY BACKGROUND: A cost-effectiveness analysis of IMRT compared to 3D-CRT for head and neck cancer patients (HNCPs) was conducted in the Brazilian Public Health System. METHODS: A Markov model was used to simulate radiation therapy-induced dysphagia and xerostomia in HNCPs. Data from the PARSPORT trial and the quality-of-life study were used as parameters. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained were calculated. RESULTS: At 2 years, IMRT was associated with an incremental benefit of 0.16 QALYs gained per person, resulting in an ICER of BRL 31,579 per QALY gained. IMRT was considered cost-effective when using the guideline proposed by the World Health Organization (WHO) of three times the national gross domestic product (GDP) per capita (BRL 72,195). Regarding life expectancy (15 years), the incremental benefit of IMRT was 1.16 QALYs gained per person, with an ICER of BRL 4,341. IMRT was also cost-effective using the WHO definition, which states that the maximum cost is equal to the GDP per capita (BRL 24,065). CONCLUSIONS: IMRT was considered cost-effective from the perspective of the Brazilian public health system.

RESUMO INTRODUÇÃO: Foi realizada uma análise de custo-efetividade da radioterapia com intensidade modulada de feixe (IMRT) comparada com a radioterapia conformada para pacientes com câncer de cabeça e pescoço (CCP) no contexto do Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS). MÉTODOS: Foi elaborado um modelo de Markov para comparar os custos médicos diretos e os desfechos de saúde relacionados à qualidade de vida do paciente pós-intervenção radioterápica sofrendo de xerostomia e disfagia. Com essa finalidade, foram usados os dados do estudo PARSPORT e parâmetros de qualidade de vida. Os resultados comparativos das estratégias alternativas de tratamento foram medidos pela razão de custo-efetividade incremental (RCEI). O desfecho analisado foi o de anos de vida ajustados à qualidade (QALY). RESULTADOS: Em um horizonte de tempo de dois anos, a IMRT foi associada com um benefício incremental de ganho de 0,16 QALYs por indivíduo, resultando em um RCEI de R$ 31.579 por QALY ganhado. A IMRT foi custo-efetivo, adotando-se o limite máximo de disposição a pagar, proposto pela OMS, de três vezes o PIB per capita nacional, equivalente a R$ 72.195. No horizonte de tempo de 15 anos, o benefício incremental de ganho foi de 1,16 QALYs por indivíduo, com um RCEI de R$ 4.341. A IMRT foi custo-efetivo, adotando-se o limite de disposição a pagar, proposto pela OMS, de uma vez o PIB per capita nacional, equivalente a R$ 24.065. CONCLUSÃO: A IMRT foi considerada um tratamento custo-efetivo na perspectiva do SUS.

Evaluation of Delivery Costs for External Beam Radiation Therapy and Brachytherapy for Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer Using Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the delivery costs, using time-driven activity-based costing, and reimbursement for definitive radiation therapy for locally advanced cervical cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Process maps were created to represent each step of the radiation treatment process and included personnel, equipment, and consumable supplies used to deliver care. Personnel were interviewed to estimate time involved to deliver care. Salary data, equipment purchasing information, and facilities costs were also obtained. We defined the capacity cost rate (CCR) for each resource and then calculated the total cost of patient care according to CCR and time for each resource. Costs were compared with 2016 Medicare reimbursement and relative value units (RVUs). RESULTS: The total cost of radiation therapy for cervical cancer was $12,861.68, with personnel costs constituting 49.8%. Brachytherapy cost $8610.68 (66.9% of total) and consumed 423 minutes of attending radiation oncologist time (80.0% of total). External beam radiation therapy cost $4055.01 (31.5% of total). Personnel costs were higher for brachytherapy than for the sum of simulation and external beam radiation therapy delivery ($4798.73 vs $1404.72). A full radiation therapy course provides radiation oncologists 149.77 RVUs with intensity modulated radiation therapy or 135.90 RVUs with 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy, with total reimbursement of $23,321.71 and $16,071.90, respectively. Attending time per RVU is approximately 4-fold higher for brachytherapy (5.68 minutes) than 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (1.63 minutes) or intensity modulated radiation therapy (1.32 minutes). CONCLUSIONS: Time-driven activity-based costing was used to calculate the total cost of definitive radiation therapy for cervical cancer, revealing that brachytherapy delivery and personnel resources constituted the majority of costs. However, current reimbursement policy does not reflect the increased attending physician effort and delivery costs of brachytherapy. We hypothesize that the significant discrepancy between treatment costs and physician effort versus reimbursement may be a potential driver of reported national trends toward poor compliance with brachytherapy, and we suggest re-evaluation of payment policies to incentivize quality care.

Self-reported Conflicts of Interest and Trial Sponsorship of Clinical Trials in Prostate Cancer Involving Radiotherapy.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the association between trial sponsorship and conflicts of interest (COI) with clinical trial conclusions for prostate cancer trials related to radiotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The MEDLINE database was searched for all prostate cancer clinical trials published between 2004 and 2013 and identified 1396 studies. Two investigators independently identified trials published in the English language of ≥30 patients, and extracted relevant data. Clinical trials were classified according to trial characteristics, sponsorship source and type, COI, and study conclusion, and analyzed by univariable and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 240 eligible trials, 160 (67.5%) evaluated drugs without radiotherapy, 60 (25%) involved radiotherapy, and 18 (7.5%) involved procedures without radiotherapy. Of the 60 radiotherapy trials eligible for analysis, positive sponsorship and potential COI were present in 58.3% and 20% of trials, respectively. Study conclusions were positive, negative, or neutral in 78.3%, 5%, and 16.7% of trials, respectively. No association was found between positive conclusions and either industry support of potential COI. Positive conclusions were reported in 86.7% and 83.3% of trials with sponsorship and COI, respectively, as compared with 75.6% and 77.1% of those without sponsorship (P=0.37) and COI (P=0.64). Sponsorship was significantly associated with radiotherapy trials combined with drugs (odds ratio 5.5, P=0.01) and higher-risk disease (odds ratio 4.71, P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of sponsorship was associated with radiotherapy trials involving drugs or studying higher-risk prostate cancer. However, there were no identified associations between study conclusion and sponsorship type or COI.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of intensity-modulated radiation therapy with normal and hypofractionated schemes for the treatment of localised prostate cancer.

The aim of our analysis was to compare the cost-effectiveness of high-dose intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (HF-IMRT) versus conventional dose three-dimensional radiation therapy (3DCRT) for the treatment of localised prostate cancer. A Markov model was constructed to calculate the incremental quality-adjusted life years and costs. Transition probabilities, adverse events and utilities were derived from relevant systematic reviews. Microcosting in a large university hospital was applied to calculate cost vectors. The expected mean lifetime cost of patients undergoing 3DCRT, IMRT and HF-IMRT were 7,160 euros, 6,831 euros and 6,019 euros respectively. The expected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were 5.753 for 3DCRT, 5.956 for IMRT and 5.957 for HF-IMRT. Compared to 3DCRT, both IMRT and HF-IMRT resulted in more health gains at a lower cost. It can be concluded that high-dose IMRT is not only cost-effective compared to the conventional dose 3DCRT but, when used with a hypofractionation scheme, it has great cost-saving potential for the public payer and may improve access to radiation therapy for patients.

Impact of Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy on Health Care Costs of Patients With Anal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Drivers of variation in the cost of care after chemoradiotherapy for the management of anal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) have not been fully elucidated. We sought to characterize the direct and indirect impact of radiotherapy modality on health care costs among patients with anal SCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed using the 2014 linkage of the SEER-Medicare database. We identified 1,025 patients with anal SCC diagnosed between 2001 and 2011 and treated with chemoradiotherapy. Propensity score matching was used to balance baseline differences between patients treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and those treated with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT). Differences in total, cancer-attributable, and procedure-specific costs between groups were measured. RESULTS: Radiation-related, patient out-of-pocket, and total costs in the 1-year period after radiotherapy start were all higher for the IMRT group than the 3D-CRT group (median total cost, $35,890 v $27,262, respectively; P < .001). Patients who received IMRT had lower cumulative costs associated with urgent hospitalizations and emergency department visits at both 9 months and 1 year after treatment start compared with a matched cohort of patients who received 3D-CRT (median, $711 v $4,957 at 1 year, respectively; P = .021). CONCLUSION: Although total costs of care were higher for IMRT compared with 3D-CRT, primarily as a result of higher radiotherapy-specific costs, IMRT was associated with decreased unplanned health care utilization costs starting at 9 months after treatment start. Radiotherapy-centered episodes of care may need to encompass a longer time horizon to capture the full cost savings associated with more advanced radiation modalities.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Radiation Therapy Versus Transoral Robotic Surgery for Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of transoral robotic surgery (TORS) versus the standard treatment modality for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC), radiation therapy (RT), in a subset of patients with early-stage OPSCC. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We developed a microsimulation state-transition model associated with RT and TORS for patients with clinically staged T1N0M0 to T2N1M0 OPSCC. Transition probabilities, utilities, and costs for each health state were estimated from recently published data and discounted by 3% annually over a lifetime time horizon. Model outcomes included lifetime costs (in 2014 US dollars), health benefits (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]), and cost-effectiveness ratios from a societal perspective. RESULTS: Under base-case assumptions, TORS was associated with modest gains in QALYs. RT yielded 10.43 QALYs at a cost of $123,410 per patient, whereas TORS yielded 11.10 QALYs at a cost of $178,480. This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $82,190/QALY gained. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was most sensitive to the need for adjuvant therapy, cost of late toxicity, age at diagnosis, disease state utilities, and discount rate. Accounting for joint parameter uncertainty, RT had a higher probability of demonstrating a cost-effective profile compared with TORS, at 54% compared with 46%. CONCLUSIONS: By use of standard benchmarks for cost-effectiveness in the United States, TORS may be a cost-effective alternative for the subset of patients with early-stage OPSCC but demonstrates considerable sensitivity to assumptions around quality of life.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Preoperative Versus Postoperative Radiation Therapy in Extremity Soft Tissue Sarcoma.

PURPOSE: Surgery combined with radiation therapy (RT) is the cornerstone of multidisciplinary management of extremity soft tissue sarcoma (STS). Although RT can be given in either the preoperative or the postoperative setting with similar local recurrence and survival outcomes, the side effect profiles, costs, and long-term functional outcomes are different. The aim of this study was to use decision analysis to determine optimal sequencing of RT with surgery in patients with extremity STS. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a state transition Markov model, with quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) as the primary outcome. A time horizon of 5 years, a cycle length of 3 months, and a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY was used. One-way deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the thresholds at which each strategy would be preferred. The robustness of the model was assessed by probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Preoperative RT is a more cost-effective strategy ($26,633/3.00 QALYs) than postoperative RT ($28,028/2.86 QALYs) in our base case scenario. Preoperative RT is the superior strategy with either 3-dimensional conformal RT or intensity-modulated RT. One-way sensitivity analyses identified the relative risk of chronic adverse events as having the greatest influence on the preferred timing of RT. The likelihood of preoperative RT being the preferred strategy was 82% on probabilistic sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative RT is more cost effective than postoperative RT in the management of resectable extremity STS, primarily because of the higher incidence of chronic adverse events with RT in the postoperative setting.

Impact of image guidance during whole-brain radiation therapy.

PURPOSE: Radiation oncologists are rapidly adopting image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT), warranting further evaluation of its role and value. We analyzed the impact of IGRT for one of the most common radiation treatments. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We retrospectively identified patients who received whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) with mask immobilization and who underwent routine IGRT with kilovoltage imaging. We calculated IGRT shifts by comparing couch positions before and after imaging. We determined the dosimetric impact of IGRT on lens maximum and dose received by 95% (D95%) of the brain and cribriform region. We calculated episode of care costs using the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. RESULTS: A total of 206 patients received 2392 image-guided fractions. The median absolute shift was 1 mm, 1 mm, and 2 mm in the vertical, lateral, and longitudinal directions, respectively. Ninety-nine percent of shifts were ≤6 mm, 7 mm, and 9 mm in the vertical, lateral, and longitudinal directions, respectively. For the 22 patients with the largest average shift per fraction, treating without IGRT would have changed D95% brain by a median 3 cGy (interquartile range, 2-9) and D95% cribriform region by a median 39 cGy (interquartile range, 7-116). Without IGRT, lens doses would have increased for 11/22 patients and decreased for 11/22. Using a 700 cGy lens threshold, there was no net change in the proportion of patients above and below the threshold regardless of IGRT use. For a 10-fraction course, daily IGRT accounted for 10% of the total episode of care cost. CONCLUSIONS: IGRT results in small positional corrections during WBRT. Even among cases with the largest shifts, the dosimetric impact is minor for the brain and modest for the cribriform region and lenses. This study suggests mask immobilization alone is sufficient for routine cases, and it may help clinicians make evidence-based decisions about IGRT in this setting.

[A microcost analysis of radiation therapy of localized prostate cancer]. / A prosztatadaganatos betegek sugárterápiájának mikroköltség-számítása.

INTRODUCTION: Development of radiation technology provides new opportunities for the treatment of prostate cancer, but little is known about the costs of novel technologies. AIM: The aim of this analysis was to compare the costs of conventional three-dimensional radiation therapy to normal and hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. METHOD: The cost-analysis was performed based on the data of a Hungarian oncology center from health care provider's perspective. Irradiation time was assessed from the data of 100 fractions delivered in 20 patients. Unit costs for each component were calculated based on actual costs retrieved from the accounting system of the oncology center. RESULTS: Average treatment delivery times were 14.5 minutes for three-dimensional radiation therapy, 16.2 minutes for intensity-modulated radiation therapy with image-guided and 14 minutes without image-guided method. Expected mean cost of patients undergoing conventional three-dimensional radiation therapy, normal and hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy were 619 000 HUF, 933 000 HUF and 692 000 HUF, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although normal and hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapies have already been proven to be cost-effective, current reimbursement rates do not encourage healthcare providers to use the more effective therapy techniques.

Toxicity and cost-effectiveness analysis of intensity modulated radiation therapy versus 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy for postoperative treatment of gynecologic cancers.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate toxicity and cost-effectiveness of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) versus 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) in the postoperative treatment of uterine and cervical cancer. METHODS: Between 2000 and 2012, eighty patients at our institution received post-hysterectomy 3DCRT (46) or IMRT (34) for uterine or cervical cancer. Baseline characteristics, outcome, and ≥CTCAE grade 2 toxicities were compared between the two groups. Predictors of toxicity-free survival were identified. A decision analysis model was designed to capture individual health states at 1, 2, and 3 years after treatment. Micro-costing technique and estimated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: Utilization of IMRT increased from 25% (2005-2007) to 75% (2008-2012). Recurrence-free and overall survival rates were not different between the two groups. Toxicity rates were reduced with IMRT versus 3DCRT (HR 0.42, p=0.04). Women who received IMRT had numerically lower rates of late gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity and significantly lower rates of late overall toxicity at 3 years (16% vs. 45%, p=0.04). On univariate analysis, IMRT was associated with decreased late toxicity (HR 0.43, p=0.04). Treatment costs were higher and toxicity costs were lower with IMRT. IMRT had an ICER of $235,233 (year 1), $114,270 (year 2), and $75,555 (year 3) per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: IMRT is associated with reduced late overall toxicity compared to 3DCRT without compromising clinical outcome. IMRT is not cost-effective during the early chronic toxicity phase, but it becomes more cost-effective over time.

[Prostate cancer: what treatment techniques for which tumors? Ethical and methodological issues]. / Cancers de prostate : quelles techniques de radiothérapie pour quelles tumeurs ? Enjeux éthiques et méthodologiques.

The identification of the optimal radiation technique in prostate cancer is based on the results of dosimetric and clinical studies, although there are almost no randomized studies comparing different radiation techniques. The feasibility of the techniques depends also on the technical and human resources of the radiation department, on the cost of the treatment from the points of view of the society, the patient and the radiation oncologist, and finally on the choice of the patient. The slow evolution of prostate cancer leads to consider the biochemical failure as the main judgment criteria in the majority of the studies. A proper urinary radio-induced toxicity evaluation implies a long follow-up. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) combined with image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) is recommended in case of high dose (≥76Gy) to the prostate, pelvic lymph nodes irradiation and hypofractionation schedules. For low-risk tumors, the aim of the treatment is to preserve quality of life, while limiting costs. Stereotactic body radiotherapy shows promising results, although the follow-up is still limited and phase III trials are ongoing. Focal radiation techniques are in the step of feasibility. For intermediate and high-risk tumors, the objective of the treatment is to increase the locoregional control, while limiting the toxicity. IMRT combined with IGRT leads to either a well-validated dose escalation strategy for intermediate risk tumors, or to a strategy of moderate hypofractionated schedules, which cannot be yet considered as a standard treatment. These combined radiation techniques allow finally large lymph node target volume irradiation and dose escalation potentially in the dominant intraprostatic lesion. The feasibility of simultaneous integrated boost approaches is demonstrated.

[Intensity-modulated radiotherapy in head and neck cancer: ethics and methodology]. / Radiothérapie conformationnelle avec modulation d'intensité des cancers des voies aérodigestives supérieures : enjeux éthiques et méthodologiques.

Numerous studies have shown that intensity-modulated radiation therapy is the standard technique for the radiation treatment of head and neck cancers. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy reduces side effects (xerostomia, dysphagia, fibrosis, etc.) and improves the results for cancer localizations with highly complex shapes such as the cavum or nasal cavity. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy is also a costly technique that necessitates a numerous staff, highly trained, with regular practice. If this technique cannot be available (understaffing, overwork, etc.) the choice between entrusting the patient to a colleague and treating the patient with a less sophisticated technique such as 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy depends on different objective and ethical criteria.