Revolutionizing cancer treatment in India: Evaluating the unmet need, economics, and a roadmap for project implementation of particle therapy.

INTRODUCTION: This study aims to quantitatively assess eligible patients and project the demand for particle therapy facilities in India from 2020 to 2040. In addition, an economic analysis evaluates the financial feasibility of implementing this technology. The study also examines the prospective benefits and challenges of adopting this technology in India. METHODOLOGY: Cancer incidence and projected trends were analyzed for pediatric patients using the Global Childhood Cancer microsimulation model and adult patients using the Globocan data. Economic cost evaluation is performed for large-scale combined particle (carbon and proton-three room fixed-beam), large-scale proton (one gantry and two fixed-beam), and small-scale proton (one gantry) facility. RESULTS: By 2040, the estimated number of eligible patients for particle therapy is projected to reach 161,000, including approximately 14,000 pediatric cases. The demand for particle therapy facilities is projected to rise from 81 to 97 in 2020 to 121 to 146 by 2040. The capital expenditure is estimated to be only 3.7 times that of a standard photon linear accelerator over a 30-year period. Notably, the treatment cost can be reduced to USD 400 to 800 per fraction, substantially lower than that in high-income countries (USD 1000 to 3000 per fraction). CONCLUSION: This study indicates that, in the Indian scenario, all particle therapy models are cost-beneficial and feasible, with large-scale proton therapy being the most suitable. Despite challenges such as limited resources, space, a skilled workforce, referral systems, and patient affordability, it offers substantial benefits. These include the potential to treat many patients and convenient construction and operational costs. An iterative phased implementation strategy can effectively overcome these challenges, paving the way for the successful adoption of particle therapy in India. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: In India, the number of eligible patients benefiting from high-precision particle therapy technology is projected to rise till 2040. Despite high upfront costs, our study finds the long-term feasibility of all particle therapy models, potentially offering a substantial reduction in treatment cost compared to high-income countries. Despite challenges, India can succeed with an iterative phased approach.

Association between Site-of-Care and the Cost and Modality of Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: Analysis of Medicare Beneficiaries from 2015 to 2017.

Among 84,447 radiotherapy (RT) courses for Medicare beneficiaries age ≥ 65 with prostate cancer treated with external beam RT (EBRT), brachytherapy, or both, 42,608 (51%) were delivered in hospital-affiliated and 41,695 (49%) in freestanding facilities. Freestanding centers were less likely to use EBRT + brachytherapy than EBRT (OR 0.84 [95%CI 0.84-0.84]; p < .001). Treatment was more costly in freestanding centers (mean difference $2,597 [95%CI $2,475-2,719]; p < .001). Adjusting for modality and fractionation, RT in hospital-affiliated centers was more costly (mean difference $773 [95%CI $693-853]; p < .001). Freestanding centers utilized more expensive RT delivery, but factors unrelated to RT modality or fractionation rendered RT more costly at hospital-affiliated centers.

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of proton beam therapy for treatment decision making in paranasal sinus and nasal cavity cancers in China.

BACKGROUND: Cost-effectiveness is a pivotal consideration for clinical decision making of high-tech cancer treatment in developing countries. Intensity-modulated proton radiation therapy (IMPT, the advanced form of proton beam therapy) has been found to improve the prognosis of the patients with paranasal sinus and nasal cavity cancers compared with intensity-modulated photon-radiation therapy (IMRT). However, the cost-effectiveness of IMPT has not yet been fully evaluated. This study aimed at evaluating the cost-effectiveness of IMPT versus IMRT for treatment decision making of paranasal sinus and nasal cavity cancers in Chinese settings. METHODS: A 3-state Markov model was designed for cost-effectiveness analysis. A base case evaluation was performed on a patient of 47-year-old (median age of patients with paranasal sinus and nasal cavity cancers in China). Model robustness was examined by probabilistic sensitivity analysis, Markov cohort analysis and Tornado diagram. Cost-effective scenarios of IMPT were further identified by one-way sensitivity analyses and stratified analyses were performed for different age levels. The outcome measure of the model was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). A strategy was defined as cost-effective if the ICER was below the societal willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of China (30,828 US dollars ($) / quality-adjusted life year (QALY)). RESULTS: IMPT was identified as being cost-effective for the base case at the WTP of China, providing an extra 1.65 QALYs at an additional cost of $38,928.7 compared with IMRT, and had an ICER of $23,611.2 / QALY. Of note, cost-effective scenarios of IMPT only existed in the following independent conditions: probability of IMPT eradicating cancer ≥0.867; probability of IMRT eradicating cancer ≤0.764; or cost of IMPT ≤ $52,163.9. Stratified analyses for different age levels demonstrated that IMPT was more cost-effective in younger patients than older patients, and was cost-effective only in patients ≤56-year-old. CONCLUSIONS: Despite initially regarded as bearing high treatment cost, IMPT could still be cost-effective for patients with paranasal sinus and nasal cavity cancers in China. The tumor control superiority of IMPT over IMRT and the patient's age should be the principal considerations for clinical decision of prescribing this new irradiation technique.

Efficacy and toxicity of particle radiotherapy in WHO grade II and grade III meningiomas: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVEAdjuvant radiotherapy has become a common addition to the management of high-grade meningiomas, as immediate treatment with radiation following resection has been associated with significantly improved outcomes. Recent investigations into particle therapy have expanded into the management of high-risk meningiomas. Here, the authors systematically review studies on the efficacy and utility of particle-based radiotherapy in the management of high-grade meningioma.METHODSA literature search was developed by first defining the population, intervention, comparison, outcomes, and study design (PICOS). A search strategy was designed for each of three electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, and Scopus. Data extraction was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Outcomes of interest included local disease control, overall survival, and toxicity, which were compared with historical data on photon-based therapies.RESULTSEleven retrospective studies including 240 patients with atypical (WHO grade II) and anaplastic (WHO grade III) meningioma undergoing particle radiation therapy were identified. Five of the 11 studies included in this systematic review focused specifically on WHO grade II and III meningiomas; the others also included WHO grade I meningioma. Across all of the studies, the median follow-up ranged from 6 to 145 months. Local control rates for high-grade meningiomas ranged from 46.7% to 86% by the last follow-up or at 5 years. Overall survival rates ranged from 0% to 100% with better prognoses for atypical than for malignant meningiomas. Radiation necrosis was the most common adverse effect of treatment, occurring in 3.9% of specified cases.CONCLUSIONSDespite the lack of randomized prospective trials, this review of existing retrospective studies suggests that particle therapy, whether an adjuvant or a stand-alone treatment, confers survival benefit with a relatively low risk for severe treatment-derived toxicity compared to standard photon-based therapy. However, additional controlled studies are needed.

A systematic review of the cost and cost-effectiveness studies of proton radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Economic analyses of new technologies, such as proton-beam radiotherapy (PBT), are a public health priority. To date, no systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of PBT has been performed. METHODS: Systematic searches of PubMed, EMBASE, abstracts from American Society for Radiation Oncology and American Society of Clinical Oncology meetings, and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry were conducted (2000-2015) along with abstracts from the Particle Therapy Co-Operative Group of North America for both years of existence (2014-2015). Eighteen original investigations were analyzed. RESULTS: The cost-effectiveness for prostate cancer-the single most common diagnosis currently treated with PBT-was suboptimal. PBT was the most cost-effective option for several pediatric brain tumors. PBT costs for breast cancer were increased but were favorable for appropriately selected patients with left-sided cancers at high risk of cardiac toxicity and compared with brachytherapy for accelerated partial breast irradiation. For non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the greatest cost-effectiveness benefits using PBT were observed for locoregionally advanced-but not early stage-tumors. PBT offered superior cost-effectiveness in selected head/neck cancer patients at higher risk of acute mucosal toxicities. Similar cost-effectiveness was observed for PBT, enucleation, and plaque brachytherapy in patients with uveal melanoma. CONCLUSIONS: With greatly limited amounts of data, PBT offers promising cost-effectiveness for pediatric brain tumors, well-selected breast cancers, locoregionally advanced NSCLC, and high-risk head/neck cancers. Heretofore, it has not been demonstrated that PBT is cost-effective for prostate cancer or early stage NSCLC. Careful patient selection is absolutely critical to assess cost-effectiveness. Together with increasing PBT availability, clinical trial evidence, and ongoing major technological improvements, cost-effectiveness data and conclusions from this analysis could change rapidly. Cancer 2016;122:1483-501. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Proton beam therapy in Japan: current and future status.

The number of patients treated by proton beam therapy in Japan since 2000 has increased; in 2016, 11 proton facilities were available to treat patients. Notably, proton beam therapy is very useful for pediatric cancer; since the pediatric radiation dose to normal tissues should be reduced as much as possible because of the effect of radiation on growth, intellectual development, endocrine organ function and secondary cancer development. Hepatocellular carcinoma is common in Asia, and most of the studies of proton beam therapy for liver cancer have been reported by Japanese investigators. Proton beam therapy is also a standard treatment for nasal and paranasal lesions and lesions at the base of the skull, because the radiation dose to critical organs such as the eyes, optic nerves and central nervous system can be reduced with proton beam therapy. For prostate cancer, comparative studies that address adverse effects, safety, patient quality of life and socioeconomic issues should be performed to determine the appropriate use of proton beam therapy for prostate cancer. Regarding new proton beam therapy applications, experience with proton beam therapy combined with chemotherapy is limited, although favorable outcomes have been recently reported for locally advanced lung cancer, esophageal cancer and pancreatic cancer. Therefore, 'chemoproton' therapy appears to be a very attractive field for further clinical investigations. In conclusion, there are cost issues and considerations regarding national insurance for the use of proton beam therapy in Japan. Further studies and discussions are needed to address the use of proton beam therapy for several types of cancers, and for maintaining the quality of life of patients while retaining a high cure rate.

Cost effectiveness of proton versus photon radiation therapy with respect to the risk of growth hormone deficiency in children.

BACKGROUND: Proton therapy in pediatrics may improve the risk/benefit profile of radiotherapy at a greater upfront financial cost, but it may prove to be cost effective if chronic medical complications can be avoided. Tools to assist with decision making are needed to aid in selecting pediatric patients for protons, and cost-effectiveness models can provide an objective method for this. METHODS: A Markov cohort-simulation model was developed to assess the expected costs and effectiveness for specific radiation doses to the hypothalamus with protons versus photons in pediatric patients. Costing data included cost of investment and the diagnosis and management of growth hormone deficiency. Longitudinal outcomes data were used to inform risk parameters for the model. With costs in 2012 US dollars and effectiveness measured in quality-adjusted life years, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were used to measure outcomes. RESULTS: Proton therapy was cost effective for some scenarios based on the difference in hypothalamic sparing. Although some scenarios were not cost effective, others were not only cost effective for proton therapy but also demonstrated that protons were cost saving compared with photons. CONCLUSIONS: The current results provide the first evidence-based guide for identifying children with brain tumors who may benefit the most from proton therapy with respect to endocrine dysfunction. Proton therapy may be more cost effective for scenarios in which radiation dose to the hypothalamus can be spared, but protons may not be cost effective when tumors are involving or directly adjacent to the hypothalamus if there is a high dose to this structure.

[Economic and logistical problems of radiation oncology].

An analysis of economic and logistical problems of radiation oncology is presented based on domestic and foreign literature. Despite the high efficacy of radiotherapy this branch of oncology is not financed enough in most countries. As a consequence, it is ubiquitously marked radiotherapy capacity deficit that does not allow to fully realize its therapeutic potential. Medical electron accelerators and related equipment have become increasingly complex and expensive and radiotherapy techniques more consuming. Even in developed countries growing waiting times for radiotherapy, not using the most modern and efficient radiotherapy technologies (image guiding, etc.) has become a daily reality. Based on these data, we assessed the prospects and possibilities of upgrading the technical base of radiation oncology in Russia including the development of hadron therapy.

Cost effectiveness of proton therapy compared with photon therapy in the management of pediatric medulloblastoma.

BACKGROUND: Proton therapy has been a hotly contested issue in both scientific publications and lay media. Proponents cite the modality's ability to spare healthy tissue, but critics claim the benefit gained from its use does not validate its cost compared with photon therapy. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of proton therapy versus photon therapy in the management of pediatric medulloblastoma. METHODS: A cost-effective analysis was performed from the societal perspective using a Monte Carlo simulation model. A population of pediatric medulloblastoma survivors aged 18 years was studied who had received treatment at age 5 years and who were at risk of developing 10 adverse events, such as growth hormone deficiency, coronary artery disease, ototoxicity, secondary malignant neoplasm, and death. Costing data included the cost of investment and the costs of diagnosis and management of adverse health states from institutional and Medicare data. Longitudinal outcomes data and recent modeling studies informed risk parameters for the model. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were used to measure outcomes. RESULTS: Results from the base case demonstrated that proton therapy was associated with higher quality-adjusted life years and lower costs; therefore, it dominated photon therapy. In 1-way sensitivity analyses, proton therapy remained the more attractive strategy, either dominating photon therapy or having a very low cost per quality-adjust life year gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis illustrated the domination of proton therapy over photon therapy in 96.4% of simulations. CONCLUSIONS: By using current risk estimates and data on required capital investments, the current study indicated that proton therapy is a cost-effective strategy for the management of pediatric patients with medulloblastoma compared with standard of care photon therapy.

Proton beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer-is the hype (and the cost) justified?

Although in use for over 40 years, proton beam therapy for prostate cancer has only recently come under public scrutiny, due to its increased cost compared to other forms of treatment. While the last decade has seen a rapid accumulation of evidence to suggest that proton beam therapy is both safe and effective in this disease site, a rigorous comparison to other radiotherapy techniques has not yet been completed. In this review, we provide an in-depth look at the evidence both supporting and questioning proton beam therapy's future role in the treatment of prostate cancer, with emphasis on its history, physical properties, comparative clinical and cost effectiveness, advances in its delivery and future promise.

Proton therapy for prostate cancer: current state and future perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: Localized prostate cancer can be treated with several radiotherapeutic approaches. Proton therapy (PT) can precisely target tumors, thus sparing normal tissues and reducing side-effects without sacrificing cancer control. However, PT is a costly treatment compared with conventional photon radiotherapy, which may undermine its overall efficacy. In this review, we summarize current data on the dosimetric rationale, clinical benefits, and cost of PT for prostate cancer. METHODS: An extensive literature review of PT for prostate cancer was performed with emphasis on studies investigating dosimetric advantage, clinical outcomes, cost-effective strategies, and novel technology trends. RESULTS: PT is safe, and its efficacy is comparable to that of standard photon-based therapy or brachytherapy. Data on gastrointestinal, genitourinary, and sexual function toxicity profiles are conflicting; however, PT is associated with a low risk of second cancer and has no effects on testosterone levels. Regarding cost-effectiveness, PT is suboptimal, although evolving trends in radiation delivery and construction of PT centers may help reduce the cost. CONCLUSION: PT has several advantages over conventional photon radiotherapy, and novel approaches may increase its efficacy and safety. Large prospective randomized trials comparing photon therapy with proton-based treatments are ongoing and may provide data on the differences in efficacy, toxicity profile, and quality of life between proton- and photon-based treatments for prostate cancer in the modern era. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: PT provides excellent physical advantages and has a superior dose profile compared with X-ray radiotherapy. Further evidence from clinical trials and research studies will clarify the role of PT in the treatment of prostate cancer, and facilitate the implementation of PT in a more accessible, affordable, efficient, and safe way.

Individualised selection of left-sided breast cancer patients for proton therapy based on cost-effectiveness.

INTRODUCTION: The significantly greater cost of proton therapy compared with X-ray therapy is frequently justified by the expected reduction in normal tissue toxicity. This is often true for indications such as paediatric and skull base cancers. However, the benefit is less clear for other more common indications such as breast cancer, and it is possible that the degree of benefit may vary widely between these patients. The aim of this work was to demonstrate a method of individualised selection of left-sided breast cancer patients for proton therapy based on cost-effectiveness of treatment. METHODS: 16 left-sided breast cancer patients had a treatment plan generated for the delivery of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and of intensity-modulated photon therapy (IMRT) with the deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) technique. The resulting dosimetric data was used to predict probabilities of tumour control and toxicities for each patient. These probabilities were used in a Markov model to predict costs and the number of quality-adjusted life years expected as a result of each of the two treatments. RESULTS: IMPT was not cost-effective for the majority of patients but was cost-effective where there was a greater risk reduction of second malignancies with IMPT. CONCLUSION: The Markov model predicted that IMPT with DIBH was only cost-effective for selected left-sided breast cancer patients where IMRT resulted in a significantly greater dose to normal tissue. The presented model may serve as a means of evaluating the cost-effectiveness of IMPT on an individual patient basis.

Future technological developments in proton therapy - A predicted technological breakthrough.

In the current spectrum of cancer treatments, despite high costs, a lack of robust evidence based on clinical outcomes or technical and radiobiological uncertainties, particle therapy and in particular proton therapy (PT) is rapidly growing. Despite proton therapy being more than fifty years old (first proposed by Wilson in 1946) and more than 220,000 patients having been treated with in 2020, many technological challenges remain and numerous new technical developments that must be integrated into existing systems. This article presents an overview of on-going technical developments and innovations that we felt were most important today, as well as those that have the potential to significantly shape the future of proton therapy. Indeed, efforts have been done continuously to improve the efficiency of a PT system, in terms of cost, technology and delivery technics, and a number of different developments pursued in the accelerator field will first be presented. Significant developments are also underway in terms of transport and spatial resolution achievable with pencil beam scanning, or conformation of the dose to the target: we will therefore discuss beam focusing and collimation issues which are important parameters for the development of these techniques, as well as proton arc therapy. State of the art and alternative approaches to adaptive PT and the future of adaptive PT will finally be reviewed. Through these overviews, we will finally see how advances in these different areas will allow the potential for robust dose shaping in proton therapy to be maximised, probably foreshadowing a future era of maturity for the PT technique.

Head and neck proton therapy in France: A missed opportunity or a challenge in front of us?

Following major advances of the best of photon-techniques such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and, to arrive soon, magnetic resonance (MR)-linac radiotherapy, there are still substantial opportunities in the treatment of head and neck cancers to further reduce the toxicity burden. Proton therapy represents another attractive option in this high-quality and highly competitive precision radiotherapy landscape. Proton therapy holds promises to reduce toxicities and to escalate the dose in radioresistant cases or cases where dose distribution is not satisfactory with photons. However, the selection of patients for proton therapy needs to be done using evidence-based medicine to build arguments in favor of personalized precision radiation therapy. Referral to proton therapy versus IMRT or SBRT should be registered (ProtonShare® platform) and envisioned in a formalized clinical research perspective through randomized trials. The use of an enrichment process using a model-based approach should be done to only randomize patients doomed to benefit from proton. To tackle such great opportunities, the French proton therapy challenge is to collaborate at the national and international levels, and to demonstrate that the extra-costs of treatment are worth clinically and economically in the short, mid, and long-term. In parallel to the clinical developments, there are still preclinical issues to be tackled (e.g., proton FLASH, mini-beams, combination with immunotherapy), for which the French Radiotransnet network offers a unique platform. The current article provides a personal view of the challenges and opportunities with a focus on clinical research and randomized trial requirements as well as the needs for strong collaborations at the national and international levels for PT in squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck to date.

The Use of Crowdfunding to Support Radiation Therapy Cancer Treatments.

BACKGROUND/AIM: The purpose of this study was to assess patients' use of a crowdfunding platform to raise funds for radiation treatment and to better understand the direct and indirect costs associated with treatments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The GoFundMe crowdfunding database was queried for four unique categories related to radiation treatment campaigns. Covariates identified included clinical and demographic variables, and associations between amount raised and these predictors were analyzed using a generalized linear model. RESULTS: While 56% percent of campaigns cited direct costs associated with treatment, 73.4% of campaigns cited indirect costs related to treatment. Indirect expenses related to travel (31.7%) as well as living expenses (29.2%) were cited most often across all four treatment categories. CONCLUSION: This study enhances understanding regarding patients use of crowdfunding for radiation treatment. Increased focus should be placed on discussing the indirect costs of care with patients and their families.