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

BMC Cancer ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Guo Li ◽  
Yun-Fei Xia ◽  
Yi-Xiang Huang ◽  
Deniz Okat ◽  
Bo Qiu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Proton Beam ◽  
Oropharyngeal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Proton Beam Therapy ◽  
Treatment Costs ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
The Cost

Abstract 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.

scholarly journals An Increasing Population of Patients With Oropharyngeal Carcinoma in China is Predicted to Benefit From Proton Beam Therapy in Terms of Cost-effectiveness Consideration 

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guo Li ◽  
Yun-Fei Xia ◽  
Yi-Xiang Huang ◽  
Deniz Okat ◽  
Bo Qiu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Economic Growth ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Proton Beam ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Medical Insurance ◽  
Proton Beam Therapy ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background: Proton beam therapy (PBT) is a new-emerging cancer treatment in China. The 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) compared with conventional intensity-modulated photon-radiation therapy (IMRT) in patients with oropharyngeal cancer (OPC). This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of IMPT versus IMRT for OPC patients in China, aiming at guiding proper use of PBT. Methods: On the basis of published data, a 7-state Markov model was designed for cost-effectiveness analysis, and an evaluation of average level was performed on a base case of 56-year-old under the hypothesis that IMPT could make a 25% NTCP-reduction concerning to long-term symptomatic dysphagia and xerostomia. Model robustness was examined using probabilistic sensitivity analysis, cohort analysis and tornado diagram. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed to identify 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 (3 times the gross domestic product per capita / quality-adjusted life year (QALY)).Results: Compared with IMRT, IMPT could provide an extra 0.724 QALYs at an additional cost of 34,926.6 US dollars ($), and made an ICER of $48,229.8/ QALY for the base case. At current WTP level of China ($30,828/QALY), cost-effective scenarios of IMPT existed in the following independent conditions: ≥ 57.3% NTCP-reduction (IMPT compared with IMRT) in dysphagia and xerostomia; patient age ≤ 38-year-old; or the cost of IMPT ≤ $37,398.1. The estimated cost-effective population that benefit from using PBT to treat OPC increased remarkably in the past 10 years with the economic growth, and reached to 559.7 million (about 40.0% of the China’s total population) in the year 2020. Conclusions: Currently, using PBT to treat OPC could be cost-effective in considerable proportion of China’s population. Considering the economic growth, the gradual increment of medical insurance coverage, as well as the proton treatment cost reduction along with more proton facility opening in the near future, it is estimated that PBT would benefit more Chinese OPC patients with respect to cost-effectiveness.

Is Proton Beam Therapy Cost Effective in the Treatment of Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate?

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (24) ◽  
pp. 3603-3608 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andre Konski ◽  
William Speier ◽  
Alexandra Hanlon ◽  
J. Robert Beck ◽  
Alan Pollack
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Proton Beam ◽  
Comprehensive Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Proton Beam Therapy ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Beam Radiation ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

Purpose New treatments are introduced routinely into clinical practice without rigorous economic analysis. The specific aim of this study was to examine the cost effectiveness of proton beam radiation compared with current state-of-the art therapy in the treatment of patients with prostate cancer. Materials and Methods A Markov model was informed with cost, freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF), and utility data obtained from the literature and from patient interviews to compare the cost effectiveness of 91.8 cobalt gray equivalent (CGE) delivered with proton beam versus 81 CGE delivered with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). The length of how many years the model was run, patient's age, probability of FFBF after treatment with proton beam therapy and IMRT, utility of patients treated with salvage hormone therapy, and treatment cost were tested in sensitivity analyses. Results Analysis at 15 years resulted in an expected mean cost of proton beam therapy and IMRT of $63,511 and $36,808, and $64,989 and $39,355 for a 70-year-old and 60-year-old man respectively, with quality-adjusted survival of 8.54 and 8.12 and 9.91 and 9.45 quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), respectively. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio was calculated to be $63,578/QALY for a 70-year-old man and $55,726/QALY for a 60-year-old man. Conclusion Even when based on the unproven assumption that protons will permit a 10-Gy escalation of prostate dose compared with IMRT photons, proton beam therapy is not cost effective for most patients with prostate cancer using the commonly accepted standard of $50,000/QALY. Consideration should be given to limiting the number of proton facilities to allow comprehensive evaluation of this modality.

scholarly journals Individualized quality of life benefit and cost-effectiveness estimates of proton therapy for patients with oropharyngeal cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Patrik Brodin ◽  
Rafi Kabarriti ◽  
Clyde B. Schechter ◽  
Mark Pankuch ◽  
Vinai Gondi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Proton Therapy ◽  
Oropharyngeal Cancer ◽  
Normal Tissue ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background Proton therapy is a promising advancement in radiation oncology especially in terms of reducing normal tissue toxicity, although it is currently expensive and of limited availability. Here we estimated the individual quality of life benefit and cost-effectiveness of proton therapy in patients with oropharyngeal cancer treated with definitive radiation therapy (RT), as a decision-making tool for treatment individualization. Methods and materials Normal tissue complication probability models were used to estimate the risk of dysphagia, esophagitis, hypothyroidism, xerostomia and oral mucositis for 33 patients, comparing delivered photon intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) plans to intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) lost were calculated for each complication while accounting for patient-specific conditional survival probability and assigning quality-adjustment factors based on complication severity. Cost-effectiveness was modeled based on upfront costs of IMPT and IMRT, and the cost of acute and/or long-term management of treatment complications. Uncertainties in all model parameters and sensitivity analyses were included through Monte Carlo sampling. Results The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) showed considerable variability in the cost of QALYs spared between patients, with median $361,405/QALY for all patients, varying from $54,477/QALY to $1,508,845/QALY between individual patients. Proton therapy was more likely to be cost-effective for patients with p16-positive tumors ($234,201/QALY), compared to p16-negative tumors ($516,297/QALY). For patients with p16-positive tumors treated with comprehensive nodal irradiation, proton therapy is estimated to be cost-effective in ≥ 50% of sampled cases for 8/9 patients at $500,000/QALY, compared to 6/24 patients who either have p16-negative tumors or receive unilateral neck irradiation. Conclusions Proton therapy cost-effectiveness varies greatly among oropharyngeal cancer patients, and highlights the importance of individualized decision-making. Although the upfront cost, societal willingness to pay and healthcare administration can vary greatly among different countries, identifying patients for whom proton therapy will have the greatest benefit can optimize resource allocation and inform prospective clinical trial design.

scholarly journals Cytomegalovirus Screening in Pregnancy: A Cost-Effectiveness and Threshold Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (07) ◽  
pp. 678-687 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine M. Albright ◽  
Erika F. Werner ◽  
Brenna L. Hughes
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Behavioral Intervention ◽  
Universal Screening ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Design Decision ◽  
Intervention Effectiveness ◽  
Behavioral Counseling ◽  
The Cost ◽  
In Pregnancy

Objective To determine threshold cytomegalovirus (CMV) infectious rates and treatment effectiveness to make universal prenatal CMV screening cost-effective. Study Design Decision analysis comparing cost-effectiveness of two strategies for the prevention and treatment of congenital CMV: universal prenatal serum screening and routine, risk-based screening. The base case assumptions were a probability of primary CMV of 1% in seronegative women, hyperimmune globulin (HIG) effectiveness of 0%, and behavioral intervention effectiveness of 85%. Screen-positive women received monthly HIG and screen-negative women received behavioral counseling to decrease CMV seroconversion. The primary outcome was the cost per maternal quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained with a willingness to pay of $100,000 per QALY. Results In the base case, universal screening is cost-effective, costing $84,773 per maternal QALY gained. In sensitivity analyses, universal screening is cost-effective only at a primary CMV incidence of more than 0.89% and behavioral intervention effectiveness of more than 75%. If HIG is 30% effective, primary CMV incidence can be 0.82% for universal screening to be cost-effective. Conclusion The cost-effectiveness of universal maternal screening for CMV is highly dependent on the incidence of primary CMV in pregnancy. If efficacious, HIG and behavioral counseling allow universal screening to be cost-effective at lower primary CMV rates.

Abstract 200: Cost-Effectiveness of Newer Anticoagulants for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation

2013 ◽  
Vol 6 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Brendan L Limone ◽  
William L Baker ◽  
Craig I Coleman
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Stroke Prevention ◽  
Indirect Comparison ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The United States ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Treatment Comparison ◽  
Newer Anticoagulants ◽  
The Cost

Background: A number of new anticoagulants for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (SPAF) have gained regulatory approval or are in late-stage development. We sought to conduct a systematic review of economic models of dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban for SPAF. Methods: We searched the Medline, Embase, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and Health Technology Assessment database along with the Tuft’s Registry through October 10, 2012. Included models assessed the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran (150mg, 110mg, sequential), rivaroxaban or apixaban for SPAF using a Markov model or discrete event simulation and were published in English. Results: Eighteen models were identified. All models utilized a lone randomized trial (or an indirect comparison utilizing a single study for any given direct comparison), and these trials were clinically and methodologically heterogeneous. Dabigatran 150mg was assessed in 9 of models, dabigatran 110mg in 8, sequential dabigatran in 9, rivaroxaban in 4 and apixaban in 4. Adjusted-dose warfarin (either trial-like, real-world prescribing or genotype-dosed) was a potential first-line therapy in 94% of models. Models were conducted from the perspective of the United States (44%), European countries (39%) and Canada (17%). In base-case analyses, patients typically were at moderate-risk of ischemic stroke, initiated anticoagulation between 65 and 73 years of age, and were followed for or near a lifetime. All models reported cost/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, and while 22% of models reported using a societal perspective, no model included costs of lost productivity. Four models reported an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for a newer anticoagulant (dabigatran 110mg (n=4)/150mg (n=2); rivaroxaban (n=1)) vs. warfarin above commonly reported willingness-to-pay thresholds. ICERs (in 2012US$) vs. warfarin ranged from $3,547-$86,000 for dabigatran 150mg, $20,713-$150,000 for dabigatran 110mg, $4,084-$21,466 for sequentially-dosed dabigatran and $23,065-$57,470 for rivaroxaban. In addition, apixaban was demonstrated to be an economically dominant strategy compared to aspirin and to be dominant or cost-effective ($11,400-$25,059) vs. warfarin. Based on separate indirect treatment comparison meta-analyses, 3 models compared the cost-effectiveness of these new agents and reported conflicting results. Conclusions: Cost-effectiveness models of newer anticoagulants for SPAF have been extensively published. Models have frequently found newer anticoagulants to be cost-effective, but due to the lack of head-to-head trial comparisons and heterogeneity in clinical characteristic of underlying trials and modeling methods, it is currently unclear which of these newer agents is most cost-effective.

scholarly journals P14.12 The cost-effectiveness of tumor-treating fields in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (Supplement_3) ◽  
pp. iii68-iii69
Author(s):  
X Armoiry ◽  
P Auguste ◽  
C Dussart ◽  
J Guyotat ◽  
M Connock
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Survival Model ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Tumor Treating Fields ◽  
Kaplan Meier ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Secondary Analyses ◽  
The Cost

Abstract BACKGROUND The addition of novel therapy “Tumor-Treating fields” (TTF) to standard radio-chemotherapy with Temozolomide (TMZ) has recently shown superiority over conventional TMZ regimen in patients with glioblastoma. Despite the clinical benefit of TTF, there is a strong concern regarding the cost of this new treatment. A first cost-effectiveness analysis, which was published in 2016, was based on effectiveness outcomes from an interim analysis of the pivotal trial and used a “standard” Markov model. Here, we aimed to update the cost-effectiveness evaluation using a partitioned survival model design and using the latest effectiveness data. MATERIAL AND METHODS A partitioned survival model was developed with three mutually exclusive health states: stable disease, progressive disease, and dead. Parametric models were fitted to the Kaplan-Meier data for overall and progression-free survival. These generated clinically plausible extrapolations beyond the observed data. The perspective of the French national health insurance was adopted and the time horizon was 20 years. Base case results were expressed as cost/life-years (LY) gained (LYG). Secondary analyses were undertaken, with the results presented as cost/per quality adjusted life years (QALY) gained. Last, we undertook deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS After applying 4% annual discounting of benefits and costs, the base case model generated incremental benefit of 0.507 LY at a incremental cost of €258,695 yielding an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €510,273 / LYG. Secondary analyses yielded an ICER of €667,173/QALY. Sensitivity analyses and bootstrapping methods showed the model was relatively robust. The model was sensitive to TTF device costs and the parametric model fitted to the Kaplan-Meier data for overall survival. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed TTF has 0% of being cost-effective under conventional thresholds. CONCLUSION Using a partitioned survival model, uprated costs and more mature survival outcomes, TTF when compared to standard radio-chemotherapy with TMZ is not likely to be cost-effective. This has major implications in terms of access of newly eligible patients

scholarly journals Dosimetric advantages of proton beam therapy compared to intensity-modulated radiation therapy for retroperitoneal chordoma

Rare Tumors ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 203636131987851 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan Y Yu ◽  
Sujay A Vora
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Proton Beam ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ◽  
Proton Beam Therapy ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Spot Scanning ◽  
Prescription Dose ◽  
Biological Effectiveness ◽  
Primary Bone ◽  
Rare Diagnosis

Retroperitoneal chordomas are exceedingly rare and account for less than 5% of all primary bone malignancies. Their etiology remains unknown. We report a rare case of an extravertebral chordoma of the retroperitoneum in a 71-year-old man treated with surgical resection and post-operative spot-scanning proton beam therapy. We describe how to safely treat a retroperitoneal target to a prescription dose over 70 Gy (relative biological effectiveness) with spot-scanning proton beam therapy and also report a dosimetric comparison of spot-scanning proton beam therapy versus intensity-modulated radiation therapy. This case not only highlights a rare diagnosis of an extravertebral retroperitoneal chordoma but it also draws attention to the dosimetric advantages of proton beam therapy and illustrates a promising radiotherapeutic option for retroperitoneal targets.

Cost-effectiveness of routine laparoscopic ultrasound for the assessment of resectability of gallbladder cancer.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 272-272
Author(s):  
Thejus T. Jayakrishnan ◽  
Hasan Nadeem ◽  
Ryan Thomas Groeschl ◽  
Anthony J Zacharias ◽  
T. Clark Gamblin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Diagnostic Laparoscopy ◽  
Hepatic Metastases ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Laparoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Case Scenario ◽  
Base Case Scenario ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

272 Background: In addition to a diagnostic laparoscopy (DL), aroutine laparoscopic ultrasound (LUS) has been proposed to identify undetected hepatic metastases and/or anatomically advanced disease in patients with T2 or higher gall bladder cancer (GBC) planned for surgical resection. It was hypothesized that a routine LUS is not a cost-effective strategy for these patients. Methods: Decision tree modeling was undertaken to compare DL-LUS vs. DL at the time of definitive resection of GBC (with no prior cholecystectomy). Costs in US dollars (payers’ perspective), quality-adjusted-life-weeks (QALWs) and incremental-cost-effectiveness-ratios (ICER) were calculated (horizon: 6 weeks, willingness-to-pay: $1,000/QALW or $50,000/ QALY). Results: DL-LUS was cost effective at the base case scenario (costs: $30,838 for DL vs. $30,791 for DL-LUS and effectiveness 3.81 QALWs DL vs. 3.82 QALW DL-LUS, resulting in a cost reduction of $9,220 per quality adjusted life week gained (or $479,469 per QALY). DL-LUS became less cost effective as the cost of ultrasound increased (threshold: $163.18) or the probability of exclusion from resection decreased (threshold 0.29) (Table represents the results of univariate analyses). Conclusions: Routine LUS with diagnostic laparoscopy for the assessment of resectability and exclusion of metastases is cost effective for patients with GBC. Until improvements in pre-operative imaging occur to decrease the probability of exclusion, this appears to be a feasible strategy. [Table: see text]

Assessing the value of cemiplimab for adults with advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC): A cost-effectiveness analysis.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e19397-e19397
Author(s):  
Eleanor Paul ◽  
Andreas Kuznik ◽  
Sam Keeping ◽  
Chieh-I Chen ◽  
Medha Sasane ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cell Death ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Programmed Cell Death ◽  
Drug Administration ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Unit Costs ◽  
The Cost

e19397 Background: Cemiplimab is a high-affinity, human, hinge-stabilized, monoclonal antibody that potently blocks the interactions of programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) with programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) and PD-L2. In September 2018, cemiplimab-rwlc became the first systemic therapy approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients with advanced CSCC ineligible for curative surgery or radiotherapy. In a single-arm Phase II study (NCT02760498), cemiplimab demonstrated substantial antitumor activity, durable responses, and acceptable safety profile in patients with advanced CSCC. The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab in patients with advanced CSCC from a US payer perspective. Methods: A partitioned survival model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab versus historical standard of care (SOC). All inputs were identified based on a systematic literature review (SLR), which was supplemented by expert opinion where necessary. The clinical inputs for cemiplimab were based on the individual patient data from the cemiplimab Phase II trial, whereas for SOC, the analysis was based on a pooled analysis of single-arm clinical trials and retrospective studies evaluating chemotherapy and epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (cetuximab, erlotinib, and gefitinib) identified via the SLR (6 of the 27 included studies). Overall survival and progression-free survival were extrapolated over a lifetime horizon using parametric functions consistent with guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit. Costs were included for drug acquisition, drug administration, management of adverse events, subsequent therapy, disease management, and terminal care. Unit costs were based on published 2019 US list prices. Results: In the base case, cemiplimab versus SOC resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $99,024 per quality adjusted-life year (QALY), where incremental costs and QALYs were $372,425 and 3.76, respectively. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of USD $150,000 per QALY, the probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests a 91% probability that cemiplimab is cost-effective when compared to SOC. Scenario analyses resulted in ICERs ranging from $90,326 to $147,944. Conclusions: Compared with historical SOC, cemiplimab is a cost-effective use of US payer resources for the treatment of advanced CSCC and is expected to provide value for money.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document