Dataset Information

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

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.

SUBMITTER: Brodin NP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7819210 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Brodin N Patrik NP Kabarriti Rafi R Schechter Clyde B CB Pankuch Mark M Gondi Vinai V Kalnicki Shalom S Garg Madhur K MK Tomé Wolfgang A WA

Radiation oncology (London, England) 20210121 1

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods and materials</h4>Normal tissue complicatio ...[more]

PMID: 33478544

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundProton 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsCompared 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).ConclusionsCost-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.

Project description:PurposeWe report longitudinal patient-reported quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes related to xerostomia in patients with oropharyngeal cancer treated with intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT).Materials and methodsPatients treated from May 2012 through December 2016 at a single institution for AJCC7 stage III-IV, M0 oropharyngeal cancer were given the 15-item Xerostomia-Related QoL Scale (XeQoLS) before, during, and for up to 2 years after treatment. We evaluated the evolution of xerostomia-related QoL over that time, and examined potential associations between those measures with clinical characteristics.ResultsSixty-nine patients had XeQoLS scores at baseline and at least once either during or after treatment. The mean (±SD) XeQoLS score (0-4) was 0.24 ± 0.57 at baseline. Subsequent scores were 2.00 ± 1.01 at 6 weeks on treatment, and 1.03 ± 0.76, 0.97 ± 0.78, 0.82 ± 0.69, and 0.70 ± 0.75 at 10 weeks, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after treatment, respectively. All were statistically different from baseline (p < 0.001). Univariate analyses demonstrated associations between XeQoLS score and time (p < 0.0001 for each interval), baseline XeQoLS score (p < 0.0001), stage (p = 0.008), N status (p = 0.006), and mean oral cavity dose (p = 0.038), but not for age, sex, T status, receipt of chemotherapy, smoking history, disease site, laterality of neck irradiation, mean parotid dose, or mean submandibular dose. Multivariate analysis suggested that baseline XeQoLS scores, phase of treatment, and N status were associated with XeQoLS scores measured during treatment and recovery.ConclusionsPatients receiving IMPT reported the greatest xerostomia-related QoL impairment at 6 weeks on treatment, with a 49% improvement by 10 weeks after treatment; however, XeQoLS scores remained above baseline after 2 years. As we aim to establish the value of IMPT in oropharyngeal tumors to de-intensify treatment over conventional therapy, these data help inform discussions about xerostomia-related quality of life for patients with oropharyngeal cancer treated with IMPT.

Project description:PurposeProton beam therapy is a commonly accepted treatment for intraocular melanomas, but the literature is lacking in descriptions of patient preferences of clinical outcomes and economic impact. In addition, no economic evaluations have been published regarding the incremental cost-effectiveness of proton beam therapy compared with enucleation or plaque brachytherapy, typical alternative treatments. We, therefore, conducted a cost-utility analysis of these three approaches for the treatment of intraocular melanomas.Materials and methodsA Markov model was constructed. Model parameters were identified from the published literature and publicly available data sources. Cost-effectiveness of each treatment was calculated in 2011 US Dollars per quality-adjusted life-year. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated assuming enucleation as reference. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted on all model parameters. A decision threshold of $50,000/quality-adjusted life-year was used to determine cost-effectiveness.ResultsEnucleation had the lowest costs and quality-adjusted life-years, and plaque brachytherapy had the highest costs and quality-adjusted life-years. Compared with enucleation, the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for plaque brachytherapy and proton beam therapy were $77,500/quality-adjusted life-year and $106,100/quality-adjusted life-year, respectively. Results were highly sensitive to multiple parameters. All three treatments were considered optimal, and even dominant, depending on the values used for sensitive parameters.ConclusionBase-case analysis results suggest enucleation to be optimal. However, the optimal choice was not robust to sensitivity analyses and, depending on the assumption, both plaque brachytherapy and proton beam therapy could be considered cost-effective. Future clinical studies should focus on generating further evidence with the greatest parameter uncertainty to inform future cost-effectiveness analyses.

Project description:PurposeProton beam therapy (PBT) is associated with less toxicity relative to conventional photon radiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer (HNC). Upfront delivery costs are greater, but PBT can provide superior long-term value by minimizing treatment-related complications. Cost-effectiveness models (CEMs) estimate the relative value of novel technologies (such as PBT) as compared with the established standard of care. However, the uncertainties of CEMs can limit interpretation and applicability. This review serves to (1) assess the methodology and quality of pertinent CEMs in the existing literature, (2) evaluate their suitability for guiding clinical and economic strategies, and (3) discuss areas for improvement among future analyses.Materials and methodsPubMed was queried for CEMs specific to PBT for HNC. General characteristics, modeling information, and methodological approaches were extracted for each identified study. Reporting quality was assessed via the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 24-item checklist, whereas methodologic quality was evaluated via the Philips checklist. The Cooper evidence hierarchy scale was employed to analyze parameter inputs referenced within each model.ResultsAt the time of study, only 4 formal CEMs specific to PBT for HNC had been published (2005, 2013, 2018, 2020). The parameter inputs among these various Markov cohort models generally referenced older literature, excluding many clinically relevant complications and applying numerous hypothetical assumptions for toxicity states, incorporating inputs from theoretical complication-probability models because of limited availability of direct clinical evidence. Case numbers among study cohorts were low, and the structural design of some models inadequately reflected the natural history of HNC. Furthermore, cost inputs were incomplete and referenced historic figures.ConclusionContemporary CEMs are needed to incorporate modern estimates for toxicity risks and costs associated with PBT delivery, to provide a more accurate estimate of value, and to improve their clinical applicability with respect to PBT for HNC.

Project description:PurposeDeveloping a quantitative decision-support strategy estimating the impact of normal tissue complications from definitive radiation therapy (RT) for head and neck cancer (HNC). We developed this strategy to identify patients with oropharyngeal HNC who may benefit most from receiving proton RT.Methods and materialsRecent normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models for dysphagia, esophagitis, hypothyroidism, xerostomia, and oral mucositis were used to estimate NTCP for 33 patients with oropharyngeal HNC previously treated with photon intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Comparative proton therapy plans were generated using clinical protocols for HNC RT at a collaborating proton center. Organ-at-risk (OAR) doses from photon and proton RT plans were used to calculate NTCPs; Monte Carlo sampling 10,000 times was used for each patient to account for model parameter uncertainty. The latency and duration of each complication were modeled from calculated NTCP, accounting for age-, sex-, smoking- and p16-specific conditional survival probability. Complications were then assigned quality-adjustment factors based on severity to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) lost from each complication.ResultsBased on our institutional-delivered photon IMRT doses and the achievable proton therapy doses, the average QALY reduction from all HNC RT complications for photon and proton therapy was 1.52 QALYs versus 1.15 QALYs, with proton therapy sparing 0.37 QALYs on average (composite 95% confidence interval, 0.27-2.53 QALYs). Long-term complications (dysphagia and xerostomia) contributed most to the QALY reduction. The QALYs spared with proton RT varied considerably among patients, ranging from 0.06 to 0.84 QALYs. Younger patients with p16-positive tumors who smoked ≤10 pack-years may benefit most from proton therapy, although this finding should be validated using larger patient series. A sensitivity analysis reducing photon IMRT doses to all OARs by 20% resulted in no overall estimated benefit with proton therapy with -0.02 QALYs spared, although some patients still had an estimated benefit in this scenario, ranging from -0.50 to 0.43 QALYs spared.ConclusionsThis quantitative decision-support strategy allowed us to identify patients with oropharyngeal cancer who might benefit the most from proton RT, although the estimated benefit of proton therapy ultimately depends on the OAR doses achievable with modern photon IMRT solutions. These results can help radiation oncologists and proton therapy centers optimize resource allocation and improve quality of life for patients with HNC.

Project description:ImportanceThe age-based or "one-size-fits-all" breast screening approach does not take into account the individual variation in risk. Mammography screening reduces death from breast cancer at the cost of overdiagnosis. Identifying risk-stratified screening strategies with a more favorable ratio of overdiagnoses to breast cancer deaths prevented would improve the quality of life of women and save resources.ObjectiveTo assess the benefit-to-harm ratio and the cost-effectiveness of risk-stratified breast screening programs compared with a standard age-based screening program and no screening.Design, setting, and populationA life-table model was created of a hypothetical cohort of 364 500 women in the United Kingdom, aged 50 years, with follow-up to age 85 years, using (1) findings of the Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening and (2) risk distribution based on polygenic risk profile. The analysis was undertaken from the National Health Service perspective.InterventionsThe modeled interventions were (1) no screening, (2) age-based screening (mammography screening every 3 years from age 50 to 69 years), and (3) risk-stratified screening (a proportion of women aged 50 years with a risk score greater than a threshold risk were offered screening every 3 years until age 69 years) considering each percentile of the risk distribution. All analyses took place between July 2016 and September 2017.Main outcomes and measuresOverdiagnoses, breast cancer deaths averted, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, costs in British pounds, and net monetary benefit (NMB). Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to assess uncertainty around parameter estimates. Future costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per year.ResultsThe risk-stratified analysis of this life-table model included a hypothetical cohort of 364 500 women followed up from age 50 to 85 years. As the risk threshold was lowered, the incremental cost of the program increased linearly, compared with no screening, with no additional QALYs gained below 35th percentile risk threshold. Of the 3 screening scenarios, the risk-stratified scenario with risk threshold at the 70th percentile had the highest NMB, at a willingness to pay of £20 000 (US $26 800) per QALY gained, with a 72% probability of being cost-effective. Compared with age-based screening, risk-stratified screening at the 32nd percentile vs 70th percentile risk threshold would cost £20 066 (US $26 888) vs £537 985 (US $720 900) less, would have 26.7% vs 71.4% fewer overdiagnoses, and would avert 2.9% vs 9.6% fewer breast cancer deaths, respectively.Conclusions and relevanceNot offering breast cancer screening to women at lower risk could improve the cost-effectiveness of the screening program, reduce overdiagnosis, and maintain the benefits of screening.

Dataset Information

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

Background

Methods and materials

Results

Conclusions

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets