Cost-effectiveness of carbon-ion radiotherapy versus stereotactic body radiotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer.

Carbon-ion radiotherapy (CIRT) for clinical stage I non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is used as an advanced medical treatment regimen in Japan. Carbon-ion radiotherapy reportedly aids in achieving excellent treatment outcomes, despite its high medical cost. We aimed to compare CIRT with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in terms of cost-effectiveness for treating clinical stage I NSCLC. Data of patients with clinical stage I NSCLC treated with CIRT or SBRT at Gunma University between 2010 and 2015 were analyzed. The CIRT and SBRT groups included 62 and 27 patients, respectively. After propensity-score matching, both groups comprised 15 patients. Life year (LY) was used as an indicator of outcome. The CIRT technical fee was 3 140 000 JPY. There was no technical fee for the second CIRT carried out on the same organ within 2 years. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated by dividing the incremental cost by the incremental LY for 5 years after treatment. Sensitivity analysis was applied to evaluate the impact of LY or costs of each group on ICER. The ICERs were 7 491 017 JPY/LY and 3 708 330 JPY/LY for all patients and matched patients, respectively. Hospitalization and examination costs were significantly higher in the CIRT group, and the impact of the CIRT technical costs was smaller than other costs and LY. Carbon-ion radiotherapy is a cost-effective treatment approach. However, our findings suggest that reducing excessive costs by considering the validity and necessity of examinations and hospitalizations would make CIRT a more cost-effective approach.

Who Will Benefit from Charged-Particle Therapy?

Charged-particle therapy (CPT) such as proton beam therapy (PBT) and carbon-ion radiotherapy (CIRT) exhibit substantial physical and biological advantages compared to conventional photon radiotherapy. As it can reduce the amount of radiation irradiated in the normal organ, CPT has been mainly applied to pediatric cancer and radioresistent tumors in the eloquent area. Although there is a possibility of greater benefits, high set-up cost and dearth of high level of clinical evidence hinder wide applications of CPT. This review aims to present recent clinical results of PBT and CIRT in selected diseases focusing on possible indications of CPT. We also discussed how clinical studies are conducted to increase the number of patients who can benefit from CPT despite its high cost.

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of IMRT plus C12 boost vs IMRT only in adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) of the head and neck.

BACKGROUND: Particle therapy provides steep dose gradients to facilitate dose escalation in challenging anatomical sites which has been shown not only to improve local control but also overall survival in patients with ACC. Cost-effectiveness of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plus carbon ion (C12) boost vs IMRT alone was performed in order to objectivise and substantiate more widespread use of this technology in ACC. METHODS: Patients with pathologically confirmed ACC received a combination regimen of IMRT plus C12 boost. Patients presenting outside C12 treatment slots received IMRT only. Clinical results were published; economic analysis on patient-level data was carried out from a healthcare purchaser's perspective based on costs of healthcare utilization. Cost histories were generated from resource use recorded in individual patient charts and adjusted for censoring using the Lin I method. Cost-effectiveness was measured as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sensitivity analysis was performed regarding potentially differing management of recurrent disease. RESULTS: The experimental treatment increased overall costs by € 18,076 (€13,416 - €22,922) at a mean survival benefit of 0.86 years. Despite improved local control, following costs were also increased in the experimental treatment. The ICER was estimated to 26,863 €/LY. After accounting for different management of recurrent disease in the two cohorts, the ICER was calculated to 20,638 €/LY. CONCLUSION: The combined treatment (IMRT+C12 boost) substantially increased initial and overall treatment cost. In view of limited treatment options in ACC, costs may be acceptable though. Investigations into quality of life measures may support further decisions in the future.

Cost-Effectiveness of Carbon Ion Radiation Therapy for Skull Base Chordoma Utilizing Long-Term (10-Year) Outcome Data.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Carbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT) offers high conformality and ability to dose-escalate skull base chordomas, with promising clinical data. However, it is an imperative measure to economically justify the use of such high-priced new technologies. Herein, we investigated the cost-effectiveness of CIRT compared to photon radiotherapy (PRT) using 10-year outcome data extrapolated to a 34-year time frame. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data regarding costs of PRT, as well as 10-year outcomes were obtained from published sources. Corresponding figures for CIRT were acquired from institutional and published sources. Adjustment was made in order to compare both cost figures, including elimination of additional financing and follow-up, so that only direct costs of treatment and the cost of progression were compared between both modalities. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated as the difference in cost between both modalities divided by the difference in 34-year quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) outcomes. The annual gross domestic product per capita cost-effectiveness threshold definition (as recommended by the WHO) was employed. RESULTS: The total cost of a complete course of CIRT (20-22 fractions) was €31,538.21. After removal of financing and follow-up costs, the adjusted direct cost of CIRT utilized for comparison was €18,957.78. In a previous publication, the cost of PRT was €4,700.00. ICERs were based upon these direct cost figures and the average of reported 10-year progression-free survival (PFS) values with PRT (41.1%) and CIRT (54%), as well as gained PFS years (10.66 years CIRT, 8.58 years PRT). QALYs were 6.65 for photon RT and 8.26 for CIRT, a difference of 1.61 discounted lifetime QALYs for patients treated with CIRT. The overall ICER was €8,855.76/QALY. If the cost of progression/recurrence treated with imatinib were included into the calculation, the total ICER was €170.61/QALY. CONCLUSION: CIRT is a highly cost-effective option to treat chordoma.

Economic data for particle therapy: Dealing with different needs in a heterogeneous landscape.

BACKGROUND: In the light of scarce resources to be allocated for cancer care and a steady stream of costly innovations in all modalities applied to treat cancer, particle therapy needs to demonstrate its cost-utility balance to allow its positioning in the context of competing modalities. In the continuous evolving particle therapy landscape, the timely availability of appropriate economic data is crucial. METHODS: Economic data collection and compilation for particle therapy needs to follow health economic standards. Costing related analyses particularly need attention as clinical outcome data follow international standards to provide comparability. Among others, perspective, time horizons and cost categories are critical. RESULTS: In this report from the "Health Economics Work Package" of the European Particle Therapy Network, the approaches commonly applied in health economic assessments are described and tailored to the specific needs of particle therapy. Data collection for cost calculation, economic evaluation and budget impact analysis are discussed. CONCLUSION: The presented data are intended to serve as a guidance for economic data collection, bearing in mind that in each specific case, the heterogeneous requirements of national health systems will need to be considered and assessments adapted accordingly.

In search of the economic sustainability of Hadron therapy: the real cost of setting up and operating a Hadron facility.

PURPOSE: To determine the treatment cost and required reimbursement for a new hadron therapy facility, considering different technical solutions and financing methods. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The 3 technical solutions analyzed are a carbon only (COC), proton only (POC), and combined (CC) center, each operating 2 treatment rooms and assumed to function at full capacity. A business model defines the required reimbursement and analyzes the financial implications of setting up a facility over time; activity-based costing (ABC) calculates the treatment costs per type of patient for a center in a steady state of operation. Both models compare a private, full-cost approach with public sponsoring, only taking into account operational costs. RESULTS: Yearly operational costs range between €10.0M (M = million) for a publicly sponsored POC to €24.8M for a CC with private financing. Disregarding inflation, the average treatment cost calculated with ABC (COC: €29,450; POC: €46,342; CC: €46,443 for private financing; respectively €16,059, €28,296, and €23,956 for public sponsoring) is slightly lower than the required reimbursement based on the business model (between €51,200 in a privately funded POC and €18,400 in COC with public sponsoring). Reimbursement for privately financed centers is very sensitive to a delay in commissioning and to the interest rate. Higher throughput and hypofractionation have a positive impact on the treatment costs. CONCLUSIONS: Both calculation methods are valid and complementary. The financially most attractive option of a publicly sponsored COC should be balanced to the clinical necessities and the sociopolitical context.