T N Showalter1, K A Foley2, E Jutkowitz2, C D Lallas3, E J Trabulsi2, L G Gomella3, A P Dicker4, L T Pizzi5. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Jefferson Medical College, Kimmel Cancer Center. Electronic address: timothy.showalter@jeffersonhospital.org. 2. Thomson Reuters Healthcare, Cambridge. 3. Department of Urology, Jefferson Medical College, Kimmel Cancer Center. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Jefferson Medical College, Kimmel Cancer Center. 5. School of Pharmacy, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This analysis was carried out to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant radiation therapy (ART) versus observation, using a decision analysis model based primarily upon the published results of the Southwest Oncology Group prospective trial (SWOG 8794). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A decision analysis model was designed to compare ART versus observation over a 10-year time horizon. Probabilities of treatment success, utilization of salvage treatments, and rates of adverse events were taken from published results of SWOG 8794. Cost inputs were based on 2010 Medicare reimbursement rates. Primary outcome measure was incremental cost per prostate-specific antigen (PSA) success (i.e. serum PSA level <0.4 ng/ml). RESULTS: ART results in a higher PSA success rate than observation with probability of 0.43 versus 0.22. The mean incremental cost per patient for ART versus observation was $6023. The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $26,983 over the 10-year period. CONCLUSIONS: ART appears cost effective compared with observation based upon this decision analysis model. Future research should consider more costly radiation therapy (RT) approaches, such as intensity-modulated RT, and should evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ART versus early salvage RT.
BACKGROUND: This analysis was carried out to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant radiation therapy (ART) versus observation, using a decision analysis model based primarily upon the published results of the Southwest Oncology Group prospective trial (SWOG 8794). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A decision analysis model was designed to compare ART versus observation over a 10-year time horizon. Probabilities of treatment success, utilization of salvage treatments, and rates of adverse events were taken from published results of SWOG 8794. Cost inputs were based on 2010 Medicare reimbursement rates. Primary outcome measure was incremental cost per prostate-specific antigen (PSA) success (i.e. serum PSA level <0.4 ng/ml). RESULTS:ART results in a higher PSA success rate than observation with probability of 0.43 versus 0.22. The mean incremental cost per patient for ART versus observation was $6023. The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $26,983 over the 10-year period. CONCLUSIONS:ART appears cost effective compared with observation based upon this decision analysis model. Future research should consider more costly radiation therapy (RT) approaches, such as intensity-modulated RT, and should evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ART versus early salvage RT.
Authors: B S Teh; W Y Mai; M E Augspurger; B M Uhl; J McGary; L Dong; W H Grant; H H Lu; S Y Woo; L S Carpenter; J K Chiu; E B Butler Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2001-02-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Andre Konski; Deborah Watkins-Bruner; Steven Feigenberg; Alexandra Hanlon; Sachin Kulkarni; J Robert Beck; Eric M Horwitz; Alan Pollack Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-08-02 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Ian M Thompson; Catherine M Tangen; Jorge Paradelo; M Scott Lucia; Gary Miller; Dean Troyer; Edward Messing; Jeffrey Forman; Joseph Chin; Gregory Swanson; Edith Canby-Hagino; E David Crawford Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-11-15 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ian M Thompson; Catherine M Tangen; Jorge Paradelo; M Scott Lucia; Gary Miller; Dean Troyer; Edward Messing; Jeffrey Forman; Joseph Chin; Gregory Swanson; Edith Canby-Hagino; E David Crawford Journal: J Urol Date: 2009-01-23 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Daniel E Spratt; Jingbin Zhang; María Santiago-Jiménez; Robert T Dess; John W Davis; Robert B Den; Adam P Dicker; Christopher J Kane; Alan Pollack; Radka Stoyanova; Firas Abdollah; Ashley E Ross; Adam Cole; Edward Uchio; Josh M Randall; Hao Nguyen; Shuang G Zhao; Rohit Mehra; Andrew G Glass; Lucia L C Lam; Jijumon Chelliserry; Marguerite du Plessis; Voleak Choeurng; Maria Aranes; Tyler Kolisnik; Jennifer Margrave; Jason Alter; Jennifer Jordan; Christine Buerki; Kasra Yousefi; Zaid Haddad; Elai Davicioni; Edouard J Trabulsi; Stacy Loeb; Ashutosh Tewari; Peter R Carroll; Sheila Weinmann; Edward M Schaeffer; Eric A Klein; R Jeffrey Karnes; Felix Y Feng; Paul L Nguyen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-11-29 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michel Zimmermann; Daniel Taussky; Guila Delouya; Abdullah M Alenizi; Kevin C Zorn Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2015-09-09 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Brian P Neuman; John B Eifler; Mark Castanares; Wasim H Chowdhury; Ying Chen; Ronnie C Mease; Rong Ma; Amarnath Mukherjee; Shawn E Lupold; Martin G Pomper; Ronald Rodriguez Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2014-12-12 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Van T Nghiem; Riha Vaidya; Gary H Lyman; Dawn L Hershman; Scott D Ramsey; Joseph M Unger Journal: Value Health Date: 2020-10-09 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Erica Huang; Linda My Huynh; Joshua Tran; Adam M Gordon; Ryan Chandhoke; Blanca Morales; Douglas Skarecky; Thomas E Ahlering Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-08-23 Impact factor: 6.575