Health economic controversy and cost-effectiveness of proton therapy.

Owing to increasing healthcare costs, there is a need to examine whether the benefits of new technologies are worth the extra cost. In proton therapy, where the evidence in favor is limited, it is heavily debated whether the expected benefit justifies the higher capital and operating costs. The aim of this article was to explore the existing methodologies of economic evaluations (EEs) of particle therapy and recommend an approach for future data collection and analysis. We reviewed the published literature on health economics of proton therapy using accepted guidelines on performing EE. Different cost strategies were assessed and comparisons with other treatment modalities were made in terms of cost-effectiveness. Potential bias in the existing studies was identified and new methodologies proposed. The principal cause of bias in EEs of proton therapy is the lack of valid data on effects as well as costs. The introduction of proton therapy may be seriously hampered by the lack of outcome and cost data and the situation is likely to continue not only in terms of justifying the capital investment but also covering the operational costs. We identified an urgent need to collect appropriate data to allow for reimbursement of such novel technology. In the absence of level 1 evidence, well-performed modeling studies taking into account the available cost and outcome parameters, including the current uncertainties, can help to address the problem of limited outcome and health economic data. The approach of coverage with evidence development, in which evidence is collected in an ongoing manner in population-based registries along with dedicated financing, may allow technological advances with limited initial evidence of benefit and value, such as protons, to become available to patients in an early phase of their technology life cycle.