James B Yu1, Laura D Cramer, Jeph Herrin, Pamela R Soulos, Arnold L Potosky, Cary P Gross. 1. James B. Yu, Laura D. Cramer, Jeph Herrin, Pamela R. Soulos, and Cary P. Gross, Yale School of Medicine; James B. Yu and Cary P. Gross, Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, CT; Jeph Herrin, Health Research and Educational Trust, Chicago, IL; and Arnold L. Potosky, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is a technically demanding prostate cancer treatment that may be less expensive than intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Because SBRT may deliver a greater biologic dose of radiation than IMRT, toxicity could be increased. Studies comparing treatment cost to the Medicare program and toxicity are needed. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study by using a national sample of Medicare beneficiaries age ≥ 66 years who received SBRT or IMRT as primary treatment for prostate cancer from 2008 to 2011. Each SBRT patient was matched to two IMRT patients with similar follow-up (6, 12, or 24 months). We calculated the cost of radiation therapy treatment to the Medicare program and toxicity as measured by Medicare claims; we used a random effects model to compare genitourinary (GU), GI, and other toxicity between matched patients. RESULTS: The study sample consisted of 1,335 SBRT patients matched to 2,670 IMRT patients. The mean treatment cost was $13,645 for SBRT versus $21,023 for IMRT. In the 6 months after treatment initiation, 15.6% of SBRT versus 12.6% of IMRT patients experienced GU toxicity (odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.53; P = .009). At 24 months after treatment initiation, 43.9% of SBRT versus 36.3% of IMRT patients had GU toxicity (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.63; P = .001). The increase in GU toxicity was due to claims indicative of urethritis, urinary incontinence, and/or obstruction. CONCLUSION: Although SBRT was associated with lower treatment costs, there appears to be a greater rate of GU toxicity for patients undergoing SBRT compared with IMRT, and prospective correlation with randomized trials is needed.
PURPOSE: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is a technically demanding prostate cancer treatment that may be less expensive than intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Because SBRT may deliver a greater biologic dose of radiation than IMRT, toxicity could be increased. Studies comparing treatment cost to the Medicare program and toxicity are needed. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study by using a national sample of Medicare beneficiaries age ≥ 66 years who received SBRT or IMRT as primary treatment for prostate cancer from 2008 to 2011. Each SBRTpatient was matched to two IMRT patients with similar follow-up (6, 12, or 24 months). We calculated the cost of radiation therapy treatment to the Medicare program and toxicity as measured by Medicare claims; we used a random effects model to compare genitourinary (GU), GI, and other toxicity between matched patients. RESULTS: The study sample consisted of 1,335 SBRTpatients matched to 2,670 IMRT patients. The mean treatment cost was $13,645 for SBRT versus $21,023 for IMRT. In the 6 months after treatment initiation, 15.6% of SBRT versus 12.6% of IMRT patients experienced GU toxicity (odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.53; P = .009). At 24 months after treatment initiation, 43.9% of SBRT versus 36.3% of IMRT patients had GU toxicity (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.63; P = .001). The increase in GU toxicity was due to claims indicative of urethritis, urinary incontinence, and/or obstruction. CONCLUSION: Although SBRT was associated with lower treatment costs, there appears to be a greater rate of GU toxicity for patients undergoing SBRT compared with IMRT, and prospective correlation with randomized trials is needed.
Authors: Nicholas G Zaorsky; Matthew T Studenski; Adam P Dicker; Leonard Gomella; Robert B Den Journal: Cancer Treat Rev Date: 2012-12-04 Impact factor: 12.111
Authors: Siavash Jabbari; Vivian K Weinberg; Katsuto Shinohara; Joycelyn L Speight; Alexander R Gottschalk; I-Chow Hsu; Barby Pickett; Patrick W McLaughlin; Howard M Sandler; Mack Roach Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-01-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: K Odrazka; M Dolezel; J Vanasek; M Vaculikova; M Zouhar; J Sefrova; P Paluska; M Vosmik; T Kohlova; I Kolarova; Z Macingova; P Navratil; M Brodak; P Prosvic Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2009-12-29 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Jeffrey Vainshtein; Eyad Abu-Isa; Karin B Olson; Michael E Ray; Howard M Sandler; Dan Normolle; Dale W Litzenberg; Kathryn Masi; Charlie Pan; Daniel A Hamstra Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2012-06-09 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Scott C Morgan; Karen Hoffman; D Andrew Loblaw; Mark K Buyyounouski; Caroline Patton; Daniel Barocas; Soren Bentzen; Michael Chang; Jason Efstathiou; Patrick Greany; Per Halvorsen; Bridget F Koontz; Colleen Lawton; C Marc Leyrer; Daniel Lin; Michael Ray; Howard Sandler Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-10-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Thomas P Kole; Michael Tong; Binbin Wu; Siyuan Lei; Olusola Obayomi-Davies; Leonard N Chen; Simeng Suy; Anatoly Dritschilo; Ellen Yorke; Sean P Collins Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2015-05-14 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Chad Tang; Xiudong Lei; Grace L Smith; Hubert Y Pan; Kenneth Hess; Aileen Chen; Karen E Hoffman; Brian F Chapin; Deborah A Kuban; Mitchell Anscher; Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Steven J Frank; Benjamin D Smith Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-04-13
Authors: Stefan Höcht; Daniel M Aebersold; Clemens Albrecht; Dirk Böhmer; Michael Flentje; Ute Ganswindt; Tobias Hölscher; Thomas Martin; Felix Sedlmayer; Frederik Wenz; Daniel Zips; Thomas Wiegel Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2016-09-14 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Michael Wahl; Martina Descovich; Erin Shugard; Dilini Pinnaduwage; Atchar Sudhyadhom; Albert Chang; Mack Roach; Alexander Gottschalk; Josephine Chen Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2016-07-08