Ben G L Vanneste1, Madelon Pijls-Johannesma2, Lien Van De Voorde3, Emile N van Lin4, Kees van de Beek5, Judith van Loon3, Bram L Ramaekers6, Philippe Lambin3. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center+, The Netherlands. Electronic address: ben.vanneste@maastro.nl. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center+, The Netherlands; Health insurance company CZ, Tilburg, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center+, The Netherlands. 4. Westdeutsches Protonentherapiezentrum Essen (WPE), Germany. 5. Department of Urology, Maastricht University Medical Center+, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center+, The Netherlands; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, Maastricht University Medical Center+, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of treating prostate cancer patients with intensity-modulated radiation therapy and a spacer (IMRT+S) versus IMRT-only without a spacer (IMRT-O). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision-analytic Markov model was constructed to examine the effect of late rectal toxicity and compare the costs and quality-adjusted Life Years (QALYs) of IMRT-O and IMRT+S. The main assumption of this modeling study was that disease progression, genito-urinary toxicity and survival were equal for both comparators. RESULTS: For all patients, IMRT+S revealed a lower toxicity than IMRT-O. Treatment follow-up and toxicity costs for IMRT-O and IMRT+S amounted to €1604 and €1444, respectively, thus saving €160 on the complication costs at an extra charge of €1700 for the spacer in IMRT+S. The QALYs yielded for IMRT-O and IMRT+S were 3.542 and 3.570, respectively. This results in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €55,880 per QALY gained. For a ceiling ratio of €80,000, IMRT+S had a 77% probability of being cost-effective. CONCLUSION: IMRT+S is cost-effective compared to IMRT-O based on its potential to reduce radiotherapy-related toxicity.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of treating prostate cancerpatients with intensity-modulated radiation therapy and a spacer (IMRT+S) versus IMRT-only without a spacer (IMRT-O). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision-analytic Markov model was constructed to examine the effect of late rectal toxicity and compare the costs and quality-adjusted Life Years (QALYs) of IMRT-O and IMRT+S. The main assumption of this modeling study was that disease progression, genito-urinary toxicity and survival were equal for both comparators. RESULTS: For all patients, IMRT+S revealed a lower toxicity than IMRT-O. Treatment follow-up and toxicity costs for IMRT-O and IMRT+S amounted to €1604 and €1444, respectively, thus saving €160 on the complication costs at an extra charge of €1700 for the spacer in IMRT+S. The QALYs yielded for IMRT-O and IMRT+S were 3.542 and 3.570, respectively. This results in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €55,880 per QALY gained. For a ceiling ratio of €80,000, IMRT+S had a 77% probability of being cost-effective. CONCLUSION:IMRT+S is cost-effective compared to IMRT-O based on its potential to reduce radiotherapy-related toxicity.
Authors: Raymond B King; Sarah Os Osman; Ciaran Fairmichael; Denise M Irvine; Ciara A Lyons; Ananth Ravi; Joe M O'Sullivan; Alan R Hounsell; Darren M Mitchell; Conor K McGarry; Suneil Jain Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-01-23 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Sónia Barros; Joana Roseira; Paulo Caldeira; Ana Margarida Vaz; Horácio Guerreiro; Oscar Codon Journal: GE Port J Gastroenterol Date: 2020-12-09
Authors: Sarah O S Osman; Prakash Jeevanandam; Nithya Kanakavelu; Denise M Irvine; Ciara A Lyons; Suneil Jain; Alan R Hounsell; Conor K McGarry Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2016-11-24 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Ben G L Vanneste; Lien Van De Voorde; Rogier J de Ridder; Evert J Van Limbergen; Philippe Lambin; Emile N van Lin Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2015-07-23 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Ben G L Vanneste; Evert J Van Limbergen; Emile N van Lin; Joep G H van Roermund; Philippe Lambin Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2016-12-28 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: James D Byrne; Cameron C Young; Jacqueline N Chu; Jennifer Pursley; Mu Xian Chen; Adam J Wentworth; Annie Feng; Ameya R Kirtane; Kyla A Remillard; Cindy I Hancox; Mandar S Bhagwat; Nicole Machado; Tiffany Hua; Siddartha M Tamang; Joy E Collins; Keiko Ishida; Alison Hayward; Sarah L Becker; Samantha K Edgington; Jonathan D Schoenfeld; William R Jeck; Chin Hur; Giovanni Traverso Journal: Adv Sci (Weinh) Date: 2021-04-27 Impact factor: 16.806