Patrick Richard1, Mark Phillips2, Wade Smith2, Darin Davidson3, Edward Kim2, Gabrielle Kane2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Electronic address: patrjr@uw.edu. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 3. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Create a cost-effectiveness model comparing preoperative intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) versus 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) for extremity soft tissue sarcomas. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Input parameters included 5-year local recurrence rates, rates of acute wound adverse events, and chronic toxicities (edema, fracture, joint stiffness, and fibrosis). Health-state utilities were used to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Overall treatment costs per QALY or incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. Roll-back analysis was performed using average costs and utilities to determine the baseline preferred radiation technique. One-way, 2-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed for input parameters with the largest impact on the ICER. RESULTS: Overall treatment costs were $17,515.58 for 3DCRT compared with $22,920.51 for IMRT. The effectiveness was higher for IMRT (3.68 QALYs) than for 3DCRT (3.35 QALYs). The baseline ICER for IMRT was $16,842.75/QALY, making it the preferable treatment. The ICER was most sensitive to the probability of local recurrence, upfront radiation costs, local recurrence costs, certain utilities (no toxicity/no recurrence, grade 1 toxicity/no local recurrence, grade 4 toxicity/no local recurrence), and life expectancy. Dominance patterns emerged when the cost of 3DCRT exceeded $15,532.05 (IMRT dominates) or the life expectancy was under 1.68 years (3DCRT dominates). Furthermore, preference patterns changed based on the rate of local recurrence (threshold: 13%). The PSA results demonstrated that IMRT was the preferred cost-effective technique for 64% of trials compared with 36% for 3DCRT. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our model, IMRT is the preferred technique by lowering rates of local recurrence, severe toxicities, and improving QALYs. From a third-party payer perspective, IMRT should be a supported approach for extremity soft tissue sarcomas.
PURPOSE: Create a cost-effectiveness model comparing preoperative intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) versus 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) for extremity soft tissue sarcomas. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Input parameters included 5-year local recurrence rates, rates of acute wound adverse events, and chronic toxicities (edema, fracture, joint stiffness, and fibrosis). Health-state utilities were used to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Overall treatment costs per QALY or incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. Roll-back analysis was performed using average costs and utilities to determine the baseline preferred radiation technique. One-way, 2-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed for input parameters with the largest impact on the ICER. RESULTS: Overall treatment costs were $17,515.58 for 3DCRT compared with $22,920.51 for IMRT. The effectiveness was higher for IMRT (3.68 QALYs) than for 3DCRT (3.35 QALYs). The baseline ICER for IMRT was $16,842.75/QALY, making it the preferable treatment. The ICER was most sensitive to the probability of local recurrence, upfront radiation costs, local recurrence costs, certain utilities (no toxicity/no recurrence, grade 1 toxicity/no local recurrence, grade 4 toxicity/no local recurrence), and life expectancy. Dominance patterns emerged when the cost of 3DCRT exceeded $15,532.05 (IMRT dominates) or the life expectancy was under 1.68 years (3DCRT dominates). Furthermore, preference patterns changed based on the rate of local recurrence (threshold: 13%). The PSA results demonstrated that IMRT was the preferred cost-effective technique for 64% of trials compared with 36% for 3DCRT. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our model, IMRT is the preferred technique by lowering rates of local recurrence, severe toxicities, and improving QALYs. From a third-party payer perspective, IMRT should be a supported approach for extremity soft tissue sarcomas.
Authors: Zhifei Sun; Mohamed A Adam; Jina Kim; Brian Czito; Christopher Mantyh; John Migaly Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2016-08-10 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Thomas J Whitaker; Charles S Mayo; Daniel J Ma; Michael G Haddock; Robert C Miller; Kimberly S Corbin; Michelle Neben-Wittich; James L Leenstra; Nadia N Laack; Mirek Fatyga; Steven E Schild; Carlos E Vargas; Katherine S Tzou; Austin R Hadley; Steven J Buskirk; Robert L Foote Journal: J Radiat Res Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 2.724
Authors: Wade P Smith; Patrick J Richard; Jing Zeng; Smith Apisarnthanarax; Ramesh Rengan; Mark H Phillips Journal: Transl Lung Cancer Res Date: 2018-04