Loren Saulsberry1, Chuanhong Liao1, Dezheng Huo2. 1. Department of Public Health Sciences, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. 2. Department of Public Health Sciences, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. Electronic address: dhuo@health.bsd.uchicago.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Rising cancer care expenditures and technological advancement of shorter radiation therapy regimens have drawn significant attention to the use of hypofractionated radiation therapy in clinical care. We examine the costs of hypofractionated whole breast irradiation (HF-WBI) compared with conventional whole breast irradiation (CF-WBI) in the United States and investigate the influences of patient characteristics and commercial insurance on HF-WBI use. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In a retrospective study using private employer-sponsored insurance claims, a pooled cross-sectional evaluation of radiation therapy in patients with commercial insurance was performed from 2008 to 2017. The study population included female patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with lumpectomy and whole breast irradiation. RESULTS: A total of 15,869 women received HF-WBI, and 59,328 received CF-WBI. HF-WBI use increased from 2008 to 2017. Community-level factors such as a higher proportion of college graduates and greater mixed racial composition were associated with increased HF-WBI use. Mean insurer-paid radiation therapy expenditures were significantly lower for HF-WBI versus CF-WBI (adjusted difference, $6375; 95% confidence interval, $6147-$6603). Mean patient out-of-pocket expenditure for HF-WBI was $139 less than that for CF-WBI. Geographic variation existed across the United States in HF-WBI use (range, 9.6%-36.2%), with no consistent relationship between HF-WBI use and corresponding average cost differences between HF-WBI and CF-WBI. CONCLUSIONS: If trends continue, HF-WBI will soon become the dominant form of radiation treatment in the United States. Although HF-WBI represents significant savings to the health care system and individual patients, no evidence indicated that a financial disincentive had slowed adoption of HF-WBI. Therefore, multilevel approaches, including individuals, the community, and health policy, should be used to promote cost-effective cancer care. Innovations to policies on cost-effective radiation therapy treatment might consider non-financial incentives to promote HF-WBI use.
PURPOSE: Rising cancer care expenditures and technological advancement of shorter radiation therapy regimens have drawn significant attention to the use of hypofractionated radiation therapy in clinical care. We examine the costs of hypofractionated whole breast irradiation (HF-WBI) compared with conventional whole breast irradiation (CF-WBI) in the United States and investigate the influences of patient characteristics and commercial insurance on HF-WBI use. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In a retrospective study using private employer-sponsored insurance claims, a pooled cross-sectional evaluation of radiation therapy in patients with commercial insurance was performed from 2008 to 2017. The study population included female patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with lumpectomy and whole breast irradiation. RESULTS: A total of 15,869 women received HF-WBI, and 59,328 received CF-WBI. HF-WBI use increased from 2008 to 2017. Community-level factors such as a higher proportion of college graduates and greater mixed racial composition were associated with increased HF-WBI use. Mean insurer-paid radiation therapy expenditures were significantly lower for HF-WBI versus CF-WBI (adjusted difference, $6375; 95% confidence interval, $6147-$6603). Mean patient out-of-pocket expenditure for HF-WBI was $139 less than that for CF-WBI. Geographic variation existed across the United States in HF-WBI use (range, 9.6%-36.2%), with no consistent relationship between HF-WBI use and corresponding average cost differences between HF-WBI and CF-WBI. CONCLUSIONS: If trends continue, HF-WBI will soon become the dominant form of radiation treatment in the United States. Although HF-WBI represents significant savings to the health care system and individual patients, no evidence indicated that a financial disincentive had slowed adoption of HF-WBI. Therefore, multilevel approaches, including individuals, the community, and health policy, should be used to promote cost-effective cancer care. Innovations to policies on cost-effective radiation therapy treatment might consider non-financial incentives to promote HF-WBI use.
Authors: Vivek Verma; Ethan B Ludmir; Shane M Mesko; Eric D Brooks; Alexander Augustyn; Michael T Milano; Steven H Lin; Joe Y Chang; James W Welsh Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2019-08-22
Authors: Elyn H Wang; Sarah S Mougalian; Pamela R Soulos; Charles E Rutter; Suzanne B Evans; Bruce G Haffty; Cary P Gross; James B Yu Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-08-19 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Yasmin Hasan; Joseph Waller; Katharine Yao; Steven J Chmura; Dezheng Huo Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-01-24 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Ravi B Parikh; Ezra Fishman; Winnie Chi; Robert P Zimmerman; Atul Gupta; John J Barron; Gosia Sylwestrzak; Justin E Bekelman Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Benjamin D Smith; Jing Jiang; Ya-ChenTina Shih; Sharon H Giordano; Jinhai Huo; Reshma Jagsi; Adeyiza O Momoh; Abigail S Caudle; Kelly K Hunt; Simona F Shaitelman; Thomas A Buchholz; Shervin M Shirvani Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2016-09-27 Impact factor: 13.506