Premium
Cost‐effectiveness analysis of intensity‐modulated radiation therapy with normal and hypofractionated schemes for the treatment of localised prostate cancer
Author(s) -
Zemplényi A.T.,
Kaló Z.,
Kovács G.,
Farkas R.,
Beöthe T.,
Bányai D.,
Sebestyén Z.,
Endrei D.,
Boncz I.,
Mangel L.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
european journal of cancer care
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.849
H-Index - 67
eISSN - 1365-2354
pISSN - 0961-5423
DOI - 10.1111/ecc.12430
Subject(s) - medicine , euros , prostate cancer , radiation therapy , medical physics , nuclear medicine , cancer , radiology , philosophy , humanities
The aim of our analysis was to compare the cost‐effectiveness of high‐dose intensity‐modulated radiation therapy ( IMRT ) and hypofractionated intensity‐modulated radiation therapy ( HF ‐ IMRT ) versus conventional dose three‐dimensional radiation therapy (3 DCRT ) for the treatment of localised prostate cancer. A Markov model was constructed to calculate the incremental quality‐adjusted life years and costs. Transition probabilities, adverse events and utilities were derived from relevant systematic reviews. Microcosting in a large university hospital was applied to calculate cost vectors. The expected mean lifetime cost of patients undergoing 3 DCRT , IMRT and HF ‐ IMRT were 7,160 euros, 6,831 euros and 6,019 euros respectively. The expected quality‐adjusted life years ( QALY s) were 5.753 for 3 DCRT , 5.956 for IMRT and 5.957 for HF ‐ IMRT . Compared to 3 DCRT , both IMRT and HF ‐ IMRT resulted in more health gains at a lower cost. It can be concluded that high‐dose IMRT is not only cost‐effective compared to the conventional dose 3 DCRT but, when used with a hypofractionation scheme, it has great cost‐saving potential for the public payer and may improve access to radiation therapy for patients.