Economic analyses in health care: an introduction to the methodology with an emphasis on radiation therapy

A comprehensive review of official discount rates in guidelines of health economic evaluations over time: the trends and roots

BACKGROUND

The question of discounting in health economics is anything but settled, so much so that a section of the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) guidelines is devoted to it.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to review the trend of the value of the official discount rates (DRs) of costs and health outcomes and their roots worldwide.

METHODS

Four methods were combined to identify official DRs over time globally. These methods included a systematic review of the HTA/pharmacoeconomic/health economic evaluation guidelines, a review of methodological documents or guidelines accessible on the websites of HTA organizations, and two separated reviews of the websites of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and the Guide to Health Economic Analysis and Research (GEAR).

RESULTS

Our systematic search eventually yielded 339 documents from the literature, 35 links from the website of the HTA organizations, 51 documents from the website of the ISPOR, and 29 documents from the website of the GEAR. These documents referred to 48 countries over 30 years and 43 transnational guidelines over 43 years. DRs of 3% and 5% had the most frequent value. Among them, 38 countries always used an equal DR of costs and health outcomes. We categorized the rationales for selecting DRs into eight groups for the national documents and six groups for the transnational documents.

CONCLUSION

The comparability approach was the most frequent rationale for choosing the DR in national and transnational guidelines. The value of DR of costs and health outcomes ranged from zero to 10% over the years, but the most common values were 3% and 5%, mainly arising from the comparability approach chosen. Several transnational guidelines have suggested a specific DR without taking into account countries' economic conditions. It is useful to establish a specific guideline for calculating and updating the DR of the health sector in each country.

Radiation therapy remains the key cost driver of oncology inpatient treatment

OBJECTIVE

Current radiation therapy capacities in Serbia and most of Eastern Europe are heavily lagging behind population needs. The primary study aim was assessment of direct costs of cancer medical care for patients suffering from cancer with assigned radiotherapy-based treatment protocols. Identification of key cost drivers and trends during 2010-2013 comparing brachytherapy and teleradiotherapy was a secondary objective of the study.

METHODS

Retrospective, bottom-up database analysis was conducted on electronic discharge invoices. Payer's perspective has been adopted with a 1-year long time horizon. Total sample size was 2544 patients during a 4-years long observation period (2010-2013). The sample consisted of all patients with confirmed malignancy disorder receiving inpatient radiation therapy in a large university hospital.

RESULTS

Diagnostics and treatment cost of cancer in the largest Western Balkans market of Serbia were heavily dominated by radiation therapy related direct medical costs. Total costs of care as well as mean cost per patient were steadily decreasing due to budget cuts caused by global recession. The paradox is that at the same time the budget share of radiotherapy increased for almost 15% and in value-based terms for €109 per patient (in total €109,330). Second ranked cost drivers were nursing care and imaging diagnostics. Costs of high-tech visualizing examinations were heavily dominated by nuclear medicine tests.

CONCLUSION

The budget impact of radiation oncology to the large tertiary care university clinics of the Balkans is likely to remain significant in the future. Brachytherapy exhibited a slow growth pattern, while teleradiotherapy remained stable in terms of value-based turnover of medical services. Upcoming heavy investment into the national network of radiotherapy facilities will emphasize the unsatisfied needs. Huge contemporary budget share of radiotherapy coupled with rising cancer prevalence brings this issue into the hot spot of the ongoing cost containment efforts by local governments.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of intraoperative radiation therapy for early-stage breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Shortened courses of radiation therapy have been shown to be similarly effective to whole-breast external-beam radiation therapy (WB-EBRT) in terms of local control. We sought to analyze, from a societal perspective, the cost-effectiveness of two radiation strategies for early-stage invasive breast cancer: single-dose intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) and the standard 6-week course of WB-EBRT.

METHODS

We developed a Markov decision-analytic model to evaluate these treatment strategies in terms of life expectancy, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio over 10 years.

RESULTS

IORT single-dose intraoperative radiation therapy was the dominant, more cost-effective strategy, providing greater quality-adjusted life years at a decreased cost compared with 6-week WB-EBRT. The model was sensitive to health state utilities and recurrence rates, but not costs. IORT was either the preferred or dominant strategy across all sensitivity analyses. The two-way sensitivity analyses demonstrate the need to accurately determine utility values for the two forms of radiation treatment and to avoid indiscriminate use of IORT.

CONCLUSIONS

With less cost and greater QALYs than WB-EBRT, IORT is the more valuable strategy. IORT offers a unique example of new technology that is less costly than the current standard of care option but offers similar efficacy. Even when considering the capital investment for the equipment ($425 K, low when compared with the investments required for robotic surgery or high-dose-rate brachytherapy), which could be recouped after 3-4 years conservatively, these results support IORT as a change in practice for treating early-stage invasive breast cancer.

Cost-utility analysis of palonosetron-based therapy in preventing emesis among breast cancer patients

We estimated the cost-utility of palonosetron-based therapy compared with generic ondansetron-based therapy throughout four cycles of anthracycline and cyclophosphamide for treating women with breast cancer. We developed a Markov model comparing six strategies in which ondansetron and palonosetron are combined with either dexamethasone alone, dexamethasone plus aprepitant following emesis, or dexamethasone plus aprepitant up front. Data on the effectiveness of antiemetics and emesis-related utility were obtained from published sources. Relative to the ondansetron-based two-drug therapy, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the palonosetron-based regimens were $115,490/quality-adjusted life years (QALY) for the two-drug strategy, $199,375/QALY for the two-drug regimen plus aprepitant after emesis, and $200,526/QALY for the three-drug strategy. In sensitivity analysis, using the $100,000/QALY benchmark, the palonosetron-based two-drug strategy and the two-drug regimen plus aprepitant following emesis were shown to be cost-effective in 39% and 26% of the Monte Carlo simulations, respectively, and with changes in values for the effectiveness of antiemetics and the rate of hospitalization. The cost-utility of palonosetron-based therapy exceeds the $100,000/QALY threshold. Future research incorporating the price structure of all antiemetics following ondansetron's recent patent expiration is needed.

Economic evaluations of medical care interventions for cancer patients: how, why, and what does it mean?

While the past decade has seen the development of multiple new interventions to diagnose and treat cancer, as well as to improve the quality of life for cancer patients, many of these interventions have substantial costs. This has resulted in increased scrutiny of the costs of care for cancer, as well as the costs relative to the benefits for cancer treatments. It is important for oncologists and other members of the cancer community to consider and understand how economic evaluations of cancer interventions are performed and to be able to use and critique these evaluations. This review discusses the components, main types, and analytic issues of health economic evaluations using studies of cancer interventions as examples. We also highlight limitations of these economic evaluations and discuss why members of the cancer community should care about economic analyses.

Conservation Therapy in T1-T2 Breast Cancer

PURPOSE

To assess the significance of patient age, race, tumor-related prognostic parameters, status of surgical excision margins, and irradiation boost on incidence of ipsilateral breast relapse, and to review current issues in the management of T1-T2 breast cancer patients with conservation therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Records of 1037 patients with histologically confirmed stage T1 and 308 patients with T2 carcinoma of the breast treated with breast conservation therapy from January 1970 through December 1997 were prospectively registered and evaluated. The mean follow-up for surviving patients was 6.6 years (range, 4-30 years), with a minimum follow up of 4 years for all patients.

RESULTS

There were 78 ipsilateral breast relapses (IBRs); the actuarial 10-year incidence of IBR was 7% for T1 and 11% for T2 tumors. In patients 40 years of age or younger, four of 24 (17%) with extensive intraductal component developed an ipsilateral breast relapse, compared with six of 80 (8%) without extensive intraductal component, in contrast to eight of 159 (5%) and 33 of 776 (4%) in postmenopausal patients with or without extensive intraductal component, respectively. In patients with T2 tumors, two of eight (25%) women 40 years or younger with extensive intraductal component, and seven of 50 (14%) without extensive intraductal component developed ipsilateral breast relapse. The corresponding values for the patients older than 40 years were five of 48 (10%) and 13 of 202 (6%), respectively. The incidences of ipsilateral breast relapses, correlated with status of surgical margins after re-excision in T1 tumors, were one of 30 (3.3%) for positive, no relapses in 40 patients with close margins, 16 of 438 (3.6%) for negative, and 18 of 196 (9%) for undetermined margins. In the patients with T2 tumors, ipsilateral breast relapses occurred in two of 16 patients (12.5%) with positive margins, one of 16 (6%) with close, seven of 105 (6.6%)with negative, and four of 68 (5.9%) with undetermined margins (differences not statistically significant). In patients with T1 tumors, negative margins, the 10-year relapse rate was the same (8%) in 559 to whom a boost was administered and in 66 without a boost. In patients with positive margins, the relapse rate was 4% in 215 receiving a boost (18-20 Gy) and 33% (two of six) without a boost. In patients with T2 tumors and negative margins, the rate of ipsilateral breast relapses in 16 patients to whom no boost was given was 12%, as opposed to 10% in 143 patients who received a boost. However, with T2 tumors and close or positive margins, the IBR rate at 10 years was 12% in 81 given a boost, in contrast to 40% (2 of 5) without a boost. In T1 tumors, the breast failure rate was two of 53 (3.7%) in women < or = 40 years receiving chemotherapy and eight of 51 (15.6%) without chemotherapy. For T2 tumors, the corresponding values were seven of 39 (17%) and two of 19 (10.5%), respectively. In women 40 years or younger with T1 tumors receiving hormones or not, the ipsilateral breast relapse rate was two of 19 (10.5%) and eight of 85 (9.4%), respectively; in the older than 40 years group, the corresponding values were six of 377 (1.6%) and 35 of 558 (6.2%). In the patients with T2 tumors, ipsilateral breast relapse rates were not statistically different in the various groups. On multivariate analysis, only age and adjuvant therapy were significant factors predictive of ipsilateral breast relapse.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical excision margins status following adequate doses of radiation therapy was not a predictor of ipsilateral breast relapse. In patients younger than 40 years of age with extensive intraductal component, a somewhat higher breast relapse rate was noted but not enough to preclude breast conservation therapy. A boost of irradiation did not have a significant impact in the incidence of ipsilateral breast relapse in patients with negative margins, but it was of benefit to those with close or positive margins. Close attention to surgical margin status and delivery of higher doses of irradiation to the tumor excision site in patients with close or positive surgical margins will decrease the probability of breast relapses.

A cost-outcome analysis of long-term adjuvant goserelin in addition to radiotherapy for locally advanced prostate cancer

To quantify the incremental costs and outcomes of using long-term adjuvant goserelin in addition to radiotherapy for locally advanced prostate cancer. The cost of radiotherapy for prostate cancer has been calculated using an activity-costing model. The total cost of administering adjuvant hormonal therapy for 3 years is based on local pharmacy charges plus typical physician billing fees and additional laboratory costs. Outcome data were obtained from the published EORTC 22,863 randomized trial comparing treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer with radiotherapy alone or in combination with 3 years of adjuvant goserelin. Using this information, the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant goserelin was calculated and expressed in terms of dollars per life-years (LY) gained. The total institutional costs of radiotherapy are $9000 Cdn. and the additional costs of providing adjuvant goserelin for 3 years are approximately $19,800 CDN. The improvement in outcome with the use of adjuvant goserelin was estimated to be 1.2 LY per patient treated, giving a cost-effectiveness ratio of $16,500 Cdn ($11,000 US) per LY from an institutional perspective. Our sensitivity analysis confirms the robustness of our findings since even in our "worst case" scenario the cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated to be $21,600 Can ($14,400 US) per LY gained. This figure is still below $50,000 US per LY gained which is the quoted current standard for cost-effectiveness. This analysis demonstrates that the use of long-term adjuvant goserelin for locally advanced prostate cancer provides substantial benefit at an acceptable cost.

The use of preferences to measure the benefit of adjuvant radiation therapy for stage I seminoma

PURPOSE

In Stage I seminoma, treatment with radiation therapy (RT) after radical inguinal orchiectomy reduces the likelihood of relapse by 15%, but does not improve survival, thus making quality of life an important outcome measure. The purpose of this study was to use utilities to assess the quality of life benefits associated with adjuvant RT in this setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred healthy men were interviewed using a utility assessment tool. Utilities for five health states were measured using the standard gamble technique: (A) adjuvant RT with 5% recurrence risk; (B) recurrence after RT, salvaged with chemotherapy; (C) orchiectomy alone with 20% recurrence risk; (D) recurrence after orchiectomy alone, salvaged with RT; and (E) recurrence after orchiectomy alone, salvaged with chemotherapy.

RESULTS

The median age was 25. Utilities were highest for nonrecurrent health states, and lowest for recurrence salvaged with chemotherapy. All differences in utilities between health states were significant, except between states A and C and B and E. Variability in utilities was not explained by the sociodemographic factors examined.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that healthy males do not value the 15% reduction in recurrence risk achievable with adjuvant RT. However, they do predict that an actual recurrence, especially one requiring salvage chemotherapy, will lead to significant decline in quality of life. We intend to use these utilities to further evaluate the cost-effectiveness of RT in this setting.

Prophylactic cranial irradiation revisited: cost-effectiveness and quality of life in small-cell lung cancer

PURPOSE

To investigate the therapeutic usefulness and cost-effectiveness of prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) in patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) who had achieved a complete remission.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was undertaken of all patients diagnosed in Saskatchewan with SCLC between 1987 and 1998 inclusive. Patients who achieved a complete remission were divided into two groups, depending on whether they underwent PCI (PCI+ and PCI-, respectively). The quality-of-life-adjusted survival was estimated by the Q-TWiST method (quality time without symptoms and toxicity). The mean incremental costs per month of incremental OS were calculated in a cost-effectiveness analysis.

RESULTS

Among the 98 complete remission patients, the median OS for PCI+ and PCI- patients was 20.0 and 19.0 months, respectively (p > 0.05, nonsignificant). The median disease-free survival was 14.7 and 10.0 months, respectively (p < 0.05). The difference in the mean Q-TWiST survival was significant (p < 0.01). The mean marginal cost was $18,834/PCI+ patient and $17,885/PCI- patient (p > 0.05, nonsignificant). The cost-effectiveness ratio was $70/mo of incremental OS if u(tox) and u(rel) (the utility coefficients to reflect the value of time in health states of toxicity and relapse) were assumed to be 1.0.

CONCLUSION

PCI is a cost-effective treatment that improves the quality-of-life-adjusted survival for patients with a complete remission of SCLC.

Radiotherapy equipment--purchase or lease?

Against a background of increasing demand for radiotherapy equipment, this study was undertaken to investigate options for equipment procurement, in particular to compare purchase with lease. The perceived advantages of lease are that equipment can be acquired within budget and cashflow constraints, with relatively low amounts of cash leaving the NHS in the first year, avoiding the necessity of capitalizing the equipment and providing protection against the risk of obsolescence associated with high technology equipment. The perceived disadvantages of leasing are that the Trust does not own the equipment, leasing can be more expensive in revenue terms, the tender process is extended and there may be lease conditions to be met, which may be costly and/or restrictive. There are also a number of technical considerations involved in the leasing of radiotherapy equipment that influence the financial analysis and practical operation of the radiotherapy service. The technical considerations include servicing and planned preventative maintenance, upgrades, spare parts, subsequent purchase of "add ons", modification of equipment, research and development work, commencement of the lease period, return of equipment at the end of the lease period and negotiations at the end of the lease period. A study from Raigmore Hospital, Inverness is described, which involves the procurement of new, state-of-the-art radiotherapy equipment. This provides an overview of the procurement process, including a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of leasing, with the figures from the financial analysis presented and explained. In addition, a detailed description is given of the technical considerations to be taken into account in the financial analysis and negotiation of any lease contract.

Critical issues in the economic evaluation of interventions against communicable diseases

Economic appraisal seeks to provide policy-makers with guidance about how scarce resources can be used to derive the greatest possible social benefit. Its use in the health sector has increased dramatically over the last decade although much of it has been focused on the problems of the more developed countries. The relatively sparse literature on communicable diseases has been dominated by interventions related to HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, malaria and tropical diseases. Reviews of this literature from the perspective of specific conditions such as Hepatitis B are already available, and recently the entire literature has been evaluated against the technical criteria for economic evaluations published in standard textbooks. Accordingly, this paper focuses on issues which would make economic appraisal more useful to policy-makers than it currently is. Given that few countries have the resources to undertake all the necessary analysis in their own settings, it is important that studies in one setting are undertaken in a way that allow generalisability to similar settings. Some of the most important challenges this poses for cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) are identified. Firstly, incremental analysis is appropriate to local decision making when policy-makers are constrained to keep the current interventions and can consider only marginal improvements. However, it does not allow re-evaluation of existing interventions and is not transferable across settings. A version of Generalised CEA is proposed as an alternative. Secondly, data on costs and effectiveness are often not presented appropriately. The challenge for effectiveness is to adjust the evidence from efficacy studies to allow for different patient or population groups, and local variations in adherence, coverage, and infrastructure. For costs, it is important for studies to report the physical resources used in an intervention as well as unit prices. Thirdly, some long-term effects are still not well incorporated into CEA, especially those affecting child development and drug resistance. These questions are technically challenging and require more concerted efforts over the next few years. Finally, it is important for analysts to provide decision-makers with estimates of the resources that would be required to implement interventions claimed to be cost-effective. These improvements would better enable the evidence from economic analyses to enter the policy debate and be weighed against the other goals and objectives of the health system when allocating scarce resources.

[Production process in external radiotherapy and cost-inducers research in 2 hospital units]

PURPOSE

To analyse the process of outpatient radiation therapy by dividing it into elementary acts, and to determine the cost-inducers (staff and machine time, equipment) in order to enhance the value of radiotherapy activity.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The care process was analysed from 1 June 1997 to 1 September 1997, in two institutions (Centre hospitalo-universitaire de Saint Etienne and centre de Lutte contre le Cancer de Lyon), in terms of consumption of human and equipment means, representing a cost for the care institution. The valorization was expressed in physics units for material means, and in time units for human and heavy equipment. Parameters able to modify the consumption of means had been defined. The following data had been collected for each activity: patient characteristics, characteristics of the process, specific parameters of each activity, data related to the care staff and care unit.

RESULTS

The importance of the specific data of each activity was noteworthy. Two criteria modified the valorization: the complexity level of dosimetry and inclusion in a research trial. Total body irradiation and conformal radiotherapy were well individualized. There was no difference between the two care units. The lack of cost-inducers for the 'immobilization-simulation' activity reflects the large diversity of practice, and requires a global analysis of the 'treatment preparation' process.

CONCLUSION

The cost-inducers found in this study could permit the elaboration of the 'relative cost index' in radiation therapy. (The results obtained must be validated in other types of care units.) These relative cost indexes would describe the various phases of the treatment, such as treatment preparation, dosimetry, treatment, quality control. This approach is currently used by workshops in PMSI (Programme de Médicalisation des Systèmes d'Information) and NGAP (Nomenclature Générale des Actes Professionnels).

A cost-outcome analysis of adjuvant postmastectomy locoregional radiotherapy in premenopausal node-positive breast cancer patients

PURPOSE

To calculate cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios for adjuvant postmastectomy locoregional radiotherapy in premenopausal node-positive breast cancer patients and to place these ratios in the context of generally accepted medical expenditures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A spreadsheet-based activity costing model using 1997 Canadian (cdn) capital, operating, and administrative costs has been used to identify, from the institutional perspective, the incremental cost of adding radiotherapy to surgery and chemotherapy for this group of patients. Outcome data were derived from two recently published clinical trials and were converted to discounted incremental life years and quality-adjusted life years gained. Recommended health economics principles were employed in the quantification of both costs and outcomes, and a sensitivity analysis was performed. Three referenced publications provide a context within which to evaluate the calculated cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios.

RESULTS

The incremental cost of adjuvant radiotherapy for this group of patients is calculated to be approximately $7,000cdn in 1997 Canadian dollars and in the Canadian socialized health-care environment. Based on published work the discounted incremental outcome benefit is calculated to be 0.5 life years or 0.45 quality-adjusted life years at ten years. Thus, cost effectiveness and cost-utility ratios are estimated to be $14,000cdn and $15,600cdn, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Within the context of generally accepted medical expenditures, adjuvant postmastectomy locoregional radiotherapy for premenopausal node-positive breast cancer patients would be regarded as a cost-effective treatment strategy.

Systematic overview of cost-utility assessments in oncology

PURPOSE

Cost-utility analyses (CUAs) present the value of an intervention as the ratio of its incremental cost divided by its incremental survival benefit, with survival weighted by utilities to produce quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). We critically reviewed the CUA literature and its role in informing clinical oncology practice, research priorities, and policy.

METHODS

The English-language literature was searched between 1975 and1997 for CUAs. Two readers abstracted from each article descriptions of the clinical situation and patients, the methods used, study perspective, the measures of effectiveness, costs included, discounting, and whether sensitivity analyses were performed. The readers then made subjective quality assessments. We also extracted utility values from the reviewed papers, along with information on how and from whom utilities were measured.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 40 studies, which described 263 health states and presented 89 cost-utility ratios. Both the number and quality of studies increased over time. However, many studies are at variance with current standards. Only 20% of studies took a societal perspective, more than a third failed to discount both the costs and QALYs, and utilities were often simply estimates from the investigators or other physicians.

CONCLUSION

The cost-utility literature in oncology is not large but is rapidly expanding. There remains much room for improvement in the methodological rigor with which utilities are measured. Considering quality-of-life effects by incorporating utilities into economic studies is particularly important in oncology, where many therapies obtain modest improvements in response or survival at the expense of nontrivial toxicity.

Post hoc economic analysis of temozolomide versus dacarbazine in the treatment of advanced metastatic melanoma

PURPOSE

To determine the potential economic implications resulting from oral temozolomide (TEM) compared with intravenous (IV) dacarbazine (DTIC) for metastatic melanoma.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a cost-effectiveness (CE) analysis using hazard ratios (HRs) from the phase III (Schering I95-018) trial comparing TEM 200 mg/m(2)/d orally for 5 days every 28 days with DTIC 250 mg/m(2)/d IV for 5 days every 21 days. Sensitivity analyses assessed a range of TEM's efficacy and costs, direct nonmedical costs, and the DTIC schedule.

RESULTS

The trial found an overall survival trend favoring TEM; median survival times of patients treated with DTIC and TEM were 6.4 and 7.7 months, respectively (HR = 1.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92 to 1.52; intention to treat, P =.20). The mean increase in survival of TEM over DTIC was 1.1 months. The projected average costs per patient were greater with TEM than DTIC ($6,902 v $3,697, respectively). The incremental CE ratio using TEM was $36,990 per life-year or $101 per day of life gained. The CE ratio's 95% CI ranged from -$65,180 (DTIC is more effective) to $18, 670 per year of life gained. The CE ratios decreased 50% if direct nonmedical costs were included and increased 50% if DTIC's efficacy was unchanged if given as a single daily dosage. Sixty percent of simulations found TEM with a CE threshold of less than $50,000 per life-year gained.

CONCLUSION

Although the base-case efficacy of TEM compared with DTIC was not statistically significant, its associated incremental CE would be comparable with many interventions. TEM for metastatic melanoma illustrates the tension confronting providers choosing between similar agents that markedly differ in convenience and costs.

Development of WHO guidelines on generalized cost-effectiveness analysis

The growing use of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to evaluate specific interventions is dominated by studies of prospective new interventions compared with current practice. This type of analysis does not explicitly take a sectoral perspective in which the costs and effectiveness of all possible interventions are compared, in order to select the mix that maximizes health for a given set of resource constraints. WHO guidelines on generalized CEA propose the application of CEA to a wide range of interventions to provide general information on the relative costs and health benefits of different interventions in the absence of various highly local decision constraints. This general approach will contribute to judgements on whether interventions are highly cost-effective, highly cost-ineffective, or something in between. Generalized CEAs require the evaluation of a set of interventions with respect to the counterfactual of the null set of the related interventions, i.e. the natural history of disease. Such general perceptions of relative cost-effectiveness, which do not pertain to any specific decision-maker, can be a useful reference point for evaluating the directions for enhancing allocative efficiency in a variety of settings. The proposed framework allows the identification of current allocative inefficiencies as well as opportunities presented by new interventions.

Federation of European Cancer Societies. Full report. Economic evaluation in cancer care: questions and answers on how to alleviate conflicts between rising needs and expectations and tightening budgets

All Western countries have experienced a fast growth in their healthcare expenses over recent decades. It is expected that pressure for such growth will continue in the future. But spending an ever larger share of our nation's resources on healthcare cannot be afforded. As a consequence, making choices will become more and more inevitable, even in cancer care. Economic evaluation is a very supportive tool for such decisions. This position statement concludes with recommendations for providers and healthcare policy-makers, to safeguard and further improve good clinical decision making and healthcare policy in cancer care under tightening budgets.

The cost effectiveness of 3D conformal radiation therapy compared with conventional techniques for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

We previously demonstrated the advantages of three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) in improved rates of biochemical (bNED) control in certain subsets of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. However, in this era of cost consciousness and limited resources, the cost effectiveness of 3DCRT compared with conventional external beam irradiation (CRT) remains unexamined.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Between October 1, 1987 and November 30, 1991, 193 patients with clinically localized prostate cancer received definitive external beam irradiation at Fox Chase Cancer Center. The 1998 Medicare fee schedule was used to determine treatment charges and to provide a reference for a national comparison. Complete charges for pretreatment work-up, treatment, and follow-up were tabulated for each patient. The mean total charges (MTC) using the Lin method of estimating medical costs was used to analyze and compare costs between groups. A matched case/control analysis was performed to further evaluate the effect of cost between techniques. The median follow-up was 72 months (range 3-118).

RESULTS

The overall 5-year actuarial rate of bNED control was 41% and 53%, respectively, for the CRT and 3DCRT patients (p = 0.03). The MTC for the CRT patients was $10,544.53. For the 3DCRT patients, the MTC was $8,955.48. The sample mean of the total costs from the observed deaths for the two patient groups by follow-up interval ranged from $9,800.63 to $59,635.01 for the CRT patients to $17,259.00 to $24,250.38 for the 3DCRT patients. No statistically significant difference in cost was observed between groups using the matched case/control analysis.

CONCLUSION

Initial work-up and treatment costs were greater for patients treated with 3DCRT compared with patients treated with conventional techniques. However, with longer follow-up, the mean total cost of treatment was not statistically different between the two treatment groups. Because of improved rates of bNED control for these patients and the increased costs associated with the treatment of a greater fraction of patients with recurrent disease following CRT, 3DCRT was cost effective for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer.

The cost of radiotherapy as a function of facility size and hours of operation

Against a background of constant or decreasing budgets, this study was undertaken to investigate the economic effects of changes in selected operational parameters within a radiation treatment programme. Using financial data from the Northeastern Ontario Regional Cancer Centre and a recognized staffing model, a commercial spreadsheet has been used to calculate the cost of an 18 fraction course of radiotherapy, including all the major preparatory processes such as simulation and treatment planning. Using the spreadsheet, and on the basis of explicit and reasonable assumptions, the cost of radiotherapy has been calculated as the facility size (i.e. equipment complement) and hours of operation are varied. Based on the assumptions used, the cost of radiotherapy in a facility treating less than about 1600 patients per year starts to rise. At 400 patients per year, a course costs approximately 50% more than at 1600 patients per annum. Extended hours of operation do not appear to generate significant, if any, savings when realistic assumptions about machine lifetime and overtime payments are made. Using a spreadsheet to simulate changes in a radiation treatment programme can be an important decision-making tool, as the effects of changes in operating parameters can be demonstrated.

Economic evaluation of breast cancer screening: A review

PURPOSE

The authors provide a review of the economic evaluation literature of breast cancer screening and identify important trends and gaps in the literature.

OVERVIEW

Healthcare resources are limited and economic evaluation plays a critical role in resource allocation, healthcare policy, and clinical decisions. Many economic evaluations of medical practice, however, are unreliable and do not use appropriate analytic techniques. Three important trends were observed. First, two economic evaluation methods are dominant. Second, a wide range of cost estimates exists across studies. Third, a lack of standardization exists across studies with regard to basic economic evaluation principles. These findings should be considered when conducting future research, analyzing economic evaluations of breast cancer screening, and developing clinical guidelines.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Concerns about cost containment in healthcare make it necessary for physicians and clinical administrators to take an active role in resource allocation decisions at the clinical level. For instance, the recent debate on the proper age to begin annual mammography screening involves both resource allocation and clinical issues. Thus, it is important for physicians and clinical administrators to be familiar with the economic evaluation literature of breast cancer screening, economic evaluation methodology, and the associated shortcomings of published estimates.

Radiobiologically based assessments of the net costs of fractionated focal radiotherapy

PURPOSE

To assess the potential changes in the net costs of focal radiotherapy techniques at differing doses per fraction and interfraction intervals.

METHODS

Linear quadratic radiobiological modeling is used with appropriate variations in the radiosensitivity and tumor cell proliferation parameters. The notional cost of treatment is calculated from the number of fractions, cost per fraction and the cost of treatment failure, which is itself related to (1-TCP) where TCP is the tumor cure probability. Additional Monte Carlo calculations from ranges of radiobiological parameters have been used to simulate the cost of treatment of tumor populations.

RESULTS

The optimum dose per fraction (and optimum overall cost) for conventional (nonfocal) radiotherapy is generally at low doses of around 2 Gy per fraction. The use of hyperfractionated and accelerated radiotherapy in addition to focal radiotherapy techniques appear to be indicated for more radioresistant tumors and if tumor proliferation is extremely rapid, but the need for treatment acceleration is much reduced where effective focal techniques are used.

CONCLUSIONS

Radiobiological and economic modeling can be used to guide clinical choices of dose fractionation techniques providing the key radiobiological parameters are known or if the ranges of likely parameters in a tumor population are known. Focal radiotherapy, by the introduction of changes in the physical dose distribution, produces an upward shift in the optimum dose per fraction and a reduced dependency on overall treatment time.

[Could the evaluation of the cost of complications be a worthwhile means to improve radiotherapy?]

At the present time, the current improvement of technical and dosimetric aspects of radiation oncology has to be evaluated in terms of potential benefit for the patient and the society. For this last point of view, specially designed economic analyses must be performed in order to justify the number of resources involved by these technical improvements. If the question is how the current technical procedures could reduce the risk of undesirable side-effects, the response cannot be immediately drawn from the literature. This paper emphasizes the possibility to evaluate the role of side-effects as endpoints of economic analyses when using special models in medical decision making such as Markov's. Only few oncologic situations are reliable to properly analyze the relationship between sophisticated radiation techniques and the incidence of post-radiation complications. These situations should be selected when prospective economic analyses are planned in the field of radiation therapy.

Cost-effectiveness analysis in oncology

Physicians are faced with a burgeoning literature of economic studies. However, most physicians have little training in evaluating economic research. Economic studies involve a comparison of the costs and benefits of alternative treatment options. To be of use for medical decision making, they should meet appropriate methodological standards. These include clear specification of the research question and the perspective from which the study is being undertaken, comparison of relevant treatment options, identification and quantification of all important costs and benefits, the use of discounting to allow for time preferences for costs and benefits, and sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of the study's results. Unfortunately, not all adhere to these principles. Physicians need to be able to understand and critically assess the quality of economic studies, and the applicability of the results to their own situation, in order to participate in medical policy decisions.

Particle beam therapy (hadrontherapy): basis for interest and clinical experience

The particle or hadron beams deployed in radiotherapy (protons, neutrons and helium, carbon, oxygen and neon ions) have physical and radiobiological characteristics which differ from those of conventional radiotherapy beams (photons) and which offer a number of theoretical advantages over conventional radiotherapy. After briefly describing the properties of hadron beams in comparison to photons, this review discusses the indications for hadrontherapy and analyses accumulated experience on the use of this modality to treat mainly neoplastic lesions, as published by the relatively few hadrontherapy centres operating around the world. The analysis indicates that for selected patients and tumours (particularly uveal melanomas and base of skull/spinal chordomas and chondrosarcomas), hadrontherapy produces greater disease-free survival. The advantages of hadrontherapy are most promisingly realised when used in conjunction with modern patient positioning, radiation delivery and focusing techniques (e.g. on-line imaging, three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy) developed to improve the efficacy of photon therapy. Although the construction and running costs of hadrontherapy units are considerably greater than those of conventional facilities, a comprehensive analysis that considers all the costs, particularly those resulting from the failure of less effective conventional radiotherapy, might indicate that hadrontherapy could be cost effective. In conclusion, the growing interest in this form of treatment seems to be fully justified by the results obtained to date, although more efficacy and dosing studies are required.

Physician resource utilization in radiation oncology: a model based on management of carcinoma of the prostate

PURPOSE

To develop a methodology to estimate the comparative cost of physician time in treating patients with localized prostate cancer, using as an example two-dimensional (2D) vs. three-dimensional (3D) conformal irradiation techniques, and to illustrate how current cost-accounting techniques can be used to quantify the cost of physician time and effort of any treatment.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Activity-based costing, a recent innovation in accounting, widely recommended for estimating and managing the costs of specific activities, was used to derive physician resource utilization costs (actual cost of the physician services and related support services consumed).

RESULTS

Patients treated with 3D conformal irradiation consume about 50% more physician time than patients receiving 2D conventional radiation therapy. The average professional reimbursement for the 3D conformal irradiation is only about 26% more than for the 2D treatment. Substantial variations in cost are found depending on the total available physician working hours. In an academic institution, a physician working 40 hours a week would have to spend an average of about 60% of available time on clinical services to break even on a 2D treatment process and over 74% of available time on clinical work to break even on a 3D treatment process. The same physician working 50 hours a week would have to spend an average of about 48% of available time on 2D clinical services and about 60% of available time on 3D clinical work to break even. Current Medicare reimbursement for 3D treatment falls short of actual costs, even if physicians work 100% of a 50-hour week. Medicare reimbursement for 2D barely allows the department to break even for 2D treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Costs based on estimates of resource use can be substantially under- or overestimated. A consistent language (method) is needed to obtain and describe the costs of radiation therapy. The methodology described here can help practitioners and researchers more accurately interpret actual cost information. Future use of such cost-estimation methodologies could provide consistent and comparable costs for negotiations with health care providers and help assess different treatment strategies.

Cost benefit of emerging technology in localized carcinoma of the prostate

PURPOSE

In a health care environment strongly concerned with cost containment, cost-benefit studies of new technology must include analyses of loco-regional tumor control, morbidity, impact on quality of life, and financial considerations.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

This nonrandomized study analyzes 124 patients treated with three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D CRT) and 153 with standard irradiation (SRT) between January 1992 and December 1995, for histologically proven adenocarcinoma of prostate, clinical Stage T1 or T2. Mean follow-up is 1.4 years. Three-dimensional CRT consisted of six or seven coplanar oblique and lateral and, in some patients, AP fields designed to treat the prostate with a 1 to 1.7 cm margin. SRT consisted of 120 degrees bilateral arc rotation. Total doses to prostate were 67 to 70 Gy when pelvic lymph nodes were irradiated or 68.4 to 73.8 Gy when prostatic volume only was treated; dose per fraction was 1.8 Gy. Patients were interviewed weekly for severity of 12 acute intestinal and urinary pelvic irradiation side effects (0 to 4+ grading). Time and effort for 3D RTP and daily treatment with 3D CRT and SRT were recorded. Dose-volume histograms (DVHs) were calculated for gross tumor volume, planning target volume, bladder, and rectum. Actual reimbursement to the hospital and university was determined for 41 3D CRT, 43 SRT, and 40 radical prostatectomy patients treated during the same period.

RESULTS

Average treatment planning times (in minutes) were: 101 for 3D conformal therapy simulation, 66 for contouring of target volume and sensitive structures, 55 for virtual simulation, 39 for plan preparation and documentation, 65 for physical simulation, and 20 for approval of treatment plan. Daily mean treatment times were 19 min for 3D CRT with Cerrobend blocking, 16 with multileaf collimation, and 10 with bilateral arc rotation. Dosimetric analysis (DVHs) showed a reduction of 50% in volume of bladder or rectum receiving doses higher than 65 Gy. Acute side effects included dysuria, moderate difficulty in urinating, and nocturia in 25-39% of both SRT and CRT patients; loose stools or diarrhea in 5-12% of 3D CRT and 16-22% of SRT patients; moderate proctitis in 3% of 3D CRT and 12% of SRT patients (p = 0.01). Chemical disease-free survival (prostate-specific antigen < or =2 ng/ml) at 3 years was 90% with 3D CRT and 80% with SRT (p = 0.01). Average initial treatment reimbursements were $13,823 (3D CRT), $10,864 (SRT), and $12,250 (radical prostatectomy). Average total treatment reimbursement and projected cost of management of initial therapy failures per patients were $15,173, $16,264, and $16,405, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Three-dimensional CRT irradiated less bladder and rectum volume than SRT; CRT initial reimbursement was 28% higher than SRT and 12% higher than radical prostatectomy. Because of projected better local tumor control, average total cost of treating a patient with 3D CRT or radical prostatectomy is equivalent to cost of SRT. Treatment morbidity was lower with 3D CRT. Our findings reflect an overall benefit with 3D CRT as a new promising technology in treatment of localized prostate cancer. Dose-escalation studies may enhance its efficacy and cost benefit.