Evaluation of Potential Proton Therapy Utilization in a Market-Based Environment

Health economic controversy and cost-effectiveness of proton therapy

Owing to increasing healthcare costs, there is a need to examine whether the benefits of new technologies are worth the extra cost. In proton therapy, where the evidence in favor is limited, it is heavily debated whether the expected benefit justifies the higher capital and operating costs. The aim of this article was to explore the existing methodologies of economic evaluations (EEs) of particle therapy and recommend an approach for future data collection and analysis. We reviewed the published literature on health economics of proton therapy using accepted guidelines on performing EE. Different cost strategies were assessed and comparisons with other treatment modalities were made in terms of cost-effectiveness. Potential bias in the existing studies was identified and new methodologies proposed. The principal cause of bias in EEs of proton therapy is the lack of valid data on effects as well as costs. The introduction of proton therapy may be seriously hampered by the lack of outcome and cost data and the situation is likely to continue not only in terms of justifying the capital investment but also covering the operational costs. We identified an urgent need to collect appropriate data to allow for reimbursement of such novel technology. In the absence of level 1 evidence, well-performed modeling studies taking into account the available cost and outcome parameters, including the current uncertainties, can help to address the problem of limited outcome and health economic data. The approach of coverage with evidence development, in which evidence is collected in an ongoing manner in population-based registries along with dedicated financing, may allow technological advances with limited initial evidence of benefit and value, such as protons, to become available to patients in an early phase of their technology life cycle.

Radiosurgery with photons or protons for benign and malignant tumours of the skull base: a review

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is an important treatment option for intracranial lesions. Many studies have shown the effectiveness of photon-SRS for the treatment of skull base (SB) tumours; however, limited data are available for proton-SRS.Several photon-SRS techniques, including Gamma Knife, modified linear accelerators (Linac) and CyberKnife, have been developed and several studies have compared treatment plan characteristics between protons and photons.The principles of classical radiobiology are similar for protons and photons even though they differ in terms of physical properties and interaction with matter resulting in different dose distributions.Protons have special characteristics that allow normal tissues to be spared better than with the use of photons, although their potential clinical superiority remains to be demonstrated.A critical analysis of the fundamental radiobiological principles, dosimetric characteristics, clinical results, and toxicity of proton- and photon-SRS for SB tumours is provided and discussed with an attempt of defining the advantages and limits of each radiosurgical technique.

Proton versus intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: patterns of care and early toxicity

BACKGROUND

Proton radiotherapy (PRT) is an emerging treatment for prostate cancer despite limited knowledge of clinical benefit or potential harms compared with other types of radiotherapy. We therefore compared patterns of PRT use, cost, and early toxicity among Medicare beneficiaries with prostate cancer with those of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of all Medicare beneficiaries aged greater than or equal to 66 years who received PRT or IMRT for prostate cancer during 2008 and/or 2009. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with receipt of PRT. To assess toxicity, each PRT patient was matched with two IMRT patients with similar clinical and sociodemographic characteristics. The main outcome measures were receipt of PRT or IMRT, Medicare reimbursement for each treatment, and early genitourinary, gastrointestinal, and other toxicity. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

We identified 27,647 men; 553 (2%) received PRT and 27,094 (98%) received IMRT. Patients receiving PRT were younger, healthier, and from more affluent areas than patients receiving IMRT. Median Medicare reimbursement was $32,428 for PRT and $18,575 for IMRT. Although PRT was associated with a statistically significant reduction in genitourinary toxicity at 6 months compared with IMRT (5.9% vs 9.5%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.38 to 0.96, P = .03), at 12 months post-treatment there was no difference in genitourinary toxicity (18.8% vs 17.5%; OR = 1.08, 95% CI = 0.76 to 1.54, P = .66). There was no statistically significant difference in gastrointestinal or other toxicity at 6 months or 12 months post-treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Although PRT is substantially more costly than IMRT, there was no difference in toxicity in a comprehensive cohort of Medicare beneficiaries with prostate cancer at 12 months post-treatment.