Estimation of the Width of Uncertainty in Care Consumption and Costs When Using Common Data Collection Tools in Economic Evaluations: A Benchmark for Sensitivity Analyses

Cost-effectiveness of weekly adaptive radiotherapy versus standard IMRT in head and neck cancer alongside the ARTIX trial

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) comparing an adaptive radiotherapy (ART) strategy, based on weekly replanning, aiming to correct the parotid gland overdose during treatment and expecting therefore to decrease xerostomia, when compared to a standard IMRT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted the ARTIX trial, a randomized, parallel-group, multicentric study comparing a systematic weekly replanning ART to a standard IMRT. The primary endpoint was the frequency of xerostomia at 12 months, measured by stimulating salivary flow with paraffin. The CEA was designed alongside the ARTIX trial which was linked to the French national health data system (SNDS). For each patient, healthcare consumptions and costs were provided by the SNDS. The reference case analysis was based on the primary endpoint of the trial. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Of the 129 patients randomly assigned between 2013 and 2018, only 2 records were not linked to the SNDS, which provides a linkage proportion of 98.4%. All of the other 127 records were linked with good to very good robustness. On the intent-to-treat population at 12 months, mean total costs per patient were €41,564 (SD 23,624) and €33,063 (SD 16,886) for ART and standard IMRT arms, respectively (p = 0.033). Incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) was €162,444 per xerostomia avoided. At 24 months, ICER was €194,521 per xerostomia avoided. For both progression-free and overall survival, ART was dominated by standard IMRT.

CONCLUSION

The ART strategy was deemed to be not cost-effective compared with standard IMRT for patients with locally advanced oropharyngeal cancer.