Implications of learning effects for hospital costs of new health technologies: The case of intensity modulated radiation therapy

Health Services Research in Brachytherapy: Current Understanding and Future Challenges

Brachytherapy is an integral component of cancer care. Widespread concerns have been expressed though about the need for greater brachytherapy availability across many jurisdictions. Yet, health services research in brachytherapy has lagged behind that in external beam radiotherapy. Optimal brachytherapy utilisation, to help inform expected demand, have not been defined beyond the New South Wales region in Australia, with few studies having reported observed brachytherapy utilisation. There is also a relative lack of robust cost and cost-effectiveness studies, making investment decisions in brachytherapy even more uncertain and challenging to justify, despite its key role in cancer control. As the range of indications for brachytherapy expands, providing organ/function preservation for a wider range of diagnoses, there is an urgent need to redress this balance. By outlining the work undertaken in this area to date, we highlight its importance and explore where further study is required.

Cost and Toxicity Comparisons of Two IMRT Techniques for Prostate Cancer: A Micro-Costing Study and Weighted Propensity Score Analysis Based on a Prospective Study

BACKGROUND

Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has become the standard treatment for patients with high-risk prostate cancer. Two techniques of rotational IMRT are commonly used in this indication: Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) and helical tomotherapy (HT). To the best of our knowledge, no study has compared their related costs and clinical effectiveness and/or toxicity in prostate cancer. We aimed to assess differences in costs and toxicity between VMAT and HT in patients with high-risk prostate cancer with pelvic irradiation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We used data from the "RCMI pelvis" prospective multicenter study (NCT01325961) including 155 patients. We used a micro-costing methodology to identify cost differences between VMAT and HT. To assess the effects of the two techniques on total actual costs per patient and on toxicity we used stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting.

RESULTS

The mean total cost for HT, €2019 3,069 (95% CI, 2,885-3,285) was significantly higher than the mean cost for VMAT €2019 2,544 (95% CI, 2,443-2,651) (p <.0001). The mean ± SD labor and accelerator cost for HT was €2880 (± 583) and €1978 (± 475) for VMAT, with 81 and 76% for accelerator, respectively. Acute GI and GU toxicity were more frequent in VMAT than in HT (p = .021 and p = .042, respectively). Late toxicity no longer differed between the two groups up to 24 months after completion of treatment.

CONCLUSION

Use of VMAT was associated with lower costs for IMRT planning and treatment than HT. Similar stabilized long-term toxicity was reported in both groups after higher acute GI and GU toxicity in VMAT. The estimates provided can benefit future modeling work like cost-effectiveness analysis.

Variable and fixed costs in NHS radiotherapy; consequences for increasing hypo fractionation

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

The increased use of hypofractionated radiotherapy changes department activity. While expected to be cost-effective, departments' fixed costs may impede savings. Understanding radiotherapy's cost-drivers, to what extent these are fixed and consequences of reducing activity can help to inform reimbursement strategies.

MATERIAL/METHODS

We estimate the cost of radiotherapy provision, using time-driven activity-based costing, for five bone metastases treatment strategies, in a large NHS provider. We compare these estimations to reimbursement tariff and assess their breakdown by cost types: fixed (buildings), semi-fixed (staff, linear accelerators) and variable (materials) costs. Sensitivity analyses assess the cost-drivers and impact of reducing departmental activity on the costs of remaining treatments, with varying disinvestment assumptions.

RESULTS

The estimated radiotherapy cost for bone metastases ranges from 430.95€ (single fraction) to 4240.76€ (45 Gy in 25#). Provider costs align closely with NHS reimbursement, except for the stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) strategy (tariff exceeding by 15.3%). Semi-fixed staff costs account for 28.1-39.7% and fixed/semi-fixed equipment/space costs 38.5-54.8% of provider costs. Departmental activity is the biggest cost-driver; reduction in activity increasing cost, predominantly in fractionated treatments. Decommissioning linear accelerators ameliorates this, although can only be realised at equipment capacity thresholds.

CONCLUSION

Hypofractionation is less burdensome to patients and long-term offers a cost-efficient mechanism to treat an increasing number of patients within existing capacity. As a large majority of treatment costs are fixed/semi-fixed, disinvestment is complex, within the life expectancy of a linac, imbalances between demand and capacity will result in higher treatment costs. With a per-fraction reimbursement, this may disincentivise delivery of hypofractionated treatments.

Innovation, value and reimbursement in radiation and complex surgical oncology: Time to rethink

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Complex surgery and radiotherapy are the central pillars of loco-regional oncology treatment. This paper describes the reimbursement schemes used in radiation and complex surgical oncology, reports on literature and policy reviews.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic review of the literature of the reimbursement models has been carried out separately for radiotherapy and complex cancer surgery based on PRISMA guidelines. Using searches of PubMed and grey literature, we identified articles from scientific journals and reports published since 2000 on provider payment or reimbursement systems currently used in radiation oncology and complex cancer surgery, also including policy models.

RESULTS

Most European health systems reimburse radiotherapy using a budget-based, fee-for-service or fraction-based system; while few reimburse services according to an episode-based model. Also, the reimbursement models for cancer surgery are mostly restricted to differences embedded in the DRG system and adjustments applied to the fees, based on the complexity of each surgical procedure. There is an enormous variability in reimbursement across countries, resulting in different incentives and different amounts paid for the same therapeutic strategy.

CONCLUSION

A reimbursement policy, based on the episode of care as the basic payment unit, is advocated for. Innovation should be tackled in a two-tier approach: one defining the common criteria for reimbursement of proven evidence-based interventions; another for financing emerging innovation with uncertain definitive value. Relevant clinical and economic data, also collected real-life, should support reimbursement systems that mirror the actual cost of evidence-based practice.

Innovation, value and reimbursement in radiation and complex surgical oncology: time to rethink

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Complex surgery and radiotherapy are the central pillars of loco-regional oncology treatment. This paper describes the reimbursement schemes used in radiation and complex surgical oncology, reports on literature and policy reviews.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic review of the literature of the reimbursement models has been carried out separately for radiotherapy and complex cancer surgery based on PRISMA guidelines. Using searches of PubMed and grey literature, we identified articles from scientific journals and reports published since 2000 on provider payment or reimbursement systems currently used in radiation oncology and complex cancer surgery, also including policy models.

RESULTS

Most European health systems reimburse radiotherapy using a budget-based, fee-for-service or fraction-based system; while few reimburse services according to an episode-based model. Also, the reimbursement models for cancer surgery are mostly restricted to differences embedded in the DRG system and adjustments applied to the fees, based on the complexity of each surgical procedure. There is an enormous variability in reimbursement across countries, resulting in different incentives and different amounts paid for the same therapeutic strategy.

CONCLUSION

A reimbursement policy, based on the episode of care as the basic payment unit, is advocated for. Innovation should be tackled in a two-tier approach: one defining the common criteria for reimbursement of proven evidence-based interventions; another for financing emerging innovation with uncertain definitive value. Relevant clinical and economic data, also collected real-life, should support reimbursement systems that mirror the actual cost of evidence-based practice.

Early health economic analysis of 1.5 T MRI-guided radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: Decision analytic modelling

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

1.5 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging radiotherapy linear accelerator (MR-Linac) is gaining interest for treatment of localized prostate cancer. Clinical evidence is lacking and it therefore remains uncertain whether MR-Linac is cost-effective. An early health economic analysis was performed to calculate the necessary relative reduction in complications and the maximum price of MR-Linac (5 fractions) to be cost-effective compared to 5, 20 and 39 fractionation schedules of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and low-dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A state transition model was developed for men with localized prostate cancer. Complication rates such as grade ≥2 urinary, grade ≥2 bowel and sexual complications, and utilities were based on systematic literature searches. Costs were estimated from a Dutch healthcare perspective. Threshold analyses were performed to identify the thresholds of complications and costs for MR-Linac to be cost-effective, while holding other outcomes such as biochemical progression and mortality constant. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed to outline uncertainty outcomes.

RESULTS

At €6460 per patient, no reductions in complications were needed to consider MR-Linac cost-effective compared to EBRT 20 and 39 fractions. Compared to EBRT 5 fractions and LDR brachytherapy, MR-Linac was found to be cost-effective when complications are relatively reduced by 54% and 66% respectively. Results are highly sensitive to the utilities of urinary, bowel and sexual complications and the probability of biochemical progression.

CONCLUSIONS

MR-Linac is found to be cost-effective compared to 20 and 39 fractions EBRT at baseline. For MR-Linac to become cost-effective over 5 fractions EBRT and LDR brachytherapy, it has to reduce complications substantially or be offered at lower costs.

Cost-effectiveness of postmastectomy hypofractionated radiation therapy vs conventional fractionated radiation therapy for high-risk breast cancer

Background

The phase 3 NCT00793962 trial demonstrated that postmastectomy hypofractionated radiation therapy (HFRT) was noninferior to conventional fractionated radiation therapy (CFRT) in patients with high-risk breast cancer. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of postmastectomy HFRT vs CFRT based on the NCT00793962 trial.

Methods

A Markov model was adopted to synthesize the medical costs and health benefits of patients with high-risk breast cancer based on data from the NCT00793962 trial. Main outcomes were discounted lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). We employed a time-dependent horizon from Chinese, French and USA payer perspectives. Model robustness was evaluated with one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results

Patients receiving CFRT versus HFRT gained an incremental 0.0163 QALYs, 0.0118 QALYs and 0.0028 QALYs; meanwhile an incremental cost of $2351.92, $4978.34 and $8812.70 from Chinese, French and USA payer perspectives, respectively. Thus CFRT versus HFRT yielded an ICER of $144,281.47, $420,636.10 and $3,187,955.76 per QALY from Chinese, French and USA payer perspectives, respectively. HFRT could maintain a trend of >50% probabilities of cost-effectiveness below a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $178,882.00 in China, while HFRT was dominant relative to CFRT, regardless of the WTP values in France and the USA. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the ICERs were most sensitive to the parameters of overall survival after radiotherapy.

Conclusions

Postmastectomy HFRT could be used as a cost-effective substitute for CFRT in patients with high-risk breast cancer and should be considered in appropriately selected patients.

•

HFRT is a cost-effective substitute for CFRT for women with high-risk breast cancer.

•

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio varied in a time-dependent manner and increased with the time horizon.

•

Overall survival were the most influential parameter on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

Costs of Oral Complications of Cancer Therapies: Estimates and a Blueprint for Future Study

Oral complications of cancer treatment are common; however, their clinical and economic importance is often underappreciated. We reviewed the literature on the economic implications of oral complications, updating a previous report in the predecessor to this issue. We searched the Medline and Scopus databases for papers published as of December 31, 2017 that described the economic consequences of preventing and managing oral complications and reviewed the literature reporting the costs of oral mucositis, xerostomia, and osteonecrosis. Cost estimates were inflated to 2017 US dollars. We identified 16 papers describing the cost of managing mucositis, eight describing the cost of osteoradionecrosis, one describing the cost of bisphosphonate-associate osteonecrosis of the jaw, and four describing the cost of xerostomia. The incremental cost of oral mucositis was approximately $5000-$30 000 among patients receiving radiation therapy and $3700 per cycle among patients receiving chemotherapy. The incremental cost of mucositis-related hospitalization among stem cell transplant recipients exceeded $70 000. Conservative management of osteoradionecrosis (antibiotics, debridement) costs $4000-$35 000, although estimates as high as $74 000 have been reported. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy may add $10 000-$50 000 to the cost of therapy. Sialogogues are required for years for the management of xerostomia at a cost of $40-$200 per month. Serious (hospitalization, hyperbaric oxygen therapy) or long-term (sialogogues) outcomes are the major drivers of cost. Future research should address patients' out-of-pocket costs and the costs of oral complications of new treatments. Multisite studies, particularly those conducted by cooperative groups, should be prioritized.

A critical review of recent developments in radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality, and radiotherapy plays a key role in both curative and palliative treatments for this disease. Recent advances include stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR), which is now established as a curative-intent treatment option for patients with peripheral early-stage NSCLC who are medically inoperable, or at high risk for surgical complications. Improved delivery techniques have facilitated studies evaluating the role of SABR in oligometastatic NSCLC, and encouraged the use of high-technology radiotherapy in some palliative settings. Although outcomes in locally advanced NSCLC remain disappointing for many patients, future progress may come about from an improved understanding of disease biology and the development of radiotherapy approaches that further reduce normal tissue irradiation. At the moment, the benefits, if any, of radiotherapy technologies such as proton beam therapy remain unproven. This paper provides a critical review of selected aspects of modern radiotherapy for lung cancer, highlights the current limitations in our understanding and treatment approaches, and discuss future treatment strategies for NSCLC.

Expanding global access to radiotherapy

Radiotherapy is a critical and inseparable component of comprehensive cancer treatment and care. For many of the most common cancers in low-income and middle-income countries, radiotherapy is essential for effective treatment. In high-income countries, radiotherapy is used in more than half of all cases of cancer to cure localised disease, palliate symptoms, and control disease in incurable cancers. Yet, in planning and building treatment capacity for cancer, radiotherapy is frequently the last resource to be considered. Consequently, worldwide access to radiotherapy is unacceptably low. We present a new body of evidence that quantifies the worldwide coverage of radiotherapy services by country. We show the shortfall in access to radiotherapy by country and globally for 2015-35 based on current and projected need, and show substantial health and economic benefits to investing in radiotherapy. The cost of scaling up radiotherapy in the nominal model in 2015-35 is US$26·6 billion in low-income countries, $62·6 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $94·8 billion in upper-middle-income countries, which amounts to $184·0 billion across all low-income and middle-income countries. In the efficiency model the costs were lower: $14·1 billion in low-income, $33·3 billion in lower-middle-income, and $49·4 billion in upper-middle-income countries-a total of $96·8 billion. Scale-up of radiotherapy capacity in 2015-35 from current levels could lead to saving of 26·9 million life-years in low-income and middle-income countries over the lifetime of the patients who received treatment. The economic benefits of investment in radiotherapy are very substantial. Using the nominal cost model could produce a net benefit of $278·1 billion in 2015-35 ($265·2 million in low-income countries, $38·5 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $239·3 billion in upper-middle-income countries). Investment in the efficiency model would produce in the same period an even greater total benefit of $365·4 billion ($12·8 billion in low-income countries, $67·7 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $284·7 billion in upper-middle-income countries). The returns, by the human-capital approach, are projected to be less with the nominal cost model, amounting to $16·9 billion in 2015-35 (-$14·9 billion in low-income countries; -$18·7 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $50·5 billion in upper-middle-income countries). The returns with the efficiency model were projected to be greater, however, amounting to $104·2 billion (-$2·4 billion in low-income countries, $10·7 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $95·9 billion in upper-middle-income countries). Our results provide compelling evidence that investment in radiotherapy not only enables treatment of large numbers of cancer cases to save lives, but also brings positive economic benefits.

Cost calculation: a necessary step towards widespread adoption of advanced radiotherapy technology

Radiotherapy costs are an often underestimated component of the economic assessment of new radiotherapy treatments and technologies. That the radiotherapy budget only consumes a finite part of the total cancer and healthcare budget does not relieve us from our responsibility to balance the extra costs to the additional benefits of new, more advanced, but typically also more expensive treatments we want to deliver. Yet, in contrast to what is the case for oncology drugs, literature evidence remains limited, as well for economic evaluations comparing new radiotherapy interventions as for cost calculation studies. Even more cumbersome, the available costing studies in the field of radiotherapy fail to accurately capture the real costs of our treatments due to the large variation in cost inputs, in scope of the analysis, in costing methodology. And this is not trivial. Accurate resource cost accounting lays the basis for the further steps in health technology assessment leading to radiotherapy investments and reimbursement, at the local, the national and the worldwide level. In the current paper we review some evidence from the existing costing literature and discuss how such data can be used to support reimbursement setting and investment cases for new radiotherapy equipment and infrastructure.

Analyzing multiple learning effects in health care using multilevel modeling: Application to radiotherapy at an early stage of innovation

Objectives:Learning effects may have considerable influence on the performance of new health technologies, thereby on cost-effectiveness and ultimately on resource allocation. In the area of radiotherapy, equipment is becoming increasingly costly and the analysis of learning effects is complex given that sequential treatments are necessary, with multiple sessions for each patient. Our study aimed at analyzing learning effects in radiotherapy at an early stage of innovation.

Methods:We used multilevel analysis to separate out the different learning effects of the new technique. Statistical analysis of observational data collected in a French National prospective survey was performed using an individual growth model. Intrapatient learning was modeled at level 1, and two types of interpatient learning were considered at level 2, regarding possible influences of professional experience on (i) the duration of each patient's first session in a given setting and (ii) the rate of change of session duration over time for a given patient. Conventional radiotherapy was also considered for comparison.

Results:Our results demonstrate a substantial type-1 interpatient learning effect and an even higher intrapatient learning effect. No type-2 interpatient learning was at work: professional experience did not impact intrapatient learning. Moreover, some intrapatient learning was also reported with conventional radiotherapy and was not significantly modified by innovation. Session duration was in any case strongly influenced by disease.

Conclusions:Because professionals highly underestimated the learning phenomenon, assessment of learning cannot be based on professional statements and it requires careful analysis of observational data.