Costs of radiotherapy

Future Treatment Strategies for Cancer Patients Combining Targeted Alpha Therapy with Pillars of Cancer Treatment: External Beam Radiation Therapy, Checkpoint Inhibition Immunotherapy, Cytostatic Chemotherapy, and Brachytherapy

Cancer is one of the most complex and challenging human diseases, with rising incidences and cancer-related deaths despite improved diagnosis and personalized treatment options. Targeted alpha therapy (TαT) offers an exciting strategy emerging for cancer treatment which has proven effective even in patients with advanced metastatic disease that has become resistant to other treatments. Yet, in many cases, more sophisticated strategies are needed to stall disease progression and overcome resistance to TαT. The combination of two or more therapies which have historically been used as stand-alone treatments is an approach that has been pursued in recent years. This review aims to provide an overview on TαT and the four main pillars of therapeutic strategies in cancer management, namely external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), cytostatic chemotherapy (CCT), and brachytherapy (BT), and to discuss their potential use in combination with TαT. A brief description of each therapy is followed by a review of known biological aspects and state-of-the-art treatment practices. The emphasis, however, is given to the motivation for combination with TαT as well as the pre-clinical and clinical studies conducted to date.

Challenges in the Sustainability of Brachytherapy Service in Contemporary Radiotherapy

Brachytherapy has a long history of delivering a highly conformal radiation dose to the target volume with sparing of adjacent normal tissue and has an irreplaceable role in certain cancers, such as cervical and prostate cancers. There have been futile attempts to replace brachytherapy with other radiation techniques. Despite that there are multifaceted challenges in preserving this dying art, from establishment, to a trained workforce, to maintenance of the equipment and source replacement costs. Here we focus on the challenges to access brachytherapy, the availability and distribution of care across the globe and appropriate training leading to proper implementation of the procedure. Brachytherapy holds a significant place in the treatment armamentarium of most common cancers, such as cervical, prostate, head and neck and skin cancers. However, there is an uneven distribution of brachytherapy facilities, not only across the globe, but also at a national level, with a larger proportion of facilities concentrated in certain regions, more so in low and low-middle income countries. The regions with the highest incidence of cervical cancer have the least access to brachytherapy facilities. Attempts to bridge the gap are essential and should be focused on uniform distribution and access to care, improving training of the workforce through specialised training programmes, reducing the cost of care, planning to reduce the recurring cost, generating evidence and research guidelines, renewing interest in brachytherapy through rebranding, use of social media and building an attainable long-term roadmap.

Global Radiotherapy: Current Status and Future Directions-White Paper

Recognizing the increase in cancer incidence globally and the need for effective cancer control interventions, several organizations, professional bodies, and international institutions have proposed strategies to improve treatment options and reduce mortality along with minimizing overall incidence. Despite these efforts, an estimated 9.6 million deaths in 2018 was attributed to this noncommunicable disease, making it the second leading cause of death worldwide. Left unchecked, this will further increase in scale, with an estimated 29.5 million new cases and 16.3 million deaths occurring worldwide in 2040. Although it is known and generally accepted that cancer services must include radiotherapy, such access is still very limited in many parts of the world, especially in low- and middle-income countries. After thorough review of the current status of radiotherapy including programs worldwide, as well as achievements and challenges at the global level, the International Atomic Energy Agency convened an international group of experts representing various radiation oncology societies to take a closer look into the current status of radiotherapy and provide a road map for future directions in this field. It was concluded that the plethora of global and regional initiatives would benefit further from the existence of a central framework, including an easily accessible repository through which better coordination can be done. Supporting this framework, a practical inventory of competencies needs to be made available on a global level emphasizing the knowledge, skills, and behavior required for a safe, sustainable, and professional practice for various settings. This white paper presents the current status of global radiotherapy and future directions for the community. It forms the basis for an action plan to be developed with professional societies worldwide.

The Financial Impact on Reimbursement of Moderately Hypofractionated Postoperative Radiation Therapy for Breast Cancer: An International Consortium Report

AIMS

Moderately hypofractionated breast irradiation has been evaluated in several prospective studies, resulting in wide acceptance of shorter treatment protocols for postoperative breast irradiation. Reimbursement for radiation therapy varies between private and public systems and between countries, impacting variably financial considerations in the use of hypofractionation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the financial impact of moderately hypofractionated breast irradiation by reimbursement system in different countries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was designed by an international group of radiation oncologists. A web-questionnaire was distributed to representatives from each country. The participants were asked to involve the financial consultant at their institution.

RESULTS

Data from 13 countries from all populated continents were collected (Europe: Denmark, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, UK; North America: Canada, USA; South America: Brazil; Africa: South Africa; Oceania: Australia; Asia: Israel, Taiwan). Clinicians and/or departments in most of the countries surveyed (77%) receive remuneration based on the number of fractions delivered to the patient. The financial loss per patient estimated resulting from applying moderately hypofractionated breast irradiation instead of conventional fractionation ranged from 5-10% to 30-40%, depending on the healthcare provider.

CONCLUSION

Although a generalised adoption of moderately hypofractionated breast irradiation would allow for a considerable reduction in social and economic burden, the financial loss for the healthcare providers induced by fee-for-service remuneration may be a factor in the slow uptake of these regimens. Therefore, fee-for-service reimbursement may not be preferable for radiation oncology. We propose that an alternative system of remuneration, such as bundled payments based on stage and diagnosis, may provide more value for all stakeholders.

Accurate method for evaluating the duration of the entire radiotherapy process

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Along with the increasing demand for high-quality radiotherapy and the growing number of high-precision radiotherapy devices, precise radiotherapy workflow management and accurate time evaluation of the entire radiotherapy process are crucial to providing appropriate, timely treatment for cancer patients. This study therefore aimed to establish an accurate, reliable method for evaluating the duration of the radiotherapy process, from beginning to end, based on real-time measurement data. These data are vital for improving the quality and efficiency of radiotherapy delivery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Altogether, 17 620 cancer patients' radiotherapy experiences were measured in real time in our radiation oncology department. The process was divided into five sequential core modules, with the start and stop times of each module automatically recorded using MOSAIQ software, an automated radiotherapy management system. The duration for each module and the total duration of the entire process were then automatically calculated and qualitatively analyzed.

RESULTS

The analysis showed significant treatment-time differences depending on the tumor site, which provided a practical reference for improvement of previous treatment modules and appointments management. In all, >60% of the cancer patients' total treatment time could be shortened.

CONCLUSIONS

We established a reliable method for evaluating the overall duration of radiotherapy protocols. The results pointed out a clear pathway by which we could improve future radiotherapy workflow management and appointment systems.

Number of radiotherapy treatment machines in the population and cancer mortality: an ecological study

Objectives

The aim of this study was to assess the association between the number of radiotherapy treatment machines (RTMs) in the population and incidence-adjusted cancer mortality.

Methods

Data on cancer incidence and mortality were obtained from the GLOBOCAN project (only high-quality data, C3, or higher according to GLOBOCAN quality label), information on the number of RTMs from the Directory of Radiotherapy Centers database, and remaining data from the World Bank and World Health Organization database. We used linear regression models to assess the associations between RTM per 10,000,000 inhabitants (logarithmized) and the log-transformed mortality/incidence ratio. Models were adjusted for public health variables. To assess the bias due to unobserved confounders, mortality from leukemia was considered as a negative control. Here radiotherapy treatment is less frequently applied, but a common set of confounders is shared with cancer types where radiotherapy plays a stronger role, enabling us to estimate the bias due to confounding of unmeasured parameters. To assess an exposure–effect size relationship, estimated cancer type-specific estimates were related to the proportion of subjects receiving radiotherapy.

Results

We found an inverse linear relationship between RTM in the population and the cancer mortality to incidence ratio for prostate cancer (14.1% per doubling of RTM; 95% CI: 0.1%–26.1%), female breast cancer (12.3%; 95% CI: 2.7%–20.9%), and lung cancer in women (11.2%; 95% CI: 4.3%–17.6%). There was no evidence for bias due to unobserved confounders after covariate adjustment. For women, an exposure-effect size relationship was found (P=0.02).

Conclusion

In this ecological study, we found evidence that the population density of RTM is related to cancer mortality independently of other public health parameters.

Practice-changing radiation therapy trials for the treatment of cancer: where are we 150 years after the birth of Marie Curie?

As we mark 150 years since the birth of Marie Curie, we reflect on the global advances made in radiation oncology and the current status of radiation therapy (RT) research. Large-scale international RT clinical trials have been fundamental in driving evidence-based change and have served to improve cancer management and to reduce side effects. Radiation therapy trials have also improved practice by increasing quality assurance and consistency in treatment protocols across multiple centres. This review summarises some of the key RT practice-changing clinical trials over the last two decades, in four common cancer sites for which RT is a crucial component of curative treatment: breast, lung, urological and lower gastro-intestinal cancer. We highlight the global inequality in access to RT, and the work of international organisations, such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), and the United Kingdom National Cancer Research Institute Clinical and Translational Radiotherapy Research Working Group (CTRad), that aim to improve access to RT and facilitate radiation research. We discuss some emerging RT technologies including proton beam therapy and magnetic resonance linear accelerators and predict likely future directions in clinical RT research.

Cost evaluations of radiotherapy: What do we know? An ESTRO-HERO analysis

Although economic evidence is becoming mandatory to support health care decision-making, challenges remain in generating high quality cost data, especially for complex and rapidly evolving treatment modalities, such as radiotherapy. The overall aim of this systematic literature review was to critically analyse the type and quality of radiotherapy cost information available in cost calculation studies, from the health care provider's perspective, published since 1981. A selection process, based on strict and explicit criteria, yielded 52 articles. In spite of meeting our criteria these studies displayed large heterogeneity in scope, costing method, inputs and outputs. The limited use of conventional costing methodologies along with insufficient information on resource inputs hampered comparability across studies. A consistent picture of radiotherapy costs, based on methodologically sound costing studies, has yet to emerge. These results call for developing a well-defined and generally accepted cost methodology for performing economic evaluation studies in radiotherapy.

The evolution of brachytherapy for prostate cancer

Brachytherapy (BT), using low-dose-rate (LDR) permanent seed implantation or high-dose-rate (HDR) temporary source implantation, is an acceptable treatment option for select patients with prostate cancer of any risk group. The benefits of HDR-BT over LDR-BT include the ability to use the same source for other cancers, lower operator dependence, and - typically - fewer acute irritative symptoms. By contrast, the benefits of LDR-BT include more favourable scheduling logistics, lower initial capital equipment costs, no need for a shielded room, completion in a single implant, and more robust data from clinical trials. Prospective reports comparing HDR-BT and LDR-BT to each other or to other treatment options (such as external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or surgery) suggest similar outcomes. The 5-year freedom from biochemical failure rates for patients with low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk disease are >85%, 69-97%, and 63-80%, respectively. Brachytherapy with EBRT (versus brachytherapy alone) is an appropriate approach in select patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk disease. The 10-year rates of overall survival, distant metastasis, and cancer-specific mortality are >85%, <10%, and <5%, respectively. Grade 3-4 toxicities associated with HDR-BT and LDR-BT are rare, at <4% in most series, and quality of life is improved in patients who receive brachytherapy compared with those who undergo surgery.

A comparison of robotic arm versus gantry linear accelerator stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is the most prevalent cancer diagnosed in men in the United States besides skin cancer. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT; 6–15 Gy per fraction, up to 45 minutes per fraction, delivered in five fractions or less, over the course of approximately 2 weeks) is emerging as a popular treatment option for prostate cancer. The American Society for Radiation Oncology now recognizes SBRT for select low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients. SBRT grew from the notion that high doses of radiation typical of brachytherapy could be delivered noninvasively using modern external-beam radiation therapy planning and delivery methods. SBRT is most commonly delivered using either a traditional gantry-mounted linear accelerator or a robotic arm-mounted linear accelerator. In this systematic review article, we compare and contrast the current clinical evidence supporting a gantry vs robotic arm SBRT for prostate cancer. The data for SBRT show encouraging and comparable results in terms of freedom from biochemical failure (>90% for low and intermediate risk at 5–7 years) and acute and late toxicity (<6% grade 3–4 late toxicities). Other outcomes (eg, overall and cancer-specific mortality) cannot be compared, given the indolent course of low-risk prostate cancer. At this time, neither SBRT device is recommended over the other for all patients; however, gantry-based SBRT machines have the abilities of treating larger volumes with conventional fractionation, shorter treatment time per fraction (~15 minutes for gantry vs ~45 minutes for robotic arm), and the ability to achieve better plans among obese patients (since they are able to use energies >6 MV). Finally, SBRT (particularly on a gantry) may also be more cost-effective than conventionally fractionated external-beam radiation therapy. Randomized controlled trials of SBRT using both technologies are underway.

Demand for radiotherapy in Spain

AIM

Assessing the demand for radiotherapy in Spain based on existing evidence to estimate the human resources and equipment needed so that every person in Spain has access to high-quality radiotherapy when they need it.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We used data from the European Cancer Observatory on the estimated incidence of cancer in Spain in 2012, along with the evidence-based indications for radiotherapy developed by the Australian CCORE project, to obtain an optimal radiotherapy utilisation proportion (OUP) for each tumour.

RESULTS

About 50.5 % of new cancers in Spain require radiotherapy at least once over the course of the disease. Additional demand for these services comes from reradiation therapy and non-melanoma skin cancer. Approximately, 25-30 % of cancer patients with an indication for radiotherapy do not receive it due to factors that include access, patient preference, familiarity with the treatment among physicians, and especially resource shortages, all of which contribute to its underutilisation.

CONCLUSIONS

Radiotherapy is underused in Spain. The increasing incidence of cancer expected over the next decade and the greater frequency of reradiations necessitate the incorporation of radiotherapy demand into need-based calculations for cancer services planning.

The changes of radiotherapy in Lithuania: infrastructure, utilization rate, and cost

Background. The aim of this study was to evaluate radiation therapy (RT) productivity, capacity, and cost in Lithuania. Materials and methods. An electronic questionnaire was prepared and sent to the country's RT centres. The data was collected for the years 2011-2014. The early data of the RT infrastructure was obtained from the QUARTS Project (2001). Results. In Lithuania the external beam RT was applied to 32.6% of new cancer cases (non-melanomatous skin cancer and benign conditions were excluded). In 2014, RT was more frequently applied for breast and prostate carcinomas, 23 and 20%, respectively. The country owned 11 units of linear accelerators (linacs) and this accounts for 3.7 linacs per one million population. 3D conformal RT is the standard approach in all four RT centres in Lithuania. IMRT practices were established in three centers and VMAT or stereotactic RT in two of them. 73% of linacs were capable of IGRT, while only 27% were equipped with CBCT. The average linac workload was 567 patients per year and showed a 10% decrease compared with the 2011 data. During a ten-year period, the average cost per patient for RT treatment increased 7.6 times - from EUR 129 to 974. The reimbursement system in Lithuania is not favourable for application of RT. Conclusions. During the recent thirteen years, RT services in Lithuania have dramatically improved, but we are still behind the average of European countries and benchmark rates. It is important to continue optimising the efficiency of RT services, and further evidence-based studies on RT infrastructure assessment and planning are needed.

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.

Barriers to radiotherapy utilisation in New South Wales Australia: Health professionals' perceptions of impacting factors

INTRODUCTION

Utilisation of radiation therapy (RT) in Australia is below recommended evidence-based benchmarks. Barriers to the referral of patients for RT and the uptake of RT by patients may be affecting RT utilisation. The current study aimed to examine health professionals' (HPs) perceptions of potential barriers to RT referral and uptake.

METHODS

A custom survey was developed to assess perceptions regarding the degree to which a range of issues affect decisions regarding RT. Hard copy surveys were disseminated to HPs involved in the care of cancer patients across New South Wales (NSW): medical, radiation and surgical oncologists, physicians (including palliative care), and general practitioners with an interest in oncology. Electronic versions of the survey were disseminated via oncology multidisciplinary teams and professional networks at participating hospitals.

RESULTS

Two hundred fifty-three HPs participated via hard copy (n = 208) or electronic (n = 45) surveys. Two-thirds of HPs perceived acute side effects of RT, their management and impact on daily commitments, as well as fear and anxiety about RT, to exert moderate to significant influence on RT decisions. Treatment-related travel, need for accommodation and relocation were also perceived by 64% of HPs to do the same. Over half of HPs rated concern regarding late effects of RT, disruption to family and work life, and the ability to organise family and work commitments around RT, as moderate to significant influences on RT uptake.

CONCLUSION

Perceptions of HPs in NSW reveal potential important influencers of RT decisions by patients and clinicians. An understanding of these additional issues and their actual impact on RT-related decisions may inform future interventions to improve RT access and utilisation.

Direct costs of radiotherapy for rectal cancer: a microcosting study

Background

Radiotherapy provides significant benefits in terms of reducing risk of local recurrence and death from rectal cancer. Despite this, up-to-date cost estimates for radiotherapy are lacking, potentially inhibiting policy and decision-making. Our objective was to generate an up-to-date estimate of the cost of traditional radiotherapy for rectal cancer and model the impact of a range of potential efficiency improvements.

Methods

Microcosting methods were used to estimate total direct radiotherapy costs for long- (assumed at 45-50 Gy in 25 daily fractions over a 5 week period) and short-courses (assumed at 25 Gy in 5 daily fractions over a one week period). Following interviews and on-site visits to radiotherapy departments in two designated cancer centers, a radiotherapy care pathway for a typical rectal cancer patient was developed. Total direct costs were derived by applying fixed and variable unit costs to resource use within each care phase. Costs included labor, capital, consumables and overheads. Sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results

Radiotherapy treatment was estimated to cost between €2,080 (5-fraction course) and €3,609 (25-fraction course) for an average patient in 2012. Costs were highest in the treatment planning phase for the short-course (€1,217; 58% of total costs), but highest in the radiation treatment phase for the long-course (€1,974: 60% of total costs). By simultaneously varying treatment time, capacity utilization rates and linear accelerator staff numbers, the base cost fell by 20% for 5-fractions: (€1,660) and 35% for 25-fractions: (€2,354).

Conclusions

Traditional radiotherapy for rectal cancer is relatively inexpensive. Moreover, significant savings may be achievable through service organization and provision changes. These results suggest that a strong economic argument can be made for expanding the use of radiotherapy in rectal cancer treatment.

Is robotic arm stereotactic body radiation therapy “virtual high dose ratebrachytherapy” for prostate cancer? An analysis of comparative effectiveness using published data [corrected]

High-dose rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) monotherapy and robotic arm (i.e., CyberKnife) stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) are emerging technologies that have become popular treatment options for prostate cancer. Proponents of both HDR-BT monotherapy and robotic arm SBRT claim that these modalities are as efficacious as intensity-modulated radiation therapy in treating prostate cancer. Moreover, proponents of robotic arm SBRT believe it is more effective than HDR-BT monotherapy because SBRT is non-invasive, touting it as 'virtual HDR-BT.' We perform a comparative effective analysis of the two technologies. The tumor control rates and toxicities of HDR-BT monotherapy and robotic arm SBRT are promising. However, at present, it would be inappropriate to state that HDR-BT monotherapy and robotic arm SBRT are as efficacious or effective as other treatment modalities for prostate cancer, which have stronger foundations of evidence. Studies reporting on these technologies have relatively short follow-up time, few patients and are largely retrospective.

Palliative radiotherapy in addition to self-expanding metal stent for improving dysphagia and survival in advanced oesophageal cancer (ROCS: Radiotherapy after Oesophageal Cancer Stenting): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The single most distressing symptom for patients with advanced esophageal cancer is dysphagia. Amongst the more effective treatments for relief of dysphagia is insertion of a self-expanding metal stent (SEMS). It is possible that the addition of a palliative dose of external beam radiotherapy may prolong the relief of dysphagia and provide additional survival benefit. The ROCS trial will assess the effect of adding palliative radiotherapy after esophageal stent insertion.

METHODS/DESIGN

The study is a randomized multicenter phase III trial, with an internal pilot phase, comparing stent alone versus stent plus palliative radiotherapy in patients with incurable esophageal cancer. Eligible participants are those with advanced esophageal cancer who are in need of stent insertion for primary management of dysphagia. Radiotherapy will be administered as 20 Gray (Gy) in five fractions over one week or 30 Gy in 10 fractions over two weeks, within four weeks of stent insertion. The internal pilot will assess rates and methods of recruitment; pre-agreed criteria will determine progression to the main trial. In total, 496 patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio with follow up until death. The primary outcome is time to progression of patient-reported dysphagia. Secondary outcomes include survival, toxicity, health resource utilization, and quality of life. An embedded qualitative study will explore the feasibility of patient recruitment by examining patients' motivations for involvement and their experiences of consent and recruitment, including reasons for not consenting. It will also explore patients' experiences of each trial arm.

DISCUSSION

The ROCS study will be a challenging trial studying palliation in patients with a poor prognosis. The internal pilot design will optimize methods for recruitment and data collection to ensure that the main trial is completed on time. As a pragmatic trial, study strengths include collection of all follow-up data in the usual place of care, and a focus on patient-reported, rather than disease-orientated, outcomes. Exploration of patient experience and health economic analyses will be integral to the assessment of benefit for patients and the NHS.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered with Current Controlled Trials (registration number: ISRCTN12376468) on 10 July 2012.

Do theoretical potential and advanced technology justify the use of high-dose rate brachytherapy as monotherapy for prostate cancer?

Low-dose rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT), involving implantation of radioactive seeds into the prostate, is an established monotherapy for most low-risk and select intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer patients. High-dose rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) is an advanced technology theorized to be more advantageous than LDR-BT from a radiobiological and radiophysics perspective, to the patient himself, and in terms of resource allocation. Studies of HDR-BT monotherapy have encouraging results in terms of biochemical control, patient survival, treatment toxicity and erectile preservation. However, there are still certain limitations that preclude recommending HDR-BT monotherapy for prostate cancer outside the setting of a clinical trial. HDR-BT monotherapy should be considered experimental at present.

Factors influencing the use of RT in NSW: a qualitative study exploring consumer and health professional perspectives

INTRODUCTION

Radiotherapy (RT) is an essential and cost-effective cancer treatment. It is underutilised in Australia. Bridging the gap between actual and optimal RT utilisation requires not only provision of adequate RT infrastructure but also an understanding of the factors that influence the extent to which this opportunity for RT is utilised. This study explored factors perceived to affect RT-related decision making by consumers and health professionals (HPs).

METHODS

Six semi-structured focus groups (FGs) and 13 interviews were conducted at three geographical locations in NSW, Australia (n = 26 consumers and 30 HPs). Audio recordings of FGs and interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically.

RESULTS

An exhaustive list of issues perceived to affect consumer and HP RT decisions was identified. There were common themes across participant groups and locations. Perceptions of RT and its benefits, as well as accurate communication of the expected benefits and risks of RT, were highlighted as important to decision making. Perceived factors relating to 'inconvenience' of RT were multifaceted and included travel, relocation, accommodation, time away from work and financial challenges. Perceived potential barriers to RT referral included knowledge of RT and RT services, availability of a local or visiting RT service, referrer bias, and the low profile of RT.

CONCLUSIONS

Important drivers during RT decisions appear to include the perceived benefit, risks and inconvenience of RT. Underutilisation of RT may also result from multiple barriers at the referrer level. Further research into whether these factors influence actual RT decisions is needed.

In search of the economic sustainability of Hadron therapy: the real cost of setting up and operating a Hadron facility

PURPOSE

To determine the treatment cost and required reimbursement for a new hadron therapy facility, considering different technical solutions and financing methods.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The 3 technical solutions analyzed are a carbon only (COC), proton only (POC), and combined (CC) center, each operating 2 treatment rooms and assumed to function at full capacity. A business model defines the required reimbursement and analyzes the financial implications of setting up a facility over time; activity-based costing (ABC) calculates the treatment costs per type of patient for a center in a steady state of operation. Both models compare a private, full-cost approach with public sponsoring, only taking into account operational costs.

RESULTS

Yearly operational costs range between €10.0M (M = million) for a publicly sponsored POC to €24.8M for a CC with private financing. Disregarding inflation, the average treatment cost calculated with ABC (COC: €29,450; POC: €46,342; CC: €46,443 for private financing; respectively €16,059, €28,296, and €23,956 for public sponsoring) is slightly lower than the required reimbursement based on the business model (between €51,200 in a privately funded POC and €18,400 in COC with public sponsoring). Reimbursement for privately financed centers is very sensitive to a delay in commissioning and to the interest rate. Higher throughput and hypofractionation have a positive impact on the treatment costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Both calculation methods are valid and complementary. The financially most attractive option of a publicly sponsored COC should be balanced to the clinical necessities and the sociopolitical context.

Evaluating the attendance of medical staff and room occupancy during palliative radiotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Attendance of staff and use of resources during treatment have an impact on costs. For palliative radiotherapy, no reliable data are available on the subject. Therefore, the measurement of selected variables (staff absorbance and room occupancy) based on daily palliative irradiation was the aim of our prospective study. The analysis is part of a larger study conducted by the German Society of Radiation Oncology (DEGRO).

PATIENTS, MATERIAL, AND METHODS

A total of 172 palliative radiation treatments were followed up prospectively between October 2009 and March 2010. The study was performed at two experienced radiotherapy departments (Herne and Bielefeld) and evaluated the attendance of medical personnel and room occupancy related to the selected steps of the treatment procedure: treatment planning and daily application of radiation dose.

RESULTS

Computed tomography for treatment planning engaged the unit for 19 min (range: 17-22 min). The localization of target volume required on average 28 min of a technician's working time. The mean attendance of the entire staff (radiation oncologist, physicist, technician) for treatment planning was 159 min, while the total room occupancy was 140 min. Depending on the type of treatment, the overall duration of a radiotherapy session varied on average between 8 and 18 min. The staff was absorbed by the first treatment session (including portal imaging) for 8-27 min. Mean room occupancy was 18 min (range: 6-65 min). The longest medical staff attendance was observed during an initial irradiation session (mean: 11 min). Radiotherapy sessions with weekly performed field verifications occupied the rooms slightly longer (mean: 10 min, range: 4-25 min) than daily radiotherapy sessions (mean: 9 min, range: 3-29 min). We observed that the patients' symptoms, their condition, and their social environment confounded the time schedule.

CONCLUSIONS

Target localization, treatment planning, and performance of palliative radiotherapy absorb resources to an extent comparable to nonpalliative treatment. Because of unexpected events, the time schedule before and during radiotherapy may reveal strong interindividual variability.

Systematic review of hypofractionated radiation therapy for prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is the second most prevalent solid tumor diagnosed in men in the United States and Western Europe. Conventionally fractionated external beam radiation therapy (1.8-2.0 Gy/fraction) is an established treatment modality for men in all disease risk groups. Emerging evidence from experimental and clinical studies suggests that the α/β ratio for prostate cancer may be as low as 1.5 Gy, which has prompted investigators around the world to explore moderately hypofractionated radiation therapy (2.1-3.5 Gy/fraction). We review the impetus behind moderate hypofractionation and the current clinical evidence supporting moderate hypofractionated radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Although hypofractionated radiation therapy has many theoretical advantages, there is no clear evidence from prospective, randomized, controlled trials showing that hypofractionated schedules have improved outcomes or lower toxicity than conventionally fractionated regimens. Currently, hypofractionated schedules should only be used in the context of clinical trials. High dose rate brachytherapy and stereotactic body radiation therapy (fraction size 3.5 Gy and greater) are alternative approaches to hypofractionation, but are beyond the scope of this report.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer: is the technology ready to be the standard of care?

Prostate cancer is the second most prevalent solid tumor diagnosed in men in the United States and Western Europe. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is touted as a superior type of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for the treatment of various tumors. SBRT developed from the theory that high doses of radiation from brachytherapy implant seeds could be recapitulated from advanced technology of radiation treatment planning and delivery. Moreover, SBRT has been theorized to be advantageous compared to other RT techniques because it has a treatment course shorter than that of conventionally fractionated EBRT (a single session, five days per week, for about two weeks vs. eight weeks), is non-invasive, is more effective at killing tumor cells, and is less likely to cause damage to normal tissue. In areas of the US and Europe where there is limited access to RT centers, SBRT is frequently being used to treat prostate cancer, even though long-term data about its efficacy and safety are not well established. We review the impetus behind SBRT and the current clinical evidence supporting its use for prostate cancer, thus providing oncologists and primary care physicians with an understanding of the continually evolving field of prostate radiation therapy. Studies of SBRT provide encouraging results of biochemical control and late toxicity. However, they are limited by a number of factors, including short follow-up, exclusion of intermediate- and high-risk patients, and relatively small number of patients treated. Currently, SBRT regimens should only be used in the context of clinical trials.

Evaluation of time, attendance of medical staff, and resources during radiotherapy for breast cancer patients. The DEGRO-QUIRO trial

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

To conform to recommendations regarding the treatment of breast cancer, an estimation of costs and personnel to assure treatment is required. To date no recommendations based on real time measurements are available. The DEGRO (German Society of Radiation Oncology), therefore, initiated a prospective multicenter evaluation of core procedures of radiotherapy. In this analysis, the results regarding human resources and room occupation during the treatment of breast cancer are presented.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Three academic radiation oncology centers (Erlangen, Münster, Mannheim) prospectively documented their workflow and working time for all breast cancer patients from July-October 2008. Subsequently, a statistical analysis was performed.

RESULTS

The longest working time of physicians was the definition of the target volume and organs at risk (mean 33 min). Furthermore, physicians needed much time for general tasks, which included conversations. Physicists needed the most time for treatment planning and authorization (64 min), whereas technicians were mostly needed in day-to-day radiotherapy treatment (15 min, 31 min including verification). Despite significant differences in specific steps between centers, overall working times and room occupation were comparable and representative. Special procedures (intraoperative radiotherapy/multicatheter brachytherapy) required considerable amounts of additional working time of physicians and physicists.

CONCLUSION

In this prospective analysis, data of human resources and room occupation during treatment of breast cancer are presented for the first time. Each patient consumes about 12 h of human resources for treatment and 3.75 h for general tasks (physicians 4.7 h, physicists 1.8 h, and technicians 9.2 h).

The cost of radiotherapy in a decade of technology evolution

PURPOSE

To quantify changes in radiotherapy costs occurring in a decade of medical-technological evolution.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The activity-based costing (ABC) model of the University Hospitals Leuven (UHL) radiotherapy (RT) department was adapted to current RT standards. It allocated actual resource costs to the treatments based on the departmental work-flow and patient mix in 2009. A benchmark with the former model analyzed the cost increases related to changes in RT infrastructure and practice over 10 years.

RESULTS

A considerable increase in total RT costs was observed, resulting from higher capital investments (96%) and personnel cost (103%), the latter dominating the total picture. Treatment delivery remains the most costly activity, boosted by the cost of improved quality assurance (QA), 23% of total product costs, coming along with more advanced RT techniques. Hence, cost increases at the product level are most obvious for complex treatments, such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), representing cost increases ranging between 38% and 88% compared to conformal approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

The ABC model provides insight into the financial consequences of evolving technology and practice. Such data are a mandatory first step in our strive to prove RT cost-effectiveness and thus support optimal reimbursement and provision of radiotherapy departments.

'GAP' in radiotherapy services in Australia and New Zealand in 2009

AIM

In this study we estimated (a) the number of linear accelerators required in Australia and New Zealand to achieve a 52.3% treatment rate; (b) the 'GAP' between the actual and required number of linear accelerators; c) the number of persons not treated (PNT), premature deaths (PD) and years of life lost (YLL) as a result of the 'GAP'; and (d) to review the actions being taken by health jurisdictions in Australia and in New Zealand to address the 'GAP' and reach the 52.3% treatment rate.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The actual number of fully staffed and operating linear accelerators (A) in Australian and New Zealand was obtained from a survey of radiotherapy facilities in December 2009. The required number of linear accelerators (R) was calculated from the projected cancer incidence figures for 2009 and was based on 1.6 linear accelerators being required per 1000 new cancer patients. The 'GAP' in Radiotherapy services (G) was R minus A. The maximum treatment capacity (MTC) was the ratio of A over R multiplied by 52.3%, assuming that all linear accelerators were operating at 100% capacity. As each linear accelerator can treat 331 new patients each year, the number of new cancer PNT is G x 331. The estimated 5-year survival benefit from radiotherapy is 16%, and the average survival for all patients receiving radiotherapy (radical and palliative) is 0.76 year. Hence, the number of PD attributed to the 'GAP' is PNT x 16%, and the YLL to cancer is PNT x 0.76. A literature search and local knowledge of health department Radiotherapy Plans in all jurisdictions were used to determine the action being taken to achieve a 52.3% treatment rate.

RESULTS

In 2009, the 'GAP' was 50 linear accelerators in Australia and the MTC was 38%, the same as it was in 1999, but there has been an increase in PNT each year from 7419 in 1999 to 16,550 in 2009, and PD each year increased from 1187 in 1999 to 2649 in 2009, and YLL each year increased from 5638 in 1999 to 12,585 in 2009. In New Zealand in 2009, the 'GAP' was nine linear accelerators and the MTC was 38%. An estimated 3310 persons did not receive radiotherapy in 2009 in New Zealand, and as a result, there were 523 PD and 2266 YLL. The review showed that new and replacement machines were being installed in all jurisdictions in Australia and in New Zealand. Only Victoria and Queensland have a Radiotherapy Plan beyond 2010, but both have underestimated the projected cancer incidence.

CONCLUSION

Urgent action is needed by health departments and governments on both sides of the Tasman to improve access and equity to this essential cancer treatment. There is merit in the Baume Report recommendation of establishing a national body to oversee radiotherapy services in all jurisdictions in Australia. A similar central body should also be considered for New Zealand.

Hypofractionated breast radiotherapy: financial and economic consequences

A large amount of clinical evidence has recently accumulated supporting the efficacy and safety of hypofractionated radiotherapy for post-operative breast cancer. These schedules, typically delivering a lower total dose in fewer, but larger than 2 Gy fractions, are more convenient for the patients by limiting the number of treatment attendances. Moreover, the reduced resource use in terms of personnel and machine time is advantageous for radiotherapy departments and translates into lower treatment costs. In order to formally validate this therapeutic approach from a societal perspective, however, cost-effectiveness evaluations weighing long-term outcome against the societal costs incurred until many years after treatment are needed.

Number of patients potentially eligible for proton therapy

A group of Swedish radiation oncologists and hospital physicists have estimated the number of patients in Sweden suitable for proton beam therapy in a facility where one of the principal aims is to facilitate randomized and other studies in which the advantage of protons can be shown and the magnitude of the differences compared with optimally administered conventional radiation treatment, also including intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and brachytherapy, can be shown. The estimations have been based on current statistics of tumour incidence in Sweden, number of patients potentially eligible for radiation treatment, scientific support from clinical trials and model dose planning studies and knowledge of the dose-response relations of different tumours together with information on normal tissue complication rates. In Sweden, it is assessed that between 2200 and 2500 patients annually are eligible for proton beam therapy, and that for these patients the potential therapeutic benefit is so great as to justify the additional expense of proton therapy. This constitutes between 14-15% of all irradiated patients annually.

Lung cancer patients in Queensland suffer delays in receiving radiation therapy--but not as a result of distance

AIM

To determine whether lung cancer radiation therapy waiting times in Queensland public hospitals are associated with distance of residence from the nearest treatment facility.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of radiation therapy waiting times of 1535 Queensland residents who were diagnosed with lung cancer from 2000 to 2004 and received radiation therapy as initial treatment at a public hospital. The effect of distance of residence from treatment centre on median waiting time was analysed by quantile regression controlling for sex, age, lung cancer histology, stage and therapeutic intent.

RESULTS

The median waiting time from diagnosis to start of radiation therapy was 33 days for all patients. There was no significant difference (P = 0.141) in median waiting times in relation to distance of residence from a treatment centre. However, in most patients, waiting times were significantly longer than recommended by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists. Curative patients waited longer than palliative patients, while patients with earlier stage cancer waited longer than those with more advanced disease.

CONCLUSION

Waiting times for radiation therapy among lung cancer patients in Queensland was not associated with distance from place of residence to the nearest public treatment facility. However, delays overall are excessive and are likely to worsen unless radiation treatment capabilities are enhanced to keep pace with population growth in Queensland.

Radiotherapy for lung cancer: clinical impact of recent technical advances

Radiation oncology plays an important role in the curative treatment of patients with lung cancer. New technological developments have enabled delivery of higher radiation doses while better sparing surrounding normal tissues, thereby increasing the likelihood of local control without increased toxicity. Multi-modality imaging enables better target definition, improved planning software allows for correct calculation of delivered doses, and tools to verify accurate treatment delivery are now available. A good example of the results of applying these developments is the high local control rates achieved in stage I NSCLC with stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT). These advances are rapidly becoming available outside academic institutions, and pulmonologists, surgeons and medical oncologists need to understand and critically assess the potential impact of such developments in the routine care of their patients. Aspects of cost-effectiveness of technical innovations, as well as the level of evidence required before widespread clinical implementation, will be addressed.

Radiation therapy treatment verification imaging in Australia and New Zealand

An original questionnaire was used to investigate the available types of reference and treatment image verification equipment and specific practices related to image analysis. A section on treatment site-specific imaging was included. The questionnaire was distributed to all radiation oncology facilities in Australia and New Zealand. A response rate of 87% (40/46) was achieved. Most facilities (90%) in Australia and New Zealand reported the availability of electronic portal imaging devices. Use of computer software to assist with image interpretation was indicated by 92% of centres. Frequency of image acquisition and tolerance levels used for radical treatment sites were variable, but palliative treatment site protocols were more consistent between treatment facilities. In conclusion, departments should strive to use evidence-based protocols and guidelines to ensure acceptable accuracy in treatment delivery.

Randomized controlled trials in health technology assessment: overkill or overdue?

Evidence-based medicine has become a cornerstone in the development of radiation oncology and the randomized controlled phase III trial remains the gold standard for assessing differential benefits in clinical outcome between therapies. Health technologies aimed at improving treatment quality should primarily be tested using process measures or operational characteristics, the reason being that the sensitivity and specificity of clinical outcome is low for detecting quality improvements. The ongoing discussion of the relative merits of intensity modulated photon versus proton radiotherapy is used to illustrate these concepts. Concerns over clinical and individual equipoise as well as the potential limitations of health economics considerations in this setting are also discussed. Working in a technology and science based medical discipline, radiation oncology researchers need to further develop methodology for critical assessment of health technologies as a complement to randomized controlled trials.