TY - JOUR
T1 - Cost effectiveness of proton versus photon radiation therapy with respect to the risk of growth hormone deficiency in children
AU - Mailhot Vega, Raymond
AU - Kim, Jane
AU - Hollander, Abby
AU - Hattangadi-Gluth, Jona
AU - Michalski, Jeff
AU - Tarbell, Nancy J.
AU - Yock, Torunn I.
AU - Bussiere, Marc
AU - Macdonald, Shannon M.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 American Cancer Society.
PY - 2015/5/1
Y1 - 2015/5/1
N2 - BACKGROUND Proton therapy in pediatrics may improve the risk/benefit profile of radiotherapy at a greater upfront financial cost, but it may prove to be cost effective if chronic medical complications can be avoided. Tools to assist with decision making are needed to aid in selecting pediatric patients for protons, and cost-effectiveness models can provide an objective method for this. METHODS A Markov cohort-simulation model was developed to assess the expected costs and effectiveness for specific radiation doses to the hypothalamus with protons versus photons in pediatric patients. Costing data included cost of investment and the diagnosis and management of growth hormone deficiency. Longitudinal outcomes data were used to inform risk parameters for the model. With costs in 2012 US dollars and effectiveness measured in quality-adjusted life years, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were used to measure outcomes. RESULTS Proton therapy was cost effective for some scenarios based on the difference in hypothalamic sparing. Although some scenarios were not cost effective, others were not only cost effective for proton therapy but also demonstrated that protons were cost saving compared with photons. CONCLUSIONS The current results provide the first evidence-based guide for identifying children with brain tumors who may benefit the most from proton therapy with respect to endocrine dysfunction. Proton therapy may be more cost effective for scenarios in which radiation dose to the hypothalamus can be spared, but protons may not be cost effective when tumors are involving or directly adjacent to the hypothalamus if there is a high dose to this structure. Cancer 2015;121:1694-1702.
AB - BACKGROUND Proton therapy in pediatrics may improve the risk/benefit profile of radiotherapy at a greater upfront financial cost, but it may prove to be cost effective if chronic medical complications can be avoided. Tools to assist with decision making are needed to aid in selecting pediatric patients for protons, and cost-effectiveness models can provide an objective method for this. METHODS A Markov cohort-simulation model was developed to assess the expected costs and effectiveness for specific radiation doses to the hypothalamus with protons versus photons in pediatric patients. Costing data included cost of investment and the diagnosis and management of growth hormone deficiency. Longitudinal outcomes data were used to inform risk parameters for the model. With costs in 2012 US dollars and effectiveness measured in quality-adjusted life years, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were used to measure outcomes. RESULTS Proton therapy was cost effective for some scenarios based on the difference in hypothalamic sparing. Although some scenarios were not cost effective, others were not only cost effective for proton therapy but also demonstrated that protons were cost saving compared with photons. CONCLUSIONS The current results provide the first evidence-based guide for identifying children with brain tumors who may benefit the most from proton therapy with respect to endocrine dysfunction. Proton therapy may be more cost effective for scenarios in which radiation dose to the hypothalamus can be spared, but protons may not be cost effective when tumors are involving or directly adjacent to the hypothalamus if there is a high dose to this structure. Cancer 2015;121:1694-1702.
KW - cost effectiveness
KW - growth hormone deficiency
KW - pediatric brain tumors
KW - proton therapy
KW - radiation
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84929000355&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/cncr.29209
DO - 10.1002/cncr.29209
M3 - Article
C2 - 25641407
AN - SCOPUS:84929000355
SN - 0008-543X
VL - 121
SP - 1694
EP - 1702
JO - Cancer
JF - Cancer
IS - 10
ER -