Model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of external beam radiation therapy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer: a systematic review

Abstract

Background External beam radiotherapy is the recommended but expensive treatment option for localized prostate cancer. Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men worldwide. A cost-effectiveness study is needed given the excessive cost of radiotherapy treatment and the high prevalence of prostate cancer. The aim of this systematic review was to assess and identify studies that examined model based economic evaluation of external beam radiation therapy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Methods A systematic review of the published literature was conducted through MEDLINE, NHS EED (NHS Economic Evaluation Database), and Cochrane databases with a specific search strategy. The literatures were searched according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. At first 1046 citations were identified. The extracted files were imported into the Rayyan systematic review site for inclusion or exclusion based on the defined criteria. Studies included in this review were articles published between 2003 and 2017, and that conducted full-economic evaluations of the modality of external beam radiotherapy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Results There were 12 studies that satisfied the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Seven studies compared intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT), two compared IMRT with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) another two-paper assessed IMRT with proton beam therapy (PBT). One paper compared the three external-beam radio therapy options of IMRT, SBRT and PBT. Most of the studies were originated from the US and analyzed the cost data from the payer’s perspective. Most studies were supported that IMRT was cost effective when it compared with 3D-CRT. Compared with IMRT, SBRT was found to be cost-effective. Conclusions There are limited number of studies exist on the cost effectiveness of radiation therapy options for the treatment of localize prostate cancer across Europe. Most studies are originated from the US Medicare payer Perspective. Further research is need that investigate the cost effectiveness of these radiation therapy options from the societal perspective in Europe. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12962-019-0178-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Problems and Promises of Introducing the Magnetic Resonance Imaging Linear Accelerator Into Routine Care: The Case of Prostate Cancer

“…Costs and quality of life data will be collected as well, to identify cost-effective MR-Linac treatment strategies compared to alternative treatments. This is particularly useful in the field of prostate cancer, where many treatment modalities with comparable outcomes, but with different costs are available ( 54 ). Further MR-Linac impact studies can also provide insights into its effects on prostate cancer treatment allocation and hospital infrastructure.…”

Ultrahypofractionation of localized prostate cancer

“…It has been shown that ultrahypofractionation is associated with lower overall treatment costs than normofractionated 3D conformal or IMRT [17] as well as moderate hypofractionation [18]. In a recent systemic review comprising 12 studies, Abreha et al [19] performed a modelbased cost-effectiveness analysis confirming that ultrahypofractionation is the most effective treatment in terms of overall treatment cost, including prostatectomy.…”

“…In a recent systemic review comprising 12 studies, Abreha et al. [ 19 ] performed a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis confirming that ultrahypofractionation is the most effective treatment in terms of overall treatment cost, including prostatectomy.…”

Seven or less Fractions is Not the Standard of Care for Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer

“…A recent systematic review has explored the costeffectiveness of different radiotherapy modalities [45]. The authors included all published articles with a full economic evaluation and found three articles comparing SBRT with IMRT.…”