Suppr超能文献

质子束疗法治疗前列腺腺癌是否具有成本效益?

Is proton beam therapy cost effective in the treatment of adenocarcinoma of the prostate?

作者信息

Konski Andre, Speier William, Hanlon Alexandra, Beck J Robert, Pollack Alan

机构信息

Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, 333 Cottman Ave, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

出版信息

J Clin Oncol. 2007 Aug 20;25(24):3603-8. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.09.0811.

Abstract

PURPOSE

New treatments are introduced routinely into clinical practice without rigorous economic analysis. The specific aim of this study was to examine the cost effectiveness of proton beam radiation compared with current state-of-the art therapy in the treatment of patients with prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Markov model was informed with cost, freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF), and utility data obtained from the literature and from patient interviews to compare the cost effectiveness of 91.8 cobalt gray equivalent (CGE) delivered with proton beam versus 81 CGE delivered with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). The length of how many years the model was run, patient's age, probability of FFBF after treatment with proton beam therapy and IMRT, utility of patients treated with salvage hormone therapy, and treatment cost were tested in sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Analysis at 15 years resulted in an expected mean cost of proton beam therapy and IMRT of $63,511 and $36,808, and $64,989 and $39,355 for a 70-year-old and 60-year-old man respectively, with quality-adjusted survival of 8.54 and 8.12 and 9.91 and 9.45 quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), respectively. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio was calculated to be $63,578/QALY for a 70-year-old man and $55,726/QALY for a 60-year-old man.

CONCLUSION

Even when based on the unproven assumption that protons will permit a 10-Gy escalation of prostate dose compared with IMRT photons, proton beam therapy is not cost effective for most patients with prostate cancer using the commonly accepted standard of $50,000/QALY. Consideration should be given to limiting the number of proton facilities to allow comprehensive evaluation of this modality.

摘要

目的

新的治疗方法在未经严格经济分析的情况下就被常规引入临床实践。本研究的具体目的是比较质子束放疗与当前最先进疗法在治疗前列腺癌患者方面的成本效益。

材料与方法

利用从文献和患者访谈中获取的成本、无生化失败(FFBF)情况及效用数据,构建马尔可夫模型,以比较质子束放疗给予91.8钴灰当量(CGE)与调强放射治疗(IMRT)给予81 CGE的成本效益。在敏感性分析中,对模型运行的年数、患者年龄、质子束治疗和IMRT治疗后FFBF的概率、挽救性激素治疗患者的效用以及治疗成本进行了测试。

结果

15年分析结果显示,质子束治疗和IMRT的预期平均成本,70岁男性分别为63,511美元和36,808美元,60岁男性分别为64,989美元和39,355美元;质量调整生存期分别为8.54和8.12以及9.91和9.45质量调整生命年(QALY)。计算得出70岁男性的增量成本效益比为63,578美元/QALY,60岁男性为55,726美元/QALY。

结论

即使基于质子与IMRT光子相比能使前列腺剂量增加10 Gy这一未经证实的假设,按照普遍接受的50,000美元/QALY标准,质子束治疗对大多数前列腺癌患者而言并不具有成本效益。应考虑限制质子治疗设施的数量,以便对这种治疗方式进行全面评估。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验