Department of Community Medicine and School of Public Health, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Department of Radiation Oncology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020 Oct;36(5):492-499. doi: 10.1017/S0266462320000677. Epub 2020 Sep 23.
The newer cancer treatment technologies hold the potential of providing improved health outcomes at an additional cost. So it becomes obligatory to assess the costs and benefits of a new technology, before defining its clinical value. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) as compared to 2-dimensional radiotherapy (2-DRT) and 3-dimensional radiotherapy (3D-CRT) for treating head and neck cancers (HNC) in India. The cost-effectiveness of 3-DCRT as compared to 2-DRT was also estimated.
A probabilistic Markov model was designed. Using a disaggregated societal perspective, lifetime study horizon and 3 percent discount rate, future costs and health outcomes were compared for a cohort of 1000 patients treated with any of the three radiation techniques. Data on health system cost, out of pocket expenditure, and quality of life was assessed through primary data collected from a large tertiary care public sector hospital in India. Data on xerostomia rates following each of the radiation techniques was extracted from the existing randomized controlled trials.
IMRT incurs an incremental cost of $7,072 (2,932-13,258) and $5,164 (463-10,954) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained compared to 2-DRT and 3D-CRT, respectively. Further, 3D-CRT as compared to 2-DRT requires an incremental cost of $8,946 (1,996-19,313) per QALY gained.
Both IMRT and 3D-CRT are not cost-effective at 1 times GDP per capita for treating HNC in India. The costs and benefits of using IMRT for other potential indications (e.g. prostate, lung) require to be assessed before considering its introduction in India.
新型癌症治疗技术具有在增加成本的情况下提供更好健康结果的潜力。因此,在确定其临床价值之前,评估新技术的成本效益变得势在必行。我们评估了强度调制放疗(IMRT)与二维放疗(2-DRT)和三维放疗(3D-CRT)治疗印度头颈部癌症(HNC)的成本效益。还估计了 3D-CRT 与 2-DRT 相比的成本效益。
设计了一个概率马尔可夫模型。使用分散的社会视角、终生研究期限和 3%的贴现率,对 1000 名接受三种放射治疗技术之一治疗的患者队列的未来成本和健康结果进行了比较。通过从印度一家大型三级保健公立部门医院收集的原始数据评估了卫生系统成本、自付支出和生活质量数据。从现有的随机对照试验中提取了每种放射技术治疗后口干发生率的数据。
与 2-DRT 相比,IMRT 每获得一个质量调整生命年(QALY)分别增加 7072 美元(2932-13258 美元)和 5164 美元(463-10954 美元);与 2-DRT 相比,3D-CRT 每获得一个 QALY 增加 8946 美元(1996-19313 美元)。
在印度,治疗 HNC 时,IMRT 和 3D-CRT 的成本效益均低于人均 GDP 的 1 倍。在考虑将其引入印度之前,需要评估使用 IMRT 治疗其他潜在适应症(例如前列腺癌、肺癌)的成本效益。