Cost-effectiveness analysis of hydrogel spacer for rectal toxicity reduction in prostate external beam radiotherapy.

INTRODUCTION

Contemporary methods of external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer have reduced toxicity rates through beam modulation and image guidance, however, rectal injury has not been eliminated completely in this population. For patients at greatest risk of developing rectal toxicities, hydrogel spacers are a viable option for risk reduction. Translation of clinical trial results into routine clinical practice relies on an understanding of the economic implications. This study completed a cost-effectiveness analysis of hydrogel spacers in the Australian healthcare setting.

METHOD

Simulation of possible health states following treatment was performed using a Markov model. Model outcomes included the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and the net monetary benefit (NMB) at three published willingness-to-pay thresholds derived from literature. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were provided on these results. A baseline cohort without hydrogel spacer use was compared to treat all and selective use cohorts. Cost variation scenarios were also investigated to assess the impact of hydrogel spacer cost on outcomes.

RESULTS

Using hydrogel spacers in a selective cohort was more likely to be cost-effective than giving to all patients (NMB -$43 versus -$997, respectively); however, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was not below the $28 000 willingness-to-pay threshold for a healthcare provider perspective. These outcomes were influenced by large parameter uncertainty. Cost variation strategies are worth investigating further as a method to achieve willingness-to-pay threshold targets.

CONCLUSION

The influence of parameter uncertainty currently limits the cost-effectiveness of this intervention in the Australian public health setting. However, a cost variation solution has been demonstrated to improve cost-effectiveness estimates for selected patients and should be examined further.