Cargando…

Cost-Effectiveness Models of Proton Therapy for Head and Neck: Evaluating Quality and Methods to Date

PURPOSE: Proton beam therapy (PBT) is associated with less toxicity relative to conventional photon radiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer (HNC). Upfront delivery costs are greater, but PBT can provide superior long-term value by minimizing treatment-related complications. Cost-effectiveness models (...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Huang, Danmeng, Frank, Steven J., Verma, Vivek, Thaker, Nikhil G., Brooks, Eric D., Palmer, Matthew B., Harrison, Ross F., Deshmukh, Ashish A., Ning, Matthew S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Particle Therapy Co-operative Group 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8270103/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34285960
http://dx.doi.org/10.14338/IJPT-20-00058.1
_version_ 1783720730427392000
author Huang, Danmeng
Frank, Steven J.
Verma, Vivek
Thaker, Nikhil G.
Brooks, Eric D.
Palmer, Matthew B.
Harrison, Ross F.
Deshmukh, Ashish A.
Ning, Matthew S.
author_facet Huang, Danmeng
Frank, Steven J.
Verma, Vivek
Thaker, Nikhil G.
Brooks, Eric D.
Palmer, Matthew B.
Harrison, Ross F.
Deshmukh, Ashish A.
Ning, Matthew S.
author_sort Huang, Danmeng
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Proton beam therapy (PBT) is associated with less toxicity relative to conventional photon radiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer (HNC). Upfront delivery costs are greater, but PBT can provide superior long-term value by minimizing treatment-related complications. Cost-effectiveness models (CEMs) estimate the relative value of novel technologies (such as PBT) as compared with the established standard of care. However, the uncertainties of CEMs can limit interpretation and applicability. This review serves to (1) assess the methodology and quality of pertinent CEMs in the existing literature, (2) evaluate their suitability for guiding clinical and economic strategies, and (3) discuss areas for improvement among future analyses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed was queried for CEMs specific to PBT for HNC. General characteristics, modeling information, and methodological approaches were extracted for each identified study. Reporting quality was assessed via the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 24-item checklist, whereas methodologic quality was evaluated via the Philips checklist. The Cooper evidence hierarchy scale was employed to analyze parameter inputs referenced within each model. RESULTS: At the time of study, only 4 formal CEMs specific to PBT for HNC had been published (2005, 2013, 2018, 2020). The parameter inputs among these various Markov cohort models generally referenced older literature, excluding many clinically relevant complications and applying numerous hypothetical assumptions for toxicity states, incorporating inputs from theoretical complication-probability models because of limited availability of direct clinical evidence. Case numbers among study cohorts were low, and the structural design of some models inadequately reflected the natural history of HNC. Furthermore, cost inputs were incomplete and referenced historic figures. CONCLUSION: Contemporary CEMs are needed to incorporate modern estimates for toxicity risks and costs associated with PBT delivery, to provide a more accurate estimate of value, and to improve their clinical applicability with respect to PBT for HNC.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8270103
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher The Particle Therapy Co-operative Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82701032021-07-19 Cost-Effectiveness Models of Proton Therapy for Head and Neck: Evaluating Quality and Methods to Date Huang, Danmeng Frank, Steven J. Verma, Vivek Thaker, Nikhil G. Brooks, Eric D. Palmer, Matthew B. Harrison, Ross F. Deshmukh, Ashish A. Ning, Matthew S. Int J Part Ther Health Policy PURPOSE: Proton beam therapy (PBT) is associated with less toxicity relative to conventional photon radiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer (HNC). Upfront delivery costs are greater, but PBT can provide superior long-term value by minimizing treatment-related complications. Cost-effectiveness models (CEMs) estimate the relative value of novel technologies (such as PBT) as compared with the established standard of care. However, the uncertainties of CEMs can limit interpretation and applicability. This review serves to (1) assess the methodology and quality of pertinent CEMs in the existing literature, (2) evaluate their suitability for guiding clinical and economic strategies, and (3) discuss areas for improvement among future analyses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed was queried for CEMs specific to PBT for HNC. General characteristics, modeling information, and methodological approaches were extracted for each identified study. Reporting quality was assessed via the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 24-item checklist, whereas methodologic quality was evaluated via the Philips checklist. The Cooper evidence hierarchy scale was employed to analyze parameter inputs referenced within each model. RESULTS: At the time of study, only 4 formal CEMs specific to PBT for HNC had been published (2005, 2013, 2018, 2020). The parameter inputs among these various Markov cohort models generally referenced older literature, excluding many clinically relevant complications and applying numerous hypothetical assumptions for toxicity states, incorporating inputs from theoretical complication-probability models because of limited availability of direct clinical evidence. Case numbers among study cohorts were low, and the structural design of some models inadequately reflected the natural history of HNC. Furthermore, cost inputs were incomplete and referenced historic figures. CONCLUSION: Contemporary CEMs are needed to incorporate modern estimates for toxicity risks and costs associated with PBT delivery, to provide a more accurate estimate of value, and to improve their clinical applicability with respect to PBT for HNC. The Particle Therapy Co-operative Group 2021-06-25 /pmc/articles/PMC8270103/ /pubmed/34285960 http://dx.doi.org/10.14338/IJPT-20-00058.1 Text en ©Copyright 2021 The Author(s) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Distributed under Creative Commons CC-BY (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
spellingShingle Health Policy
Huang, Danmeng
Frank, Steven J.
Verma, Vivek
Thaker, Nikhil G.
Brooks, Eric D.
Palmer, Matthew B.
Harrison, Ross F.
Deshmukh, Ashish A.
Ning, Matthew S.
Cost-Effectiveness Models of Proton Therapy for Head and Neck: Evaluating Quality and Methods to Date
title Cost-Effectiveness Models of Proton Therapy for Head and Neck: Evaluating Quality and Methods to Date
title_full Cost-Effectiveness Models of Proton Therapy for Head and Neck: Evaluating Quality and Methods to Date
title_fullStr Cost-Effectiveness Models of Proton Therapy for Head and Neck: Evaluating Quality and Methods to Date
title_full_unstemmed Cost-Effectiveness Models of Proton Therapy for Head and Neck: Evaluating Quality and Methods to Date
title_short Cost-Effectiveness Models of Proton Therapy for Head and Neck: Evaluating Quality and Methods to Date
title_sort cost-effectiveness models of proton therapy for head and neck: evaluating quality and methods to date
topic Health Policy
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8270103/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34285960
http://dx.doi.org/10.14338/IJPT-20-00058.1
work_keys_str_mv AT huangdanmeng costeffectivenessmodelsofprotontherapyforheadandneckevaluatingqualityandmethodstodate
AT frankstevenj costeffectivenessmodelsofprotontherapyforheadandneckevaluatingqualityandmethodstodate
AT vermavivek costeffectivenessmodelsofprotontherapyforheadandneckevaluatingqualityandmethodstodate
AT thakernikhilg costeffectivenessmodelsofprotontherapyforheadandneckevaluatingqualityandmethodstodate
AT brooksericd costeffectivenessmodelsofprotontherapyforheadandneckevaluatingqualityandmethodstodate
AT palmermatthewb costeffectivenessmodelsofprotontherapyforheadandneckevaluatingqualityandmethodstodate
AT harrisonrossf costeffectivenessmodelsofprotontherapyforheadandneckevaluatingqualityandmethodstodate
AT deshmukhashisha costeffectivenessmodelsofprotontherapyforheadandneckevaluatingqualityandmethodstodate
AT ningmatthews costeffectivenessmodelsofprotontherapyforheadandneckevaluatingqualityandmethodstodate