Cost-effectiveness of proton beam therapy vs. conventional radiotherapy for patients with brain tumors in Sweden: results from a non-randomized prospective multicenter study.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation Pub Date : 2024-09-13 DOI:10.1186/s12962-024-00577-6
Filipa Sampaio, Ulrica Langegård, Patricio Martínez de Alva, Sergio Flores, Camilla Nystrand, Per Fransson, Emma Ohlsson-Nevo, Ingrid Kristensen, Katarina Sjövall, Inna Feldman, Karin Ahlberg
{"title":"Cost-effectiveness of proton beam therapy vs. conventional radiotherapy for patients with brain tumors in Sweden: results from a non-randomized prospective multicenter study.","authors":"Filipa Sampaio, Ulrica Langegård, Patricio Martínez de Alva, Sergio Flores, Camilla Nystrand, Per Fransson, Emma Ohlsson-Nevo, Ingrid Kristensen, Katarina Sjövall, Inna Feldman, Karin Ahlberg","doi":"10.1186/s12962-024-00577-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of proton beam therapy (PBT) compared to conventional radiotherapy (CRT) for treating patients with brain tumors in Sweden.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from a longitudinal non-randomized study performed between 2015 and 2020 was used, and included adult patients with brain tumors, followed during treatment and through a one-year follow-up. Clinical and demographic data were sourced from the longitudinal study and linked to Swedish national registers to get information on healthcare resource use. A cost-utility framework was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PBT vs. CRT. Patients in PBT group (n = 310) were matched with patients in CRT group (n = 40) on relevant observables using propensity score matching with replacement. Costs were estimated from a healthcare perspective and included costs related to inpatient and specialized outpatient care, and prescribed medications. The health outcome was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), derived from the EORTC-QLQ-C30. Generalized linear models (GLM) and two-part models were used to estimate differences in costs and QALYs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>PBT yielded higher total costs, 14,639 US$, than CRT, 13,308 US$, with a difference of 1,372 US$ (95% CI, -4,914-7,659) over a 58 weeks' time horizon. Further, PBT resulted in non-significantly lower QALYs, 0.746 compared to CRT, 0.774, with a difference of -0.049 (95% CI, -0.195-0.097). The probability of PBT being cost-effective was < 30% at any willingness to pay.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These results suggest that PBT cannot be considered a cost-effective treatment for brain tumours, compared to CRT.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Not applicable.</p>","PeriodicalId":47054,"journal":{"name":"Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11396687/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12962-024-00577-6","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of proton beam therapy (PBT) compared to conventional radiotherapy (CRT) for treating patients with brain tumors in Sweden.

Methods: Data from a longitudinal non-randomized study performed between 2015 and 2020 was used, and included adult patients with brain tumors, followed during treatment and through a one-year follow-up. Clinical and demographic data were sourced from the longitudinal study and linked to Swedish national registers to get information on healthcare resource use. A cost-utility framework was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PBT vs. CRT. Patients in PBT group (n = 310) were matched with patients in CRT group (n = 40) on relevant observables using propensity score matching with replacement. Costs were estimated from a healthcare perspective and included costs related to inpatient and specialized outpatient care, and prescribed medications. The health outcome was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), derived from the EORTC-QLQ-C30. Generalized linear models (GLM) and two-part models were used to estimate differences in costs and QALYs.

Results: PBT yielded higher total costs, 14,639 US$, than CRT, 13,308 US$, with a difference of 1,372 US$ (95% CI, -4,914-7,659) over a 58 weeks' time horizon. Further, PBT resulted in non-significantly lower QALYs, 0.746 compared to CRT, 0.774, with a difference of -0.049 (95% CI, -0.195-0.097). The probability of PBT being cost-effective was < 30% at any willingness to pay.

Conclusions: These results suggest that PBT cannot be considered a cost-effective treatment for brain tumours, compared to CRT.

Trial registration: Not applicable.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
瑞典脑肿瘤患者接受质子束疗法与传统放疗的成本效益对比:一项非随机前瞻性多中心研究的结果。
研究背景本研究评估了质子束疗法(PBT)与传统放疗(CRT)相比治疗瑞典脑肿瘤患者的成本效益:研究采用了2015年至2020年期间进行的一项纵向非随机研究的数据,研究对象包括成年脑肿瘤患者,在治疗期间和一年的随访期间对其进行跟踪。临床和人口统计学数据来自纵向研究,并与瑞典国家登记册链接,以获取医疗资源使用信息。研究采用成本效用框架来评估PBT与CRT的成本效益。采用倾向得分匹配替换法,将 PBT 组患者(n = 310)与 CRT 组患者(n = 40)的相关观察指标进行匹配。成本从医疗保健角度进行估算,包括与住院和专科门诊护理以及处方药相关的成本。健康结果为质量调整生命年(QALYs),由 EORTC-QLQ-C30 得出。采用广义线性模型(GLM)和两部分模型来估算成本和 QALYs 的差异:结果:在 58 周的时间跨度内,PBT 的总成本为 14,639 美元,高于 CRT 的 13,308 美元,两者相差 1,372 美元(95% CI,-4,914-7,659)。此外,与 CRT 的 0.774 相比,PBT 的 QALY 为 0.746,差异为-0.049(95% CI,-0.195-0.097),并无显著性降低。PBT具有成本效益的概率为 结论:这些结果表明,与 CRT 相比,PBT 不能被视为一种具有成本效益的脑肿瘤治疗方法:试验注册:不适用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
4.30%
发文量
59
审稿时长
34 weeks
期刊介绍: Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, online journal that considers manuscripts on all aspects of cost-effectiveness analysis, including conceptual or methodological work, economic evaluations, and policy analysis related to resource allocation at a national or international level. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation is aimed at health economists, health services researchers, and policy-makers with an interest in enhancing the flow and transfer of knowledge relating to efficiency in the health sector. Manuscripts are encouraged from researchers based in low- and middle-income countries, with a view to increasing the international economic evidence base for health.
期刊最新文献
Exploring the potential cost-effectiveness of a new computerised decision support tool for identifying fetal compromise during monitored term labours: an early health economic model. Financial incentives in the management of diabetes: a systematic review. Economic evaluation of NALIRIFOX vs. nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine regimens for first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma from U.S. perspective. The costs of implementing anaemia reduction interventions among women fish processors in Ghana. Global bibliometric analysis of cost effectiveness analysis in healthcare research from 2013 to 2023.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1