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。

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":"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。","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":"22 1","pages":"66"},"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":"{\"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\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"66\"},\"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}","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

摘要

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

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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
Health system efficiency and equity in ASEAN: an empirical investigation. Coverage and distributional benefit-cost of rotavirus vaccine in Uganda: an analysis of routine health facility aggregated data. Cost-effectiveness of fenofibrate for preventing diabetic complications in Australia. Cost-effectiveness of high-dose vitamin D supplementation to reduce the occurrence of repeat episodes of pneumonia in children. Cost-effectiveness analysis of Tocilizumab compared to Adalimumab in the treatment of severe active rheumatoid arthritis in Iran.
×
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