For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
9
views
28
references
 Top references
cited by
12
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      647
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Financial Impact of Hypofractionated Radiation for Localized Prostate Cancer in the United States

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Until recently, dose intensified radiotherapy was the standard radiation method for localized prostate cancer. Multiple studies have demonstrated similar efficacy and tolerability with moderate hypofractionation. In recent years there has been an increasing focus placed on understanding the cost and value of cancer care. In this study we aimed to assess the economic impact of moderate hypofractionation for payers in the United States.

          Methods

          We performed a population-based analysis of the total cost of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for localized prostate cancer in the US annually. The national annual target population of patients treated with definitive EBRT was calculated using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Treatment costs for various fractionation schemes were based on billing codes and 2018 pricing by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

          Results

          We estimate that 27,146 patients with localized prostate cancer are treated with EBRT annually in the US. The cost of standard fractionation in 45 or 39 fractions is US$ 26,782 and 23,625 per patient, respectively. With moderate hypofractionation in 28 or 20 fractions, the cost is US$ 17,793 and 13,402 per patient, respectively. The use of moderate hypofractionation would lead to 25-50% annual savings US$158,315,472-US$363,213,480 in the US.

          Conclusions

          Moderate hypofractionation may have the potential to save approximately US$0.16-0.36 billion annually, likely without impacting survival or tolerability. This may lead to lower personal financial toxicity. It would be reasonable for public and private payers to consider which type of radiation is most suited to reimbursement.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial

          David Dearnaley, Isabel Syndikus, Helen Mossop … (2016)
          Summary Background Prostate cancer might have high radiation-fraction sensitivity that would give a therapeutic advantage to hypofractionated treatment. We present a pre-planned analysis of the efficacy and side-effects of a randomised trial comparing conventional and hypofractionated radiotherapy after 5 years follow-up. Methods CHHiP is a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial that recruited men with localised prostate cancer (pT1b–T3aN0M0). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to conventional (74 Gy delivered in 37 fractions over 7·4 weeks) or one of two hypofractionated schedules (60 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks or 57 Gy in 19 fractions over 3·8 weeks) all delivered with intensity-modulated techniques. Most patients were given radiotherapy with 3–6 months of neoadjuvant and concurrent androgen suppression. Randomisation was by computer-generated random permuted blocks, stratified by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group and radiotherapy treatment centre, and treatment allocation was not masked. The primary endpoint was time to biochemical or clinical failure; the critical hazard ratio (HR) for non-inferiority was 1·208. Analysis was by intention to treat. Long-term follow-up continues. The CHHiP trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN97182923. Findings Between Oct 18, 2002, and June 17, 2011, 3216 men were enrolled from 71 centres and randomly assigned (74 Gy group, 1065 patients; 60 Gy group, 1074 patients; 57 Gy group, 1077 patients). Median follow-up was 62·4 months (IQR 53·9–77·0). The proportion of patients who were biochemical or clinical failure free at 5 years was 88·3% (95% CI 86·0–90·2) in the 74 Gy group, 90·6% (88·5–92·3) in the 60 Gy group, and 85·9% (83·4–88·0) in the 57 Gy group. 60 Gy was non-inferior to 74 Gy (HR 0·84 [90% CI 0·68–1·03], pNI=0·0018) but non-inferiority could not be claimed for 57 Gy compared with 74 Gy (HR 1·20 [0·99–1·46], pNI=0·48). Long-term side-effects were similar in the hypofractionated groups compared with the conventional group. There were no significant differences in either the proportion or cumulative incidence of side-effects 5 years after treatment using three clinician-reported as well as patient-reported outcome measures. The estimated cumulative 5 year incidence of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grade 2 or worse bowel and bladder adverse events was 13·7% (111 events) and 9·1% (66 events) in the 74 Gy group, 11·9% (105 events) and 11·7% (88 events) in the 60 Gy group, 11·3% (95 events) and 6·6% (57 events) in the 57 Gy group, respectively. No treatment-related deaths were reported. Interpretation Hypofractionated radiotherapy using 60 Gy in 20 fractions is non-inferior to conventional fractionation using 74 Gy in 37 fractions and is recommended as a new standard of care for external-beam radiotherapy of localised prostate cancer. Funding Cancer Research UK, Department of Health, and the National Institute for Health Research Cancer Research Network.
          Article 0 comments Cited 426 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Long-term results of the M. D. Anderson randomized dose-escalation trial for prostate cancer.

            Deborah A Kuban, Susan Tucker, Lei Dong … (2008)
            To report the long-term results of a randomized radiotherapy dose escalation trial for prostate cancer. From 1993 to 1998, a total of 301 patients with stage T1b to T3 prostate cancer were accrued to a randomized external beam dose escalation trial using 70 Gy versus 78 Gy. The median follow-up is now 8.7 years. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to compute rates of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) failure (nadir + 2), clinical failure, distant metastasis, disease-specific, and overall survival as well as complication rates at 8 years post-treatment. For all patients, freedom from biochemical or clinical failure (FFF) was superior for the 78-Gy arm, 78%, as compared with 59% for the 70-Gy arm (p = 0.004, and an even greater benefit was seen in patients with initial PSA >10 ng/ml (78% vs. 39%, p = 0.001). The clinical failure rate was significantly reduced in the 78-Gy arm as well (7% vs. 15%, p = 0.014). Twice as many patients either died of prostate cancer or are currently alive with cancer in the 70-Gy arm. Gastrointestinal toxicity of grade 2 or greater occurred twice as often in the high dose patients (26% vs. 13%), although genitourinary toxicity of grade 2 or greater was less (13% vs. 8%) and not statistically significantly different. Dose-volume histogram analysis showed that the complication rate could be significantly decreased by reducing the amount of treated rectum. Modest escalation in radiotherapy dose improved freedom from biochemical and clinical progression with the largest benefit in prostate cancer patients with PSA >10 ng/ml.
            Article 0 comments Cited 262 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Randomized Trial of a Hypofractionated Radiation Regimen for the Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer.

              Charles N Catton, Himu Lukka, Chu-Shu Gu … (2017)
              Purpose Men with localized prostate cancer often are treated with external radiotherapy (RT) over 8 to 9 weeks. Hypofractionated RT is given over a shorter time with larger doses per treatment than standard RT. We hypothesized that hypofractionation versus conventional fractionation is similar in efficacy without increased toxicity. Patients and Methods We conducted a multicenter randomized noninferiority trial in intermediate-risk prostate cancer (T1 to 2a, Gleason score ≤ 6, and prostate-specific antigen [PSA] 10.1 to 20 ng/mL; T2b to 2c, Gleason ≤ 6, and PSA ≤ 20 ng/mL; or T1 to 2, Gleason = 7, and PSA ≤ 20 ng/mL). Patients were allocated to conventional RT of 78 Gy in 39 fractions over 8 weeks or to hypofractionated RT of 60 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks. Androgen deprivation was not permitted with therapy. The primary outcome was biochemical-clinical failure (BCF) defined by any of the following: PSA failure (nadir + 2), hormonal intervention, clinical local or distant failure, or death as a result of prostate cancer. The noninferiority margin was 7.5% (hazard ratio, < 1.32). Results Median follow-up was 6.0 years. One hundred nine of 608 patients in the hypofractionated arm versus 117 of 598 in the standard arm experienced BCF. Most of the events were PSA failures. The 5-year BCF disease-free survival was 85% in both arms (hazard ratio [short v standard], 0.96; 90% CI, 0.77 to 1.2). Ten deaths as a result of prostate cancer occurred in the short arm and 12 in the standard arm. No significant differences were detected between arms for grade ≥ 3 late genitourinary and GI toxicity. Conclusion The hypofractionated RT regimen used in this trial was not inferior to conventional RT and was not associated with increased late toxicity. Hypofractionated RT is more convenient for patients and should be considered for intermediate-risk prostate cancer.
              Article 0 comments Cited 228 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Daniel A. Goldstein:
                ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8082-9622
                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): J Oncol
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): J Oncol
                Journal ID (publisher-id): JO
                Title: Journal of Oncology
                Publisher: Hindawi
                ISSN (Print): 1687-8450
                ISSN (Electronic): 1687-8469
                Publication date Collection: 2019
                Publication date (Electronic): 2 January 2019
                Volume: 2019
                Electronic Location Identifier: 8170428
                Affiliations
                1Institute of Oncology, Davidoff Cancer Center, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel
                2Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
                3Department of Radiation Oncology, Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA
                4Department of Health Policy and Management, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA
                Author notes

                Academic Editor: Reza Izadpanah

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1502-3729
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8082-9622
                Article
                DOI: 10.1155/2019/8170428
                PMC ID: 6334370
                SO-VID: 8ddf24dc-42f8-4006-99f9-b7ca110ee428
                Copyright © Copyright © 2019 Assaf Moore et al.
                License:

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Date received : 21 October 2018
                Date revision received : 13 November 2018
                Date accepted : 27 November 2018
                Categories
                Subject: Research Article

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Oncology & Radiotherapy
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Oncology & Radiotherapy

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content647

                See all similar

                Cited by12

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors839

                See all reference authors