Health Economic Evaluation of Proton Therapy for Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
To our knowledge, there have been no systematic reviews of health economic evaluations of proton therapy specific to lung cancer.Methods
We conducted this systematic review according to the predefined protocol [PROSPERO CRD42022365869]. We summarized the results of the included studies via structured narrative synthesis.Results
We identified four studies (all used passively scattered proton therapy) from 787 searches. Two cost analyses reported that proton therapy was more costly than photon therapy for early- or locally advanced-stage non-small cell lung cancer, one cost-utility analysis reported that proton therapy was dominated by nonproton therapy in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer, and one cost-utility analysis reported that proton therapy was not cost-effective (vs. photon) in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer.Conclusions
Passively scattered proton therapy was more costly and not cost-effective than photon therapy for early- and locally advanced-stage non-small cell lung cancer. Further health economic evaluations regarding modern proton therapy (such as scanning beam) for common radiotherapy indications of lung cancer are eagerly awaited.
SUBMITTER: Li CC
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10048835 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Health Economic Evaluation of Proton Therapy for Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review.
Li Chia-Chin CC Lin Ying-Chun YC Liang Ji-An JA Chao K S Clifford KSC Hsia Te-Chun TC Chien Chun-Ru CR
International journal of environmental research and public health 20230307 6
<h4>Background</h4>To our knowledge, there have been no systematic reviews of health economic evaluations of proton therapy specific to lung cancer.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted this systematic review according to the predefined protocol [PROSPERO CRD42022365869]. We summarized the results of the included studies via structured narrative synthesis.<h4>Results</h4>We identified four studies (all used passively scattered proton therapy) from 787 searches. Two cost analyses reported that proton ther ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background and purposeWith high treatment costs and limited capacity, decisions on which adult patients to treat with proton beam therapy (PBT) must be based on the relative value compared to the current standard of care. Cost-utility analyses (CUAs) are the gold-standard method for doing this. We aimed to appraise the methodology and quality of CUAs in this area.Materials and methodsWe performed a systematic review of the literature to identify CUA studies of PBT in adult disease using MEDLINE, EMBASE, EconLIT, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Web of Science, and the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry from 1st January 2010 up to 6th June 2018. General characteristics, information relating to modelling approaches, and methodological quality were extracted and synthesized narratively.ResultsSeven PBT CUA studies in adult disease were identified. Without randomised controlled trials to inform the comparative effectiveness of PBT, studies used either results from one-armed studies, or dose-response models derived from radiobiological and epidemiological studies of PBT. Costing methods varied widely. The assessment of model quality highlighted a lack of transparency in the identification of model parameters, and absence of external validation of model outcomes. Furthermore, appropriate assessment of uncertainty was often deficient.ConclusionIn order to foster credibility, future CUA studies must be more systematic in their approach to evidence synthesis and expansive in their consideration of uncertainties in light of the lack of clinical evidence.
| S-EPMC6854069 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo evaluate the overall evidence of published health-economic evaluation studies on meniscus tear treatment.MethodsOur systematic review focuses on health-economic evaluation studies of meniscus tear treatment interventions found in PubMed and Embase databases. A qualitative, descriptive approach was used to analyze the studies' results and systematically report them following PRISMA guidelines. The health-economic evaluation method for each included study was categorized following one of the four approaches: partial economic evaluation (PEE), cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), cost-benefit analysis (CBA), or cost-utility analysis (CUA). The quality of each included study was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list. Comparisons of input variables and outcomes were made, if applicable.ResultsSixteen studies were included; of these, six studies performed PEE, seven studies CUA, two studies CEA, and one study combined CBA, CUA, and CEA. The following economic comparisons were analyzed and showed the respective comparative outcomes: (1) meniscus repair was more cost-effective than arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (meniscectomy) for reparable meniscus tear; (2) non-operative treatment or physical therapy was less costly than meniscectomy for degenerative meniscus tear; (3) physical therapy with delayed meniscectomy was more cost-effective than early meniscectomy for meniscus tear with knee osteoarthritis; (4) meniscectomy without physical therapy was less costly than meniscectomy with physical therapy; (5) meniscectomy was more cost-effective than either meniscus allograft transplantation or meniscus scaffold procedure; (6) the conventional arthroscopic instrument cost was lower than laser-assisted arthroscopy in meniscectomy procedures.ConclusionResults from this review suggest that meniscus repair is the most cost-effective intervention for reparable meniscus tears. Physical therapy followed by delayed meniscectomy is the most cost-effective intervention for degenerative meniscus tears. Meniscus scaffold should be avoided, especially when implemented on a large scale.Level of evidenceSystematic review of level IV studies.
| S-EPMC10435400 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Protons interact with human tissue differently than do photons and these differences can be exploited in an attempt to improve the care of lung cancer patients. This review examines proton beam therapy (PBT) as a component of a combined modality program for locally advanced lung cancers. It was specifically written for the non-radiation oncologist who desires greater understanding of this newer treatment modality. This review describes and compares photon (X-ray) radiotherapy (XRT) to PBT. The physical differences of these beams are described and the clinical literature is reviewed. Protons can be used to create treatment plans delivering significantly lower doses of radiation to the adjacent organs at risk (lungs, esophagus, and bone marrow) than photons. Clinically, PBT combined with chemotherapy has resulted in low rates of toxicity compared to XRT. Early results suggest a possible improvement in survival. The clinical results of proton therapy in lung cancer patients reveal relatively low rates of toxicity and possible survival benefits. One randomized study is being performed and another is planned to clarify the clinical differences in patient outcome for PBT compared to XRT. Along with the development of better systemic therapy, newer forms of radiotherapy such as PBT should positively impact the care of lung cancer patients. This review provides the reader with the current status of this new technology in treating locally advanced lung cancer.
| S-EPMC4129522 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Health economic evaluations are essential to support health care policy and investment decisions. To date, health economic evaluations in orthotics and prosthetics have focused on discrete components of an orthosis/prosthesis (e.g. a microprocessor controlled prosthetic knee joint) rather than the broader service provided by orthotist/prosthetists. As such, the contribution to orthotic/prosthetic policy and investment decisions is unclear. Whilst there are opportunities to conduct more informative health economic evaluations that describe the costs and benefits of the orthotic/prosthetic service, it is important that prospective research is informed by a critical review of the method design challenges and an understanding of how this research can be improved. The aim of this systematic review is to critically appraise the existing orthotic/prosthetic health economic evaluation literature and therefore determine evidence gaps, critical method design issues and the extent to which the literature informs orthotic/prosthetic policy and investment decisions. METHODS:A comprehensive range of databases-AMED, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsychINFO, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and specialty health economic databases-will be searched using National Library of Medicine Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms as well as the title, abstract, and keyword terms. Search terms related to the intervention (e.g. orthosis), including variants used by varying professional disciplines (e.g. brace), will be used in preference to defining the populations that use orthotic and prosthetic services (e.g. people living with rheumatoid arthritis). Search terms related to health economic evaluations will be guided by previously developed and tested search strings and align with recommendations by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Articles meeting the inclusion criteria will be hand-searched for relevant citations, and a forward citation search using Google Scholar will also be conducted to identify early online articles not yet indexed in traditional databases. Original research published in the English language and after 1 January 2000 will be included. The Checklist for Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) and the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC)-Extended list will be used to appraise the methodological quality and identify sources of bias. Data extraction and appraisal will be conducted by one reviewer independently using appraisal instrument guidelines and a content specific decision aid with exemplars. A subsequent review by a second researcher will be undertaken to confirm the accuracy of the extraction and appraisal, and a final review by a third where consensus cannot be reached. The data will be extracted to a purpose-built data extraction template with decision-making guidelines to support consistency. Where possible, the findings of the review will be reported as a meta-analysis, although the heterogeneity of the literature will likely mean a narrative review that illuminates method design issues that contribute to imprecision and variation will be more appropriate. DISCUSSION:This protocol has been purposefully designed to summarise the existing evidence and appraise the methodological approaches used and the quality of the health economic evaluations in orthotics and prosthetics. What we learn from this review will be used to guide further work in this area and design more rigorous health economic evaluations into the future. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42018116910.
| S-EPMC6595622 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesOur aim was to systematically review the cost-effectiveness of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapies and surgical interventions for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD).DesignThe study design was a systematic review of economic evaluations.Data sourcesWe searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science for publications from January 1990 to March 2023. Only articles published in English were eligible for inclusion.Eligibility criteriaStudies were included if they were full economic evaluations comparing PPIs with surgical or alternative therapies for GORD. Excluded were narrative reviews, non-peer-reviewed articles, and studies not reporting cost-effectiveness outcomes.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently extracted data on study design, comparators, time horizon, and cost-effectiveness outcomes. The quality of studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist for economic evaluations.ResultsA total of 25 studies met the inclusion criteria. Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF) was found to be cost-effective in long-term horizons, while PPIs were preferred for short- to medium-term outcomes. Differences in healthcare settings and methodological approaches influenced the study findings.ConclusionsStrategic purchasing decisions for GORD treatment should consider the time horizon, healthcare setting, and cost structures. LNF may provide better long-term value, but PPIs remain effective for managing symptoms in the short term.Study registrationPROSPERO, CRD42023474181.
| S-EPMC11664378 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ContextA recent Community Guide systematic review of effectiveness of school-based health centers (SBHCs) showed that SBHCs improved educational and health outcomes. This review evaluates the economic cost and benefit of SBHCs.Evidence acquisitionUsing economic systematic review methods developed for The Community Guide, 6,958 papers were identified for the search period January 1985 to September 2014. After two rounds of screening, 21 studies were included in this review: 15 studies reported on cost and nine on benefit; three studies had both cost and benefit information. All expenditures in this review were presented in 2013 U.S. dollars.Evidence synthesisAnalyses were conducted in 2014. Intervention cost had two main components: start-up cost and operating cost. All but two of the cost studies reported operating cost only (ranging from $16,322 to $659,684 per SBHC annually). Benefits included healthcare cost averted and productivity and other loss averted. From the societal perspective, total annual benefit per SBHC ranged from $15,028 to $912,878. From healthcare payers' perspective, particularly Medicaid, SBHCs led to net savings ranging from $30 to $969 per visit. From patients' perspective, savings were also positive. Additionally, two benefit studies used regression analysis to show that Medicaid cost and hospitalization cost decreased with SBHCs. Finally, results from seven estimates in two cost-benefit studies showed that societal benefit per SBHC exceeded intervention cost, with the benefit-cost ratio ranging from 1.38:1 to 3.05:1.ConclusionsThe economic benefit of SBHCs exceeds the intervention operating cost. Further, SBHCs result in net savings to Medicaid.
| S-EPMC6173311 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Many patients considering prostate cancer (PCa) treatment options report seeking proton beam therapy (PBT) based in part on information readily available on the Internet. There is, however, potential for considerable variation in Internet health information (IHI). We thus evaluated the characteristics, quality, and accuracy of IHI on PBT for PCa.We undertook a qualitative research study using snowball-purposive sampling in which we evaluated the top 50 Google search results for "proton prostate cancer." Quality was evaluated on a 5-point scale using the validated 15-question DISCERN instrument. Accuracy was evaluated by comparing IHI with the best available evidence.Thirty-seven IHI websites were included in the final sample. These websites most frequently were patient information/support resources (46%), were focused exclusively on PBT (51%), and had a commercial affiliation (38%). There was a significant difference in quality according to the type of IHI. Substantial inaccuracies were noted in the study sample compared with best available or contextual evidence.There are shortcomings in quality and accuracy in consumer-oriented IHI on PBT for PCa. Providers must be prepared to educate patients how to critically evaluate IHI related to PBT for PCa to best inform their treatment decisions.
| S-EPMC4277870 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOwing to multimodal treatment and complex surgery, locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) exerts a large healthcare burden. Watch and wait (W&W) may be cost saving by removing the need for surgery and inpatient care. This systematic review seeks to identify the economic impact of W&W, compared with standard care, in patients achieving a complete clinical response (cCR) following neoadjuvant therapy for LARC.MethodsThe PubMed, OVID Medline, OVID Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were systematically searched from inception to 26 April 2024. All economic evaluations (EEs) that compared W&W with standard care were included. Reporting and methodological quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), BMJ and Philips checklists. Narrative synthesis was performed. Primary and secondary outcomes were (incremental) cost-effectiveness ratios and the net financial cost.ResultsOf 1548 studies identified, 27 were assessed for full-text eligibility and 12 studies from eight countries (2016-2024) were included. Seven cost-effectiveness analyses (complete EEs) and five cost analyses (partial EEs) utilized model-based (n = 7) or trial-based (n = 5) analytics with significant variations in methodological design and reporting quality. W&W showed consistent cost effectiveness (n = 7) and cost saving (n = 12) compared with surgery from third-party payer and patient perspectives. Critical parameters identified by uncertainty analysis were rates of local and distant recurrence in W&W, salvage surgery, perioperative mortality and utilities assigned to W&W and surgery.ConclusionDespite heterogenous methodological design and reporting quality, W&W is likely to be cost effective and cost saving compared with standard care following cCR in LARC. Clinical Trials Registration PROSPERO CRD42024513874.
| S-EPMC11659367 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: A large number of health economic evaluation (HEE) studies have been published in developed countries. However, Brazilian HEE literature in oncology has not been studied.ObjectiveTo investigate whether the scientific literature has provided a set of HEE in oncology capable of supporting decision making in the Brazilian context. Methods: A systematic review was conducted to identify and characterize studies in this field. We searched multiple databases selecting partial and full HEE studies in oncology (1998-2013). Results: Fifty-five articles were reviewed, of these, 33 (60%) were full health economic evaluations. Type of cancers most frequently studied were: breast (38.2%), cervical (14.6%), lung (10.9%) and colorectal (9.1%). Procedures (47.3%) were the technologies most frequently evaluated. In terms of the intended purposes of the technologies, most (63.6%) were treatments. The majority of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) reported have been below the cost-effectiveness threshold suggested by the World Health Organization (WHO). Conclusions: There has been an increase in the number of HEEs related to cancer in Brazil. These studies may support decision-making processes regarding the coverage of and reimbursement of healthcare technologies for cancer treatment in Brazil.
| S-EPMC6072849 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesScientific advances in the last decade have highlighted the use of immunotherapy, especially immune checkpoint inhibitors, to be an effective strategy in cancer therapy. However, these immunotherapeutic agents are expensive, and their use must take into account economic criteria. Thus, the objective of the present study was to systematically identify and review published EE related to the use of ipilimumab, nivolumab or pembrolizumab in melanoma, lung cancer, head and neck cancer or renal cell carcinoma, and to assess their quality.MethodsThe systematic literature research was conducted on Medline via PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify economic evaluations published before July 2018. The quality of each selected economic evaluation was assessed by two independent reviewers using the Drummond checklist.ResultsOur systematic review was based on 32 economic evaluations using different methodological approaches, different perspectives and different time horizons. Three-quarters of the economic evaluations are full (n = 24) with a Drummond score ≥ 7, synonymous of "high quality". Among them, 66% reported a strategy that was cost-effective. The most assessed immunotherapeutic agent was nivolumab. In patients with renal cell carcinoma or head and neck cancer, it was less likely to be cost-effective than in patients with melanoma or lung cancer.ConclusionsWhether or not these findings will be confirmed remains to be seen when market approval to cover more indications is extended and new effective immunotherapeutic agents become available.
| S-EPMC11027639 | biostudies-literature