731 860
Study from the societal perspective
Lundkvist (2005)
[46]NA
Cost
modeling
Data from literature
Proton versus
conventional
(IMRT)
Costs modeled
in decision
tree analyses
Direct and indirect costs,
including purchase cost of
proton and IMRT facilities,
amortization of facilities,
transportation and hotel
accommodations for proton
patients
Societal
(Sweden)
Mean proton cost:
s
13 491 (2002)
Mean IMRT cost:
s
5477 (2002)
Difference:
s
8014 (2002)
The cost effectiveness of a proton facility
depends on the total patient population
treated (and hence the number of patients
treated with different types of cancers (eg,
prostate, breast, head and neck, childhood
medulloblastoma). This article assumed
that 300 prostate cancer patients were
treated per year. The cost per QALY was
about
s
26 776.
Limitations: Information about the clinical
effects of proton therapy was very limited;
also lack of information on health economic
data (ie, costs and QOL in patients treated
with radiotherapy); as a consequence, the
estimates used in the assessment had to be
based on more or less uncertain
assumptions. Assessment based on an
assumed lifetime of 30 yr for proton facility.
This could be shortened by the introduction
of other new technologies or lengthened by
improvements in the facilities.
Risk of bias high due to uncertainty of the
data abstracted from the literature.
[7_TD$DIFF]
HCPCS = Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System; ICER = incremental cost effectiveness ratio; IMRT = intensity-modulated radiotherapy; NA = not applicable; QALY = quality-adjusted life year; QOL = quality of life.
Note
: for any cost data, the year to which inflation adjustment was made is indicated in parenthesis. Studies are listed in chronological order based on the years included in the study.
E U R O P E A N U R O L O G Y 7 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 7 1 2 – 7 3 5
731