An Increasing Population of Patients With Oropharyngeal Carcinoma in China is Predicted to Benefit From Proton Beam Therapy in Terms of Cost-effectiveness Consideration&nbsp;

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-76204/v1

Download PDF

Research article

An Increasing Population of Patients With Oropharyngeal Carcinoma in China is Predicted to Benefit From Proton Beam Therapy in Terms of Cost-effectiveness Consideration

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-76204/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 21 Aug, 2021

Read the published version in BMC Cancer →

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background: Proton beam therapy (PBT) is a new-emerging cancer treatment in China. The treatment costs are high and not yet covered by Chinese public medical insurance. The advanced form of PBT, intensity-modulated proton radiation therapy (IMPT), has been confirmed to reduce normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) compared with conventional intensity-modulated photon-radiation therapy (IMRT) in patients with oropharyngeal cancer (OPC). This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of IMPT versus IMRT for OPC patients in China, aiming at guiding proper use of PBT.

Methods: On the basis of published data, a 7-state Markov model was designed for cost-effectiveness analysis, and an evaluation of average level was performed on a base case of 56-year-old under the hypothesis that IMPT could make a 25% NTCP-reduction concerning to long-term symptomatic dysphagia and xerostomia. Model robustness was examined using probabilistic sensitivity analysis, cohort analysis and tornado diagram. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed to identify cost-effective scenarios. IMPT was considered as cost-effective if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was below the societal willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold (3 times the gross domestic product per capita / quality-adjusted life year (QALY)).

Results: Compared with IMRT, IMPT could provide an extra 0.724 QALYs at an additional cost of 34,926.6 US dollars ($), and made an ICER of $48,229.8/ QALY for the base case. At current WTP level of China ($30,828/QALY), cost-effective scenarios of IMPT existed in the following independent conditions: ≥ 57.3% NTCP-reduction (IMPT compared with IMRT) in dysphagia and xerostomia; patient age ≤ 38-year-old; or the cost of IMPT ≤ $37,398.1. The estimated cost-effective population that benefit from using PBT to treat OPC increased remarkably in the past 10 years with the economic growth, and reached to 559.7 million (about 40.0% of the China’s total population) in the year 2020.

Conclusions: Currently, using PBT to treat OPC could be cost-effective in considerable proportion of China’s population. Considering the economic growth, the gradual increment of medical insurance coverage, as well as the proton treatment cost reduction along with more proton facility opening in the near future, it is estimated that PBT would benefit more Chinese OPC patients with respect to cost-effectiveness.

Cancer Biology

Oropharyngeal cancer

proton beam therapy

cost-effectiveness analysis

intensity-modulated proton radiation therapy

intensity-modulated photon-radiation therapy

Markov model

China

The incidence of oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) has increased in the past 40 years worldwide because of the rising epidemic of human papillomavirus (HPV) infection related to sexual behavior [1]. Traditionally, China has a lower burden of HPV-positive OPC compared to the rest of the world. In the recent decade, the occurrence of OPC in China has showed an upward trend, which is probably due to the behavior changes brought by high pressure lifestyle. As reported, the age-standardized rate of incidence had increased from 2.0/100,000 per year to 2.54/100,000 per year during the year 2003–2012 [2, 3].

According to the latest treatment guidelines, radiotherapy/concurrent chemoradiotherapy has been recommended as the mainstream treatment for OPC patients with early/locally advanced stage, whether HPV-positive or HPV-negative [4, 5]. Owing to the anatomic location and a high required radical dose of this tumor type, irradiation-induced dysphagia and xerostomia become the most common late toxicities in OPC survivors. Even with the best photon irradiation technique, intensity-modulated photon-radiation therapy (IMRT), symptomatic dysphagia and xerostomia (grade 2–4) occurred with the incidences as high as 15–23% and 32–48%; and were confirmed as independent negative influential factors impacting OPC patient’s long-term life quality [6–9].

Proton beam therapy (PBT) is a new-emerging particle irradiation technique with superior energy absorption distribution afforded by protons’ “Bragg peaks” to protect normal tissues. In recent comparative studies, intensity-modulated proton radiation therapy (IMPT), the advanced form of PBT, was found to lower irradiation dose of normal tissues including the parotid, larynx, oral cavity, and pharyngeal constrictor muscle in OPC patients, resulting in the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) concerning to long-term symptomatic dysphagia and xerostomia reduced by approximate 25% on average, in comparison to that of IMRT [10–13]. In previous PBT decision-making studies for OPC, such advantages of IMPT over IMRT in reducing dysphagia and xerostomia had been applied as the pivotal factor determining whether the OPC patient was appropriate to undergo PBT [14, 15].

Nevertheless, the therapeutic benefits should still be carefully weighed against the proton’s much higher treatment cost, which is 3.2 to 4.8 times that of IMRT [16]. At the mainland of China, there is only 1 operational proton center at present, the government has planned to authorize another 16 licenses for operating proton center in the major cities by the year 2020 [17]. The high treatment costs of this new-emerging cancer treatment are not yet covered by Chinese public medical insurance. Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is urgently needed in guiding proper clinical decision of PBT when this treatment would become more available in the near future [18, 19]. Till present, no CEA studies was conducted to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PBT for OPC patients in China.

On the basis of published data, we designed a 7-state Markov model to track the natural development of disease and late toxicities and simultaneously evaluate the relevant cost and effectiveness of IMPT versus IMRT in a long-term period for Chinese OPC patients. The analyses of this study aimed to identify the cost-effective scenarios and estimate the potential population that benefit from using PBT to treat OPC in China.

Model design

TreeAge Pro 2018 software (Williamstown, MA) was used for model building and analysis. A decision tree combined with two 7-state Markov models were designed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of IMPT in comparison to that of IMRT for newly diagnosed non-metastatic OPC patients. CEA modelling was based on two hypotheses: (1) the advantage of IMPT over IMRT would be its ability in reducing symptomatic dysphagia and xerostomia (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group, RTOG grade 2–4), defined as “NTCP-reduction” in this study, and NTCP-reduction (%) ₌ [(NTCP _{after IMRT} - NTCP _{after IMPT}) / NTCP _{after IMRT}] *100%; (2) all the dysphagia and xerostomia would occur within the first year after radiotherapy and late toxicities would be irreversible if occurred [20, 21].

Transition states of the Markov model were illustrated in Fig. 1. The states of “alive with cancer”, “no cancer” (including 4 sub-states of “dysphagia”, “xerostomia”, “dysphagia and xerostomia” and “no complication”) and “death” (including “cancer death” or “other death”) were used to simulate the natural process of disease and late toxicities for OPC patients after radiotherapy. A 1-year cycle length was used, and the Markov models were cycled from 1 year after radiotherapy until the estimated generalized Chinese life expectancy in 2020 (77-year-old) to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a lifetime after radiotherapy [22]. The risk of natural non-cancer caused death was calculated based on the 2016 Life Tables of United States [23].

Base case set-up

We used a base case of 56-year-old (median age of this cancer type in China) to represent the average Chinese OPC patients [24]. Disease probabilities in the model were calibrated according to the overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) data for OPC patients, reported by F De Felice et al. [25]. The 2 compared treatment strategies were similar except for the irradiation technique (IMPT versus IMRT), which included a radical radiotherapy and 3 cycles of concurrent chemotherapy. The NTCPs of dysphagia and xerostomia after IMRT were set according to the long-term follow-up results of OPC patients after IMRT reported by Bird T et al. and Al-Mamgani A et al., in which the probabilities of dysphagia and xerostomia (≥ grade 2) were 0.19 and 0.33 respectively [5, 6]. On the basis of the published data, we assumed that IMPT could make a 25% NTCP-reduction in both dysphagia and xerostomia compared with IMRT for average OPC patients [12, 13]. Other clinical outcomes, including the survival rates, were assumed to be identical between the two strategies.

Cost and utilities

The costs of treatment were calculated based on casual clinical prescriptions to reflect similar costs as that of daily practice in a Chinese hospital. All costs were adjusted to US dollars ($), using a Sino-US exchange rate of $1 = 6.93 RMB (January 23, 2020). The cost of IMPT and IMRT were estimated as being $50,000 and $12,000 respectively for simulating a 32-fraction to a total dose of 70 Gy. The cost of concurrent chemotherapy was assumed as $5,000 (simulating 3 cycles of 80100 mg/m² cisplatin bolus injection delivered on day-1, -21 and − 42 of the radiotherapy). The follow-up cost per year was assumed as $1,000 (including hematologic and biochemistry profiles, nasopharyngeal fiberoptic endoscope examination, magnetic resonance imaging of head and neck, chest radiography and abdominal ultrasonography); the cost of palliative therapy per year was assumed as $5,000 (simulating 8 cycles of oral palliative chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil). The treatment cost for dysphagia per year was estimated to be $3,000; simulating long-term use of nasal feeding tube or percutaneous gastrostomy tube. The treatment cost for xerostomia per year was estimated to be $2,000; simulating the consumption of traditional Chinese medicine or artificial saliva. For patients in the “no cancer” state, the incremental cost per year was the follow-up cost ± the treatment cost for dysphagia and/or xerostomia. For patients in the “alive with cancer” state (recurrence, metastasis, or residue), the incremental cost per year included the follow-up cost and the cost of palliative chemotherapy.

The utilities were adjusted to QALYs using health state utility values (HSUV) derived from previously published studies for head and neck cancer. HSUV can be interpreted as the strength of preference for a given health state on a cardinal scale anchored at 0 (‘death’) and 1 (‘full health’). In this model, the HSUV of “alive with cancer” was assumed as 0.57 to represent a progressive disease with the disutility caused by anticancer treatment [26]. The HSUVs for the states of “dysphagia”, “xerostomia” and “dysphagia and xerostomia” (≥ grade 2) were standardized as 0.803, 0.846 and 0.763, according to the report of Ramaekers et al. [9]. The HSUVs for the states of “no complication” and “death” were set as 1 and 0. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were discounted at an annual rate of 3% [27].

Outcomes measurement

OS was defined as time interval between the end of the radiotherapy and death from any cause. DFS was defined as the time interval between the end of the radiotherapy and first cancer progression or death from any cause. The outcome measure of the model was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) which represented the ratio of the difference in costs to the difference in effectiveness (incremental cost / incremental effectiveness) between IMPT and IMRT. A strategy is deemed cost-effective by comparing the ICER with an established societal willingness-to-pay (WTP). According to the World Health Organization guidelines, a strategy is defined as cost-effective if the ICER value is below 3 times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. In this study, $30,828 / QALY (3 times the Chinese GDP per capita in 2019) was applied as the current WTP level of China [28, 29].

Sensitivity analysis and Monte Carlo simulation

Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was applied to illustrate the robustness of the model in light of a joint uncertainty for model parameters by running over 50,000 iteration trials, and the 90% confidence interval of the model parameters were identified. Tornado diagram was used to evaluate the influences of the parameters on the ICER over the variation of their 90% confidence interval. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed to identify the cost-effective scenarios of IMPT. Monte Carlo simulation (50,000 trials) was applied to show trials distribution of the two strategies and determine which would be the recommended strategy from the perspective of net benefit.

Estimation of cost-effective population

The population with a WTP level beyond the ICER value was estimated as cost-effective population in China in this study. All the 397 administrative regions (cities) at the mainland of China were ranked according to their GDP per capita level. The forefront regions in the ranking, with accumulated total GDP and total population that corresponded an average GDP per capita that made a WTP threshold value (3 times the GDP per capita) beyond the ICER value, were delineated as the cost-effective regions; and the total population in these forefront regions were estimated as the cost-effective population in China. All GDP and population data were collected from the official website of Chinese National Bureau of Statistics [30].

Model robustness verification

The model input information and probabilistic sensitivity analyses for the model parameters are summarized in Table 1. The model robustness verification was performed using the base case set-up. Markov cohort analyses for both IMPT strategy and IMRT strategy are shown in Additional file 1: Figure S1. The CEA model predicted the 1- ,3-, 5- and 10-year OS rates of 90.0%, 85.5%, 80.0% and 68.7%; and the 1- ,3-, 5- and 10-year DFS rates of 85.0%, 78.8%, 72.9% and 67.1% for average OPC patients. Such survival data were very similar with the previous outcomes reported by F De Felice et al. [25] (detailed in Additional file 2: Figure S2).

The tornado diagram identified the top 5 parameters influencing the ICER as the NTCP of dysphagia after IMPT, the cost of IMPT, the NTCP of xerostomia after IMPT, the NTCP of dysphagia after IMRT and the NTCP of xerostomia after IMRT; and the other parameters had only a minor impact on the ICER (Fig. 2).

Cost-effectiveness of the base case

By model calculation, IMPT (compared with IMRT) provided the base case an additional 0.724 QALYs at an additional cost of $34,926.6, and the ICER was $48,229.8/QALY. Thus, IMPT was not cost-effective for the base case at the current WTP level of China ($30,828/QALY). IMPT was the recommended strategy in 34.0% of trials from the perspective of net benefit in Monte Carlo simulations, as showed in Additional file 3: Figure S3.

Cost-effective scenarios of proton beam therapy

One-way sensitivity analyses identified the potential cost-effective scenarios of IMPT with base case set-up, using 3 different WTP thresholds ($30,828 / QALY, $50,000 / QALY and $100,000 / QALY) (Table 2). At the current WTP level of China ($30,828 / QALY), the cost-effective scenarios of IMPT existed in the following independent conditions: ≥ 57.3% NTCP-reduction (IMPT compared with IMRT) in dysphagia and xerostomia; patient age ≤ 38-year-old; or the cost of IMPT ≤ $37,398.1.

Cost-effective population in China benefit from proton beam therapy

The cost-effective population that benefit from using PBT to treat OPC in China was estimated for the years from 2010 to 2020, summarized in Additional file 4: Table S1. The estimated cost-effective population increased remarkably in the past 10 years with the growth of GDP per capita in China; and such population reached to 559.7 million, about 40.0% of the China’s total population in the year 2020, as shown in Fig. 3 and Additional file 5: Table S2.

In this study, a reliable and robust 7-state Markov model was designed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of IMPT versus IMRT for OPC, a fast-growing malignancy in China. On the basis of published data, the cost-effective scenarios of IMPT at the current WTP level of China were identified as the following independent conditions: ≥ 57.3% NTCP-reduction (IMPT compared with IMRT) in dysphagia and xerostomia; patient age ≤ 38-year-old; or the cost of IMPT ≤ $37,398.1. The cost-effective population in China that benefit from using PBT to treat OPC increased remarkably in the past 10 years with the growth of GDP per capita. It was estimated that such cost-effective population would be about 40.0% of the China’s total population in the year 2020.

Cost-effectiveness of PBT has been poorly evaluated worldwide, and has been referred as the proton’s “economic controversy” [18, 31]. The only documented CEA study of PBT for OPC patients was reported by Sher DJ et al., a 6-state Markov model was designed for a 65-year-old OPC patient based on a hypothesis that IMPT could make a 25% reduction of xerostomia, dysgeusia and the need for gastrostomy tube, with the model set-up reflecting the practice in American hospitals [32]. But the 6-state Markov model in that study was found not applicable for Chinese OPC patients in certain regards, such as Chinese patients’ unwillingness to undergo invasive surgery like percutaneous gastrostomy tube for treating the eating difficulty, and the extensive use of traditional Chinese medicine in dealing with xerostomia.

Markov model design is a key step of CEA modelling for PBT. In our previous CEA modelling for paranasal sinus and nasal cavity cancer, a reliable 3-state Markov model was designed to simulate the tumor development and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of IMPT in comparison to IMRT in terms of tumor control improvement [33]. Unlike paranasal sinus and nasal cavity cancer, the advantages of IMPT over IMRT for OPC patients lied in reducing late toxicities while not in improving tumor control or survival rates [34, 35]. In this CEA modelling for OPC, we also used 3 main states including “alive with cancer”, “no cancer” and “death” to simulate the tumor development of OPC, but the survival probabilities were set identical between IMPT strategy and IMRT strategy. The model-predicted OS and DFS were found correspond to the previous long-term survival outcomes [25], which demonstrated that the CEA modelling did abide with the natural disease process of OPC.

To evaluate long-term differences in effectiveness and cost between the two strategies, the state of “no cancer”, referring to OPC survivor after radiotherapy, was further divided into 4 sub-states of “dysphagia”, “xerostomia”, “dysphagia and xerostomia” and “no complication”, the initial state probabilities of the 4 sub-states were set according to the NTCPs of dysphagia and xerostomia. For each cycle, the HSUVs for states of “dysphagia”, “xerostomia”, “dysphagia and xerostomia” and “no complication” were set as 0.803, 0.846, 0.763 and 1, respectively; meanwhile, the annual costs for dealing with these toxicities were added as the accumulated incremental costs. Therefore, NTCP-reductions of dysphagia and xerostomia (IMPT compared with IMRT) became the original motivities of differences in effectiveness and cost between the two strategies. The robustness of this model design was confirmed by tornado diagram analysis, which demonstrated that only the NTCPs and the cost of IMPT had major impacts on ICER value.

In this study, the cost-effective scenarios of PBT were identified as 3 independent conditions for Chinese OPC patients: ≥ 57.3% NTCP-reduction, patient age ≤ 38-year-old, or the cost of IMPT ≤ $37,398.1. In previous PBT decision-making studies for OPC patients, the superiority of IMPT over IMRT in reducing dysphagia and xerostomia (NTCP-reductions) has been applied as the determining factor for treatment decision making between IMPT and IMRT, and NTCP models were applied to estimate NTCP-reductions using dosimetric information in IMPT and IMRT treatment plans, such as the approaches developed by Langendijk JA et al. and Brodin et al. [14, 15]. However, the threshold of NTCP-reduction, above which an OPC patient could be considered as appropriate for PBT, had not be defined in the previous studies. Here, we first defined a threshold for NTCP-reduction based on the criterion of cost-effectiveness. In our CEA modelling, we also found that younger patient who had a longer survival time could benefit more from PBT from the cost-effectiveness consideration. Thus, patient age should be another main consideration in the clinical decision making of prescribing PBT. In addition, proton treatment cost was identified as one of the major influential factors to the cost-effectiveness, and the current proton treatment cost was found high at current WTP level of China. But we estimated that such treatment cost will probably be reduced in the near future due to the market competition and technology upgrade along with more proton centers open in China [36].

Of note, at current stage without public medical insurance coverage, the level of ability-to-pay (WTP level) should also be weighed in clinical decision of using PBT. Regional difference of WTP level in China is obvious. For example, the GDP per capita in Shenzhen City of China (the second highest) are as high as $28,931 in the year 2019, corresponded a WTP of $86,793/QALY (2.8 times the current WTP of China). In order to evaluate the acceptance of using PBT to treat OPC in whole population of China, we delineated the population of a higher level of GDP level that corresponded a WTP level beyond the ICER value ($48,229.8/QALY) as an estimated cost-effective population in this study. Such cost-effective population was found increased remarkably in the 10 past years with the growth of GDP per capita, and reached to 559.7 million (about 40.0% of the China’s total population) in the year 2020. This finding indicated the great market potential and future trend of PBT in Chinese society, even though such estimation might not be accurate due to the uneven distribution of social wealth.

There are two main limitations in this study. First, our CEA modelling was hypothesis-based. We assumed that all the symptomatic dysphagia and xerostomia would occur within the first year after radiotherapy and late toxicities would be irreversible if occurred. This assumption was based on the previously observed studies, which showed that the changes of two late toxicities would be tiny and negligible after 1 year [37, 38]. The Markov models were cycled from 1 year after radiotherapy, and the potential differences in irradiation-induced adverse events within the first year after radiotherapy, including the acute toxicities and hospital admission rates, were not taken into account in CEA. Hence, these hypothesis-related problems may hamper the interpretation of the results. Second, the CEA modelling in this study was performed with the base case set-up (a 25% NTCP-reduction, 56-year-old, and the current WTP of China) to represent Chinese OPC patients of an average level. However, the clinical decision making of prescribing PBT to a specific OPC patient should base on CEA modelling with individualized set-up, which enables to take patient’s age, tumor stage and economic situation into account. So, the next step, we plan to conduct individualized CEA modelling for treatment decision making (IMPT versus IMRT).

On the basis of published data and hypothesis-based CEA modelling, the results in this study demonstrated that the cost-effective scenarios of PBT did exist in Chinese OPC patients; and using PBT to treat OPC could be cost-effective in considerable proportion of China’s population at current stage. Considering future changes including the economic growth, the gradual increment of medical insurance coverage and the proton treatment cost reduction, it is predicted that PBT would benefit more Chinese OPC patients with respect to cost-effectiveness.

PBT: Proton beam therapy; IMPT: Intensity-modulated proton radiation therapy; IMRT: Intensity-modulated photon-radiation therapy; OPC: Oropharyngeal cancer; NTCP: Normal tissue complication probability; PSA: Probabilistic sensitivity analysis; ICER: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; WTP: Willingness-to-pay; HPV: Human papillomavirus; CEA: Cost-effectiveness analysis; RTOG: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group; OS: Overall survival; DFS: Disease-free survival; GDP: Gross domestic product; $: US dollars; QALY: Quality-adjusted life year; SPHIC: Shanghai proton and heavy Ion Center; SYSUCC: Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; HSUV: Health state utility value.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent to publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding

This work was supported by grants to CNQ from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81872384, No. 81672872, and No. 81472386), the Provincial Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong, China (No. 2016A030311011), a research program from the Sun Yat-sen University (No. 84000-18843409); and by grants to YFX from the National Nature Science Foundation of China (No. 81872464) and the Science Development Program of Guangzhou.

Authors’ Contributions

CNQ and GL were responsible for the concept and design of the analysis. JG, CNQ and YXH collected data for analysis. GL, DO, YXH, PYB and BQ performed the analysis and interpretation of results. GL and CNQ prepared a first draft of the manuscript. JD, KB, BQ and YFX provided critical revision to the first and subsequent drafts of the manuscript. All authors contributed to and have reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript. CNQ is the guarantor of the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

Not applicable.

Authors’ Information

Details in authors’ names and affiliations in Title Page part.

Bhatia A, Burtness B. Human papillomavirus pssociated oropharyngeal cancer: defining risk groups and clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:3243-3250.
Zhang LW, Li J, Cong X, Hu XS, Li D, Wu LL, et al. Incidence and mortality trends in oral and oropharyngeal cancers in China, 2005-2013. Cancer Epidemiol. 2018;57:120-126.
Liu J, Yang XL, Zhang SW, Zhu LP, Chen WQ. Incidence , mortality, and temporal patterns of oropharyngeal cancer in China: a population-based study . Cancer Commun (Lond). 2018;38:75.
Grégoire V, Nicolai P. Choosing surgery or radiotherapy for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma: is the issue definitely settled? Lancet Oncol. 2019;20:1328-1329.
Townsend M, DeWees T, Gross J, Daly M, Gay H, Thorstad W, et al. Timing of postoperative radiotherapy in surgically treated HPV-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019;161:297-306.
Bird T, De Felice F, Michaelidou A, Thavaraj S, Jeannon JP, Lyons A, et al. Outcomes of intensity-modulated radiotherapy as primary treatment for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma - a European single institution analysis. Clin Otolaryngol. 2017;42:115-122.
Al-Mamgani A, van Rooij P, Verduijn GM, Mehilal R, Kerrebijn JD, Levendag PC. The impact of treatment modality and radiation technique on outcomes and toxicity of patients with locally advanced oropharyngeal cancer. Laryngoscope. 2013;123:386-393.
Goepfert RP, Lewin JS, Barrow MP, Gunn GB, Fuller CD, Beadle BM, et al. Long-term, prospective performance of the MD Anderson dysphagia inventory in “Low-Intermediate Risk” oropharyngeal carcinoma after intensity modulated radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017;97:700-708.
Sapir E, Tao Y, Feng F, Samuels S, El Naqa I, Murdoch-Kinch CA, et al. Predictors of dysgeusia in patients with oropharyngeal cancer treated with chemotherapy and intensity modulated radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016;96:354-361.
Ramaekers BL, Joore MA, Grutters JP, van den Ende P, Jong Jd, Houben R, et al. The impact of late treatment-toxicity on generic health-related quality of life in head and neck cancer patients after radiotherapy. Oral Oncol 2011;47:768-774.
Apinorasethkul O, Kirk M, Teo K, Swisher-McClure S, Lukens JN, Lin A. Pencil beam scanning proton therapy vs rotational arc radiation therapy: A treatment planning comparison for postoperative oropharyngeal cancer. Med Dosim. 2017;42:7-11.
van de Water TA, Lomax AJ, Bijl HP, de Jong ME, Schilstra C, Hug EB, et al. Potential benefits of scanned intensity-modulated proton therapy versus advanced photon therapy with regard to sparing of the salivary glands in oropharyngeal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;79:1216-1224.
Meijer TWH, Scandurra D, Langendijk JA. Reduced radiation-induced toxicity by using proton therapy for the treatment of oropharyngeal cancer. Br J Radiol. 2020;93:20190955.
Sio TT, Lin HK, Shi Q, Gunn GB, Cleeland CS, Lee JJ, et al. Intensity modulated proton therapy versus intensity modulated photon radiation therapy for oropharyngeal cancer: First comparative results of patient-reported outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016;95:1107-1114.
Langendijk JA, Lambin P, De Ruysscher D, Widder J, Bos M, Verheij M. Selection of patients for radiotherapy with protons aiming at reduction of side effects: The model-based approach. Radiother Oncol. 2013;107:267-273.
Brodin NP, Kabarriti R, Pankuch M, Schechter CB, Gondi V, Kalnicki S, et al. A quantitative clinical decision-support strategy identifying which patients with oropharyngeal head and neck cancer may benefit the most from proton radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2019;104:540-552.
Peeters A, Grutters JP, Pijls-Johannesma M, Reimoser S, De Ruysscher D, Severens JL, et al. How costly is particle therapy? Cost analysis of external beam radiotherapy with carbon-ions, protons and Radiother Oncol. 2010;95:45-53.
The notice of the National Health Commission on adjusting the configuration plan of large-scale medical equipment for 2018-2020. National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China. 2020. http://www.nhc.gov.cn/caiwusi/s10743/202007/c710ab96137846928ba6154135e085d0.shtml. Accessed September 10, 2020.
Lievens Y, Pijls-Johannesma M. Health economic controversy and cost-effectiveness of proton therapy. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2013;23:134-141.
Russell LB, Gold MR, Siegel JE, Daniels N, Weinstein MC. The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine. Panel on cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA. 1996;276:1172-1177.
Houweling AC, Philippens ME, Dijkema T, et al. A Comparison of dose-response models for the parotid gland in a large group of head-and-neck cancer patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010; 76:1259-1265.
Christianen ME, Schilstra C, Beetz I, et al. Predictive modelling for swallowing dysfunction after primary (chemo)radiation: results of a prospective observational study. Radiother Oncol 2012;105:107-114.
Wang HM. Attaching importance to health of elderly population and promoting national healthy ageing actively in China. Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi 2019;40:259-265.
Arias E, Xu J, Kochanek KD. United States Life Tables, 2016. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2019;68:1-66.
Yong-xia Zhang , Bin Zhang, Li Gao, Zhen-gang Xu, Ping-zhang Tang. Clinical analysis of 318 cases of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Zhonghua Er Bi Yan Hou Tou Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2013;48:398-404.
De Felice F, Bird T, Michaelidou A, Thavaraj S, Odell E, et al. Radical (chemo)radiotherapy in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma: Comparison of TNM 7th and 8th staging systems. Radiother Oncol. 2020;145:146-153.
de Almeida JR, Villanueva NL, Moskowitz AJ, Miles BA, Teng MS, Sikora A, et al. Preferences and utilities for health states after treatment for oropharyngeal cancer: Transoral robotic surgery versus definitive (chemo)radiotherapy. Head Neck. 2014;36:923-933.
Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Russell LB, Gold MR. Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA. 1996;276:1339-1341.
Statistical communiqué of the people’s republic of China on the 2019 national economic and social development. National Bureau of Statistics of China. stats.gov.cn/english/PressRelease/202002/t20200228_1728917.html. Accessed September 10, 2020.
Murray CJ, Evans DB, Acharya A, Baltussen RM. Development of WHO guidelines on generalized cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ. 2000;9:235-51.
National Bureau of Statistics of China. http://www.stats.gov.cn/. Accessed September 10, 2020.
Verma V, Mishra MV, Mehta MP. A systematic review of the cost and cost effectiveness studies of proton radiotherapy. Cancer. 2016;122:1483-1501.
Sher DJ, Tishler RB, Pham NL, Punglia RS. Cost-effectiveness analysis of intensity modulated radiation therapy versus proton therapy for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018;101:875-882.
Li G, Qiu B, Huang YX, Doyen J, Bondiau PY, Benezery K, et al.
Cost-effectiveness analysis of proton beam therapy for treatment decision making in paranasal sinus and nasal cavity cancers in China. BMC Cancer. 2020;26;20:599.
Gunn GB, Blanchard P, Garden AS, Zhu XR, Fuller CD, Mohamed AS, et al. Clinical outcomes and patterns of disease recurrence after intensity modulated proton therapy for oropharyngeal squamous carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016 May 1;95(1):360-367.
Aljabab S, Liu A, Wong T, Liao JJ, Laramore GE, Parvathaneni U. Proton therapy for locally advanced oropharyngeal cancer: Initial clinical experience at the university of Washington. Int J Part Ther. 2020;6:1-12.
Kerstiens J, Johnstone GP, Johnstone PAS. Proton facility economics: Single-room centers. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018;15:1704-1708.
Bagley AF, Ye R, Garden AS, Gunn GB, Rosenthal DI, Fuller CD, et al. Xerostomia-related quality of life for patients with oropharyngeal carcinoma treated with proton therapy. Radiother Oncol. 2020;142:133-139.
Grant SR, Hutcheson KA, Ye R, Garden AS, Morrison WH, Rosenthal DI, et al. Prospective longitudinal patient-reported outcomes of swallowing following intensity modulated proton therapy for oropharyngeal cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2020;148:133-139.

Table 1 Model information and probabilistic sensitivity analysis for the parameters

Parameters	Input information	90% CI in PSA^a	Distribution^b	Source
Target Cancer	OPC
Evaluated treatment strategies	IMPT vs. IMRT
Base case set-up
Patient age^c	56-year-old^d
Disease probabilities
DFS (1-year)	0.85			F De Felice et al. [25]
OS (1-year)	0.9			F De Felice et al. [25]
“no cancer” to “alive with cancer”	0.03(2^nd-5^rd year); 0 (6^th -10^th year)			F De Felice et al. [25]
“alive with cancer” to “cancer death”	0.3			F De Felice et al. [25]
Long-term toxicities probabilities
NTCP of dysphagia after IMRT	0.19	0.129 - 0.256	Beta	Bird T et al. [5]
NTCP of xerostomia after IMRT	0.33	0.266 - 0.394	Beta	Al-Mamgani A et al. [6]
NTCP of dysphagia after IMPT	0.143	0.0369 - 0.276	Beta	Meijer TWH et al. [12]
NTCP of xerostomia after IMPT	0.248	0.128 - 0.377	Beta	Meijer TWH et al. [12]
Utilities (QALYs)
No complication	1
Dysphagia	0.803	0.671 - 0.918	Beta	Ramaekers BL et al. [9]
Xerostomia	0.846	0.714 - 0.955	Beta	Ramaekers BL et al. [9]
Dysphagia and xerostomia	0.763	0.631 - 0.881	Beta	Ramaekers BL et al. [9]
Alive with cancer	0.57	0.442 - 0.696	Beta	de Almeida JR et al. [26]
Death (cancer death or other death)	0
Cost ($)
IMPT	50,000	37,134.7 - 62,882.3	Normal	SPHIC
IMRT	12,000	10,737.4 - 13,282.5	Normal	SYSUCC
Concurrent chemotherapy	5,000	3,728.8 - 6,297.3	Normal	SYSUCC
Follow-up / year	1,000	869.7 - 1,128.0	Normal	SYSUCC
Treatment for dysphagia / year	3,000	1,716.6 - 4,273.0	Normal	SYSUCC
Treatment for xerostomia / year	2,000	1,362.6 - 2,641.6	Normal	SYSUCC
Palliative therapy / year	5,000	2,411.2 - 7,567.2	Normal	SYSUCC
Markov model set-up
Cycle length	1-year
Number of cycles	77^e - patient age
Discount rate / year	3%

CI confidence interval, PSA probabilistic sensitivity analysis, OPC oropharyngeal cancer, IMPT intensity modulated proton therapy, IMRT intensity modulated radiation therapy, OS overall survival, DFS disease-free survival, NTCP normal tissue complication probability, QALY quality adjusted life year, $ US dollars, SPHIC Shanghai Proton and Heavy Ion Center, SYSUCC Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, CEA cost-effectiveness analysis

^aProbabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed to determine 90% CI for model parameters by running over 50,000 iteration trials.

^bThe utilities and probabilities were tested using beta distribution and the costs were tested using uniform distribution.

^cThe patient age when preparing for radiotherapy.

^dMedian age of OPC patients in China.

^eThe estimated Chinese life expectancy. For the base case, Markov models were to be cycled 21 times to evaluate the outcomes over a time-period from 1 year after radiotherapy to the end of the estimated Chinese life expectancy.

Table 2 One-way sensitivity analysis identifying cost-effective scenarios of proton beam therapy with different willingness-to-pay thresholds

Parameters	Base Case Set-up	Expected Value	Cost-effective Threshold Value
Parameters	Base Case Set-up	Expected Value	$30,828 / QALY^b		$50,000 / QALY	$100,000 / QALY
NTCP-reduction^a	25%	Minimum	57.3%	22.6%		1.4%
Patient age (year-old)	56	Maximum	38	56		68
The cost of IMPT ($)	50,000	Maximum	37,398.1	51,281.9		87,490.4

NTCP normal tissue complication probability, IMPT intensity modulated proton radiation therapy, $ US dollars, QALY quality-adjusted life-year

^aNTCP-reduction referred to the advantage of IMPT over IMRT in reducing symptomatic dysphagia and xerostomia, and calculated with the formula: NTCP-reduction (%)₌[(NTCP _{after IMRT} - NTCP_{after IMPT}) / NTCP _{after IMRT}] *100%.

^bThe willingness-to-pay threshold of China.

Additionalfile1FigureS1.tif
Additional file 1: Figure S1. Markov cohort analyses a. Cohort analysis for intensity modulated proton radiation therapy strategy b. Cohort analysis for intensity modulated photon-radiation therapy strategy Legend: Markov state probabilities of the base case were calculated in the cohort analyses for both intensity modulated proton radiation therapy (IMPT) strategy and intensity modulated photon-radiation therapy (IMRT) strategy.
Additionalfile2FigureS2.tif
Additional file 2: Figure S2. Model-predicted survival data in comparison with the previous outcomes Legend: The model-predicted survival rates were in comparison with the previous outcomes reported by F De Felice et al. [25]. The CEA model predicted the 2- ,3- and 5-year OS rates of 87.8%, 85.5% and 80.0%, in comparison with the previous 2- ,3- and 5-year OS rates of 86.8%, 84.6% and 78.1%; and the 3- and 5-year DFS rates of 78.6% and 72.9%, in comparison with the previous 3- and 5-year DFS rates of 78.6% and 73.9%. OS, overall survival; DFS, disease-free survival.
Additionalfile3FigureS3.tif
Additional file 3: Figure S3. Monte Carlo simulations a. Incremental cost-effectiveness scatter plot (trials distribution) b. Strategy selection chart Legend: Monte Carlo simulation (with 50,000 trials) was performed with the base case set-up at the WTP of $30,828 / QALY. a, each point represented 1 of those simulations and was charted at the simulation’s resultant incremental cost versus incremental effectiveness of IMPT compared with IMRT. b, strategy selection from the perspective of net benefit demonstrated that only 34.0% of trials favored IMPT to IMRT. $, US dollars; IMPT, intensity modulated proton radiation therapy; IMRT, intensity modulated photon-radiation therapy; QALY, quality adjusted life year; WTP: willingness to pay.
Additionalfile4TableS1.docx
Additionalfile5TableS2.docx

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 21 Aug, 2021

Read the published version in BMC Cancer →

Editorial decision: Minor revision
17 Nov, 2020
Review #1 received at journal
16 Nov, 2020
Review #2 received at journal
16 Nov, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed at journal
01 Nov, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed at journal
29 Oct, 2020
Reviewers invited by journal
26 Oct, 2020
Editor assigned by journal
14 Sep, 2020
Submission checks completed at journal
13 Sep, 2020
Editor invited by journal
13 Sep, 2020
First submitted to journal
11 Sep, 2020

You are reading this latest preprint version

An Increasing Population of Patients With Oropharyngeal Carcinoma in China is Predicted to Benefit From Proton Beam Therapy in Terms of Cost-effectiveness Consideration

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Background

Methods

Model design

Base case set-up

Cost and utilities

Outcomes measurement

Sensitivity analysis and Monte Carlo simulation

Estimation of cost-effective population

Results

Discussion

Conclusions

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Tables

Supplementary Files

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1