Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34419008›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2021

Optimizing oropharyngeal cancer management by using proton beam therapy: trends of cost-effectiveness.

Guo Li, Yun-Fei Xia, Yi-Xiang Huang, Deniz Okat, Bo Qiu, Jerome Doyen, Pierre-Yves Bondiau, Karen Benezery, Jin Gao, Chao-Nan Qian

Open access · goldAbstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Proton Beam Radiation Therapy for Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.International journal of particle therapy · 2023
    Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Guo LiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Affiliated Cancer Hospital & Institute of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510095, P. R. China.
Yun-Fei XiaState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China and Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng East Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510060, P. R. China.
Yi-Xiang HuangDepartment of Health Management, Public Health Institute of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510000, P. R. China.
Deniz OkatDepartment of Finance, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Kowloon, Hong Kong, P. R. China.
Bo QiuState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China and Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng East Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510060, P. R. China.
Jerome DoyenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Antoine Lacassagne Cancer Center, University of Nice-Sophia, 06189, Nice, France.
Pierre-Yves BondiauDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Antoine Lacassagne Cancer Center, University of Nice-Sophia, 06189, Nice, France.
Karen BenezeryDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Antoine Lacassagne Cancer Center, University of Nice-Sophia, 06189, Nice, France.
Jin GaoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of University of Science and Technology of China, Division of Life Sciences and Medicine, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui, 230031, P. R. China.
Chao-Nan QianState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China and Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng East Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510060, P. R. China. qianchn@sysucc.org.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7233-8831
Sun Yat-sen University · CNCentre Antoine Lacassagne · FRGuangzhou Medical University · CNHong Kong University of Science and Technology · HKUniversity of Science and Technology of China · CN

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 81672872National Natural Science Foundation of China 81872384National Natural Science Foundation of China 81872464National Natural Science Foundation of China 82073220
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProton beam therapy (PBT) is a new-emerging cancer treatment in China but its 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) as compared to conventional intensity-modulated photon-radiation therapy (IMRT) in patients with oropharyngeal cancer (OPC). Herein, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness and applicability of IMPT versus IMRT for OPC patients in China, aiming at guiding the proper use of PBT.

methodsA 7-state Markov model was designed for analysis. Base-case evaluation was performed on a 56-year-old (median age of OPC in China) patient under the assumption that IMPT could provide a 25% NTCP-reduction in long-term symptomatic dysphagia and xerostomia. Model robustness was examined using probabilistic sensitivity analysis, cohort analysis, and tornado diagram. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to identify the 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.

resultsCompared with IMRT, IMPT provided an extra 0.205 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) at an additional cost of 34,926.6 US dollars ($), and had an ICER of $170,082.4/ QALY for the base case. At the current WTP of China ($33,558 / QALY) and a current IMPT treatment costs of $50,000, IMPT should provide a minimum NTCP-reduction of 47.5, 50.8, 55.6, 63.3 and 77.2% to be considered cost-effective for patient age levels of 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50-year-old, respectively. For patients at the median age level, reducing the current IMPT costs ($50,000) to a $30,000 level would make the minimum NTCP-reduction threshold for "cost-effective" decrease from 91.4 to 44.6%, at the current WTP of China (from 69.0 to 33.5%, at a WTP of $50,000 / QALY; and from 39.7 to 19.1%, at a WTP of $100,000 / QALY).

conclusionsCost-effective scenarios of PBT exist in Chinese OPC patients at the current WTP of China. Considering a potential upcoming increase in PBT use in China, such cost-effective scenarios may further expand if a decrease of proton treatment costs occurs or an increase of WTP level.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisDisease ManagementHealth Care CostsHumansMaleMarkov ChainsMiddle AgedOropharyngeal NeoplasmsPrognosisProton TherapyQuality-Adjusted Life YearsChinaCost-effectiveness analysisIntensity-modulated photon-radiation therapyIntensity-modulated proton radiation therapyMarkov modelOropharyngeal cancerProton beam therapy

Identifiers

PMID34419008
PMCPMC8380358
OpenAlexW3194439492

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.