Is ultra-hypo-fractionated radiotherapy more cost-effective relative to conventional fractionation in treatment of prostate cancer? A cost-utility analysis alongside a randomized HYPO-RT-PC trial.

backgroundEconomic evidence for comparing low fraction with ultra-hypo fractionated (UHF) radiation therapy in the treatment of intermediate-to-high-risk prostate cancer (PC) is lacking, especially in Europe. This study presents an economic evaluation performed alongside an ongoing clinical trial.

aimTo investigate up to 6 years' follow-up whether conventional fractionation (CF, 78.0 Gy in 39 fractions, 5 days per week for 8 weeks) is more cost-effective than UHF (42.7 Gy in 7 fractions, 3 days per week for 2.5 weeks inclusive of 2 weekends) radiotherapy in treatment for patients with intermediate-to-high-risk PC.

methodHYPO-RT-PC trial is an open-label, randomized, multicenter (10 in Sweden; 2 in Denmark) phase-3 trial. Patients from Sweden (CF 434; UHF 445) were included in this study. The trial database was linked to the National Patient Registry (NPR). Costs for inpatient/non-primary outpatient care for each episode were retrieved. For calculating Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire was mapped to the EQ-5D-3L index. Multivariable regression analyses were used to compare the difference in costs and QALYs, adjusting for age and baseline costs, and health status. The confidence interval for the difference in costs, QALYs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated by the bootstrap percentile method.

resultsNo significant differences were found in ICER between the two arms after 6 years of follow-up.

conclusionThe current study did not support that the ultra-hypo-fractionated treatment was more cost-effective than the conventional fraction treatment up to the sixth year of the trial.