-
J. Natl. Cancer Inst. · Feb 2003
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Clinical TrialSingle- versus multiple-fraction radiotherapy in patients with painful bone metastases: cost-utility analysis based on a randomized trial.
- Wilbert B van den Hout, Yvette M van der Linden, Elsbeth Steenland, Ruud G J Wiggenraad, Job Kievit, Hanneke de Haes, and Jan Willem H Leer.
- Department of Medical Decision Making, Leiden University Medical Center, The Netherlands. W.B.van_den_Hout@LUMC.NL
- J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2003 Feb 5; 95 (3): 222-9.
BackgroundRadiotherapy is an effective palliative treatment for cancer patients with painful bone metastases. Although single- and multiple-fraction radiotherapy are thought to provide equal palliation, which treatment schedule provides better value for the money is unknown. We compared quality-adjusted life expectancy (the overall valuation of the health of the patients) and societal costs for patients receiving either single- or multiple-fraction radiotherapy.MethodsA societal cost-utility analysis was performed on a Dutch randomized, controlled trial of 1157 patients with painful bone metastases that compared pain responses and quality of life from a single-fraction treatment schedule of 8 Gy with a treatment schedule of six fractions of 4 Gy each. The societal values of life expectancies were assessed with the EuroQol classification system (EQ-5D) questionnaire. A subset of 166 patients also answered additional questionnaires to estimate nonradiotherapy and nonmedical costs. Statistical tests were two-sided.ResultsComparing the single- and multiple-fraction radiotherapy schedules, no differences were found in life expectancy (43.0 versus 40.4 weeks, P =.20) or quality-adjusted life expectancy (17.7 versus 16.0 weeks, P =.21). The estimated cost of radiotherapy, including retreatments and nonmedical costs, was statistically significantly lower for the single-fraction schedule than for the multiple-fraction schedule ($2438 versus $3311, difference = $873, 95% confidence interval [CI] on the difference = $449 to $1297; P<.001). The estimated difference in total societal costs was larger, also in favor of the single-fraction schedule, but it was not statistically significant ($4700 versus $6453, difference = $1753, 95% CI on the difference = -$99 to $3604; P =.06). For willingness-to-pay between $5000 and $40 000 per quality-adjusted life year, the single-fraction schedule was statistically significantly more cost-effective than the multiple-fraction schedule (P< or =.05).ConclusionsCompared with multiple-fraction radiotherapy, single-fraction radiotherapy provides equal palliation and quality of life and has lower medical and societal costs, at least in The Netherlands. Therefore, single-fraction radiotherapy should be considered as the palliative treatment of choice for cancer patients with painful bone metastases.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.