https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3871-1356
Figures
Abstract
Background
The current standard of care (SOC) for whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT) in the US is conventional tangential photon fields. Advanced WBRT techniques may provide similar tumor control and better normal tissue sparing, but it is controversial whether the medical benefits of an advanced technology are significant enough to justify its higher cost.
Methods
We developed a Markov model to simulate health states for one cohort of women (65-year-old) with early-stage breast cancer over 15 years after WBRT. The cost effectiveness analyses of field-in-field (FIF), hybrid intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), full IMRT, standard volumetric modulated arc therapy (STD-VMAT), multiple arc VMAT (MA-VMAT), non-coplanar VMAT (NC-VMAT) compared with SOC were performed with both tumor control and radiogenic side effects considered. Transition probabilities and utilities for each health state were obtained from literature. Costs incurred by payers were adopted from literature and Medicare data. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to evaluate the impact of uncertainties on the final results.
Results
FIF has the lowest ICER value of 1,511 $/QALY. The one-way analyses show that the cost-effectiveness of advanced WBRT techniques is most sensitive to the probability of developing contralateral breast cancer. PSAs show that SOC is more cost effective than almost all advanced WBRT techniques at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 50,000 $/QALY, while FIF, hybrid IMRT and MA-VMAT are more cost-effective than SOC with a probability of 59.2%, 72.3% and 72.6% at a WTP threshold of 100,000 $/QALY, respectively.
Citation: Xie Y, Guo B, Zhang R (2021) Cost-effectiveness analysis of radiotherapy techniques for whole breast irradiation. PLoS ONE 16(3): e0248220. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248220
Editor: Isabelle Durand-Zaleski, URCEco Ile de France Hopital de l’Hotel Dieu, FRANCE
Received: June 3, 2020; Accepted: February 23, 2021; Published: March 8, 2021
Copyright: © 2021 Xie et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.
Funding: National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant K22CA204464 (RZ), Louisiana State University (LSU) Faculty Research Grant (RZ), LSU Economic Development Assistantship Award (RZ).
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Background
Breast cancer has the highest incidence rate among women in the United States besides skin cancer (www.cancer.org). Lumpectomy is commonly performed for patients with early-stage breast cancer, and whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT) after lumpectomy can improve local control and overall survival [1].
The current standard of care (SOC) for whole breast radiation therapy (WBRT) in the US and in our clinic is conventional tangential photon fields [2, 3]. Other advanced technologies had been proposed for WBRT and shown auspicious results, such as field-in-field (FIF) technique [4, 5], hybrid Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) [6–8], fixed beam IMRT [9, 10], standard volumetric modulated arc therapy (STD-VMAT) [11], multiple arc VMAT (MA-VMAT) [12]. Non-coplanar VMAT (NC-VMAT) has been shown to improve organs at risk (OAR) dosimetry for post-mastectomy breast cancer [13], but has not been investigated for WBRT. These advanced technologies are superior to SOC in improving the dose homogeneity within the target volume and reduce therapeutic dose to radiosensitive organs, but may increase low-dose cloud which could cause higher risk of radiogenic side effects [14, 15].
It has been reported that the cost of breast cancer treatments is around $16.5 billion in the United States in 2010, which is higher than any other type of cancer, and is projected to reach $20 billion by 2020 [16]. Although more advanced radiotherapy technologies may improve dosimetric outcomes under certain circumstances, their much higher cost may not justify their advantages. There have been some cost-effectiveness studies comparing partial breast irradiation and WBRT [17–19], but the comprehensive cost-effectiveness comparison among advanced WBRT techniques including costs of radiogenic side effects is still lacking.
The aim of this study was to analyze the cost-effectiveness of various WBRT techniques including conventional SOC, FIF, hybrid IMRT, IMRT, STD-VMAT, MA-VMAT and NC-VMAT. The conventional SOC was used as the reference for modality comparisons. Both tumor coverage and late side effects (cardiac toxicity and secondary cancers) after WBRT were included in the analyses.
Methods
Decision model
A Markov model (Fig 1) was designed using TreeAge Pro (Williamstown, MA) to simulate the clinical history of 65-year-old postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer who received lumpectomy and subsequent WBRT with a prescribed dose of 50 Gy in 25 fractions. All patients start with no evidence of disease (NED) after WBRT, and transition afterwards to one of the four states (distant metastasis, local recurrence, late radiogenic side effects, and death from other causes) in 1-year cycles. The patients could also die from breast cancer, which is mainly caused by distance metastasis, and die from radiogenic side effects.
NED = no evidence of disease.
A 15- year horizon after radiotherapy was analyzed in the model since study has shown the improvement in local control and survival due to radiotherapy during this time period [1]. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) was expressed in terms of cost per life-year gained according to the following formula:
where C0 and E0 are the cost and quality adjusted life year (QALY) for SOC technique, and C1 and E1 are the cost and QALY for other WBRT techniques. Willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $50,000/ QALY and $100,000/QALY [20, 21] were used to determine whether a WBRT technique is cost-effective.
Model data input
All transition probabilities and utilities for SOC were extracted from published literature [1, 22–26] and are shown in Table 1.
The costs of different WBRT techniques from payer perspective were based on local hospital Medicare charges, including costs for physician consultant, dosimetry, treatment fractions, physics quality assurance etc., and are shown in Table 2, and the costs of treating 3 radiogenic late side effects were extracted from literature and are also included in Table 2. Only direct medical costs are considered in this study. The advanced techniques contain radiation intensity modulation, which requires a specific charge for the equipment and extra workload for quality assurance performed by medical physicists. This is the major reason that advanced RT techniques are more expensive than SOC. Costs and utilities were discounted at an annual rate of 3% [32].
Since the clinical data of tumor control or radiogenic late effects after advanced WBRT techniques were largely incomplete, we assumed probabilities of local recurrence and distant metastasis for advanced WBRT to be the same as those after SOC WBRT, and calculated probabilities of radiogenic late effects for those techniques using well-defined risk models including lifetime attributable risk (LAR) for second cancers [39] and risk for coronary events (RCE) [40, 41] as shown in Table 3. We assumed that all lung and cardiac events start from year 11 after radiotherapy [40, 42], while contralateral breast events start from year 6 after radiotherapy [43].
The model validity was assessed by comparing 15-year survival results with predicted results from CancerMath, which is the latest web-based prognostic tool that includes conventional radiotherapy as part of treatment for breast cancer patients [45, 46].
Sensitivity analyses
A series of one-way sensitivity analyses were performed over a wide range of assumptions for probabilities, utilities, and treatment costs of radiogenic side effects for six advanced WBRT techniques versus SOC.
Probability sensitivity analyses (PSA) were also performed to assess the uncertainty and robustness of the model by assigning specific distributions for model parameters, where the probabilities, utilities, and costs of radiogenic side effects were varied simultaneously across their distributions using Monte Carlo simulation. Recommended by Briggs et al. [47], we used beta distribution for transition probabilities and utilities estimates, and used gamma distributions for cost parameters. The cost-effectiveness acceptability was calculated based on the result of 100,000 simulations for each WBRT technique at different WTP thresholds.
Results
The external validation of our model was assessed for 65-year-old women with early-stage breast cancer. Our model predicted a 15-year overall survival rate of 53.3% and breast cancer mortality rate of 21.7%, and CancerMath calculated an overall survival rate of 55.0% and breast cancer mortality rate of 19.5%. These comparisons suggest that our model’s predictions are similar to real clinical outcomes.
Table 4 shows baseline ICERs for all six WBRT techniques compared with SOC. Among six techniques that been analyzed, FIF shows the lowest ICER of $1,511/QALY while IMRT shows highest ICER of $121,087/QALY.
The one-way analyses (S1 Fig) show that the cost-effectiveness of all six advanced WBRT techniques is most sensitive to the probability of developing contralateral breast cancer. S2 Fig shows cost-effectiveness acceptability curves for various advanced WBRT techniques at different willingness to pay thresholds. The probabilities of being more cost-effective than SOC for six WBRT techniques are shown in Table 5. At a WTP threshold of $50,000/QALY, except FIF which has a 58.9% probability of being more cost- effective, none of the other five WBRT techniques has an over 2.0% probability of being more cost-effective. At a WTP threshold of $100,000/QALY, FIF, hybrid IMRT and MA-VMAT are more likely to be cost-effective than SOC with a probability of 59.2%, 72.3% and 72.6%, respectively.
Discussion
This study presents the most comprehensive cost-effectiveness analysis of seven WBRT techniques. Not only tumor control but also radiogenic side effects were included in the study. IMRT shows the highest baseline ICER which may due to its higher initial treatment cost and limited improvement of normal tissue sparing. FIF has the lowest baseline ICER which is mainly due to its low initial treatment cost and relatively lower probability of inducing cardiac toxicity compared with SOC. As shown in the PSAs, FIF, hybrid IMRT and MA-VMAT are more likely to be more cost- effective than SOC and other WBRT techniques at a WTP of $100,000/QALY, while SOC WBRT appeared to be more cost-effective than advanced WBRT techniques except for FIF at WTP of $50,000/QALY. Given the prevalence of breast cancer and continued growth of health care costs, results from this analysis will have a positive impact. Prior study has shown that up to 30% of the medical care spending in the US is unnecessary or inappropriate [48]. Moreover, study on Medicare patients found that higher spending was associated with more care but not better health outcomes [49]. The results from our analysis may benefit health care professionals and help choose the most cost-effective health intervention for breast cancer patients.
Radiotherapy is a crucial component of breast cancer treatment, and several studies have compared cost-effectiveness between different WBRT and accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) techniques. Shah et al. [18] reported that external beam APBI costs less and is more effective than hypofractionated WBRT after 90 days of the initial treatment. Another study by their group [50] compared multiple APBI techniques with WBRT delivered with 3D-conformal therapy and IMRT, and showed that external beam APBI is more cost-effective than WBRT using 3D-conformal therapy, and all APBI techniques are more cost-effective than WBRT using IMRT. Sher et al. [17] compared the cost-effectiveness between WBRT, external beam and MammoSite (MS) APBI, and also concluded that external beam APBI is the most cost- effective strategy for early-stage breast cancer patients. However, not all lumpectomy patients are eligible for APBI, and the cost-effectiveness analysis of different advanced WBRT techniques is largely lacking. Sen et al. [51] compared no radiotherapy, conventional external beam WBRT and IMRT WBRT for women older than 70. They only considered tumor control, and they reported that IMRT would have to be substantially more effective in improving quality of life than conventional external beam therapy to be cost-effective. Because they did not include short-term or long-term side effects in their study, they used the increase of utility of baseline state to be a vague representation of improvement in quality of life. Our study shows that the risk of developing contralateral breast cancer may significantly affect the cost-effectiveness for advanced WBRT techniques, and contralateral breast cancer is directly related to quality of life for WBRT patients. Our study is therefore consistent with Sen et al. [51] and clearly suggests reducing irradiation of contralateral breast could be a key factor to make advanced WBRT technique more cost-effective. For SOC WBRT, considerable volumes of heart and ipsilateral lung are likely to receive high doses which may lead to radiation-related toxicities such as secondary lung cancer [52] and heart disease [40, 53]. The radiogenic side effects will not only affect patients’ quality of life, but also add further economic burden for WBRT patients. Advanced radiotherapy techniques could avoid high dose expose to surrounding and underlying healthy tissues and improve the quality of life for the patients.
A previous study from our group evaluated cost-effectiveness of current SOC post-mastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) and seven advanced PMRT techniques over 15 years [54]. It used a similar Markov model and showed that the model outcomes are most sensitive to the probability of developing cardiac toxicity for PMRT patients. As shown in the one-way analysis in this study, the cost-effectiveness of all WBRT techniques is most sensitive to the risk of developing contralateral breast cancer. The possible reason for this discrepancy is treatment target is much closer to heart for PMRT patients than for WBRT patients, which significantly increases the risks of heart toxicity and makes it a contributing factor to the cost-effectiveness of PMRT techniques. On the other hand, the risk of developing contralateral breast cancer for WBRT patients is much higher than for PMRT patients, which is mainly due to the relatively large field size used in WBRT to cover the whole ipsilateral breast and increased irradiation of the contralateral breast. Additionally, treating contralateral breast cancer will cost almost $3,000 more than treating heart toxicity (Table 2). Therefore, providing better sparing of contralateral breast is essential for advanced WBRT technique to be cost-effective.
Proton therapy was not included in this study. Although proton therapy has been shown to be a promising WBRT technique to reduce heart and lung dose [55, 56], it did not gain popularity due to its limited availability¸ multiple uncertainties [57, 58], possible skin toxicity [59, 60] and significantly higher cost. Another effective method to limit radiation dose to heart and lung is deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH), which is particularly useful for treating patients with left-sided breast cancer [61, 62]. Macrie et al. [63] reported a DIBH program that is inexpensive to implement and has minimum influence on patient throughput. Chatterjee et al. [64] concluded that although DIBH requires significant resource commitments regarding person-hours, it is still more cost-effective due to the reductions in cardiac mortality. Comparing cost-effectiveness of various WBRT techniques for patients with DIBH is still lacking and will be investigated by our group in the near future. Hypofractionated WBRT is effective for selected early-stage breast cancer patients. It is more convenient for the patients and caregivers and can significantly cut treatment costs. However, hypofractionation is not the current SOC in our clinic or many other clinics in the US. Considering the cost calculations will be completely different, the outcome data for patients treated with hypofractionation are scarce, and existing dose-risk models are based on standard fractionated radiotherapy, we did not include those patients in this study. The cost-effectiveness evaluation of various techniques for hypofractionated WBRT patients will be investigated by our group in the future when more outcome data come out.
Our study has some limitations. First, we used well-defined dose-risk models to calculate probabilities of developing radiogenic late effects for advanced WBRT techniques because there is a lack of clinical outcome data. However, as shown in another study from our group [44], the calculated risks of cardiac toxicity and second cancers after SOC WBRT are in good agreement with the clinical outcomes, so we expect our calculated risks values for advanced WBRT techniques are also reasonable. Long-term clinical trial outcomes will be needed to validate the calculated outcomes for advanced WBRT techniques. Second, it’s difficult to assess the total costs of care for primary cancer or treatment-related side effects from the available literatures. As Campbell and Ramsey [65] point out, many studies ignored or truncated the duration of the continuing care period, or only focused on certain subpopulations, and many of them are quite dated and do not reflect changes in patterns of care. It is possible that the outcome and cost values used in our study contain uncertainties, but the comprehensive uncertainty analyses took these into account by varying each possible uncertain value over plausible ranges and assessing their impact on the final cost-effectiveness.
Conclusions
We evaluated cost-effectiveness of seven WBRT techniques. Based on calculated ICER values and comprehensive uncertainty analyses, FIF appears to be the most cost-effective approach for WBRT patients at a WTP threshold of $50,000/QALY, and hybrid IMRT and MA-VMAT might be the most cost-effective options at a WTP threshold of $100,000/QALY. Providing better sparing of contralateral breast is essential for advanced WBRT techniques to be cost effective.
Supporting information
S1 Fig. Tornado diagram of one-way analyses that compare SOC with (a) FIF, (b) Hybrid, (c) IMRT, (d) STD-VMAT, (e) NC-VMAT and (f) MA-VMAT.
One-way sensitivity analysis examines the impact of variables on the outcomes (e.g., ICER) by changing a specific value over its uncertainty range while keeping all other variables constant at their baseline value. The dashed line represents the baseline ICER, and the width of the bars represents the change of ICER based on the uncertainty range of each variable. The wider the bar is, the more significant impact the variable has on the ICER value. P_: probability of developing certain radiogenic side effect using certain WBRT technique. Utility_: utility value for certain radiogenic side effect. Cost_: cost of treating certain radiogenic side effect.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248220.s001
(DOCX)
S2 Fig. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves that compare the cost-effectiveness of SOC and (a) FIF, (b) Hybrid, (c) IMRT, (d) STD-VMAT, (e) NC-VMAT and (f) MA-VMAT at different willingness to pay (WTP) thresholds.
The data points indicate the percentage of iterations out of 100,000 iterations that were cost-effective at a given WTP threshold during probabilistic sensitivity analysis. The two dashed lines shown in the figures highlight the WTP threshold at 50,000 $/QALY and 100,000 $/QALY, respectively.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248220.s002
(DOCX)
References
- 1. Clarke M, Collins R, Darby S, Davies C, Elphinstone P, Evans V, et al: Effects of radiotherapy and of differences in the extent of surgery for early breast cancer on local recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 2005, 366:2087–2106. pmid:16360786
- 2.
Halperin EC, Perez CA, Brady LW: Perez and Brady’s Principles and Practice of Radiation Oncology, 5th Edition. Philadelphia, PA: LWW; 2008.
- 3.
RTOG: 0413: A randomized phase III study of conventional whole breast irradiation versus partial breast irradiation for women with stage 0, I or II breast cancer. 2011.
- 4.
Cox JD, Ang KK: Radiation Oncology: rationale, technique, results. 9th ed. Philadelphia, PA: MOSBY ELSEVIER; 2010.
- 5. Lo YC, Yasuda G, Fitzgerald TJ, Urie MM: Intensity modulation for breast treatment using static multi-leaf collimators. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000, 46:187–194. pmid:10656392
- 6. Farace P, Zucca S, Solla I, Fadda G, Durzu S, Porru S, et al.: Planning hybrid intensity modulated radiation therapy for whole-breast irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012, 84:e115–122. pmid:22543199
- 7. Jeulink M, Dahele M, Meijnen P, Slotman BJ, Verbakel WF: Is there a preferred IMRT technique for left-breast irradiation? J Appl Clin Med Phys 2015, 16:5266. pmid:26103488
- 8. Mayo CS, Urie MM, Fitzgerald TJ: Hybrid IMRT plans—concurrently treating conventional and IMRT beams for improved breast irradiation and reduced planning time. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005, 61:922–932. pmid:15708276
- 9. Beckham WA, Popescu CC, Patenaude VV, Wai ES, Olivotto IA: Is multibeam IMRT better than standard treatment for patients with left-sided breast cancer? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007, 69:918–924. pmid:17889273
- 10. Freedman GM, Anderson PR, Li J, Eisenberg DF, Hanlon AL, Wang L, et al.: Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) decreases acute skin toxicity for women receiving radiation for breast cancer. Am J Clin Oncol 2006, 29:66–70. pmid:16462506
- 11. Popescu CC, Olivotto IA, Beckham WA, Ansbacher W, Zavgorodni S, Shaffer R, t al.: Volumetric modulated arc therapy improves dosimetry and reduces treatment time compared to conventional intensity-modulated radiotherapy for locoregional radiotherapy of left-sided breast cancer and internal mammary nodes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010, 76:287–295. pmid:19775832
- 12. Tsai PF, Lin SM, Lee SH, Yeh CY, Huang YT, Lee CC, et al.: The feasibility study of using multiple partial volumetric-modulated arcs therapy in early stage left-sided breast cancer patients. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2012, 13:3806. pmid:22955645
- 13. Xie Y, Bourgeois D, Guo B, Zhang R: Postmastectomy radiotherapy for left-sided breast cancer patients: Comparison of advanced techniques. Med Dosim 2020, 45:34–40. pmid:31129035
- 14. Ruben JD, Smith R, Lancaster CM, Haynes M, Jones P, Panettieri V: Constituent components of out-of-field scatter dose for 18-MV intensity modulated radiation therapy versus 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy: a comparison with 6-MV and implications for carcinogenesis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2014, 90:645–653. pmid:25084609
- 15. Hall EJ, Wuu CS: Radiation-induced second cancers: the impact of 3D-CRT and IMRT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003, 56:83–88. pmid:12694826
- 16. Mariotto AB, Yabroff KR, Shao Y, Feuer EJ, Brown ML: Projections of the cost of cancer care in the United States: 2010–2020. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011, 103:117–128. pmid:21228314
- 17. Sher DJ, Wittenberg E, Suh WW, Taghian AG, Punglia RS: Partial-breast irradiation versus whole-breast irradiation for early-stage breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009, 74:440–446. pmid:18963542
- 18. Shah C, Ward MC, Tendulkar RD, Cherian S, Vicini F, Singer ME: Cost and Cost-Effectiveness of Image Guided Partial Breast Irradiation in Comparison to Hypofractionated Whole Breast Irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019, 103:397–402. pmid:30253236
- 19. Sher DJ, Wittenberg E, Taghian AG, Bellon JR, Punglia RS: Partial breast irradiation versus whole breast radiotherapy for early-stage breast cancer: a decision analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008, 70:469–476. pmid:17967514
- 20. Grosse SD: Assessing cost-effectiveness in healthcare: history of the $50,000 per QALY threshold. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2008, 8:165–178. pmid:20528406
- 21. Neumann PJ: What next for QALYs? JAMA 2011, 305:1806–1807. pmid:21540426
- 22. Colzani E, Johansson AL, Liljegren A, Foukakis T, Clements M, Adolfsson J, et al.: Time-dependent risk of developing distant metastasis in breast cancer patients according to treatment, age and tumour characteristics. Br J Cancer 2014, 110:1378–1384. pmid:24434426
- 23. Lee JH, Glick HA, Hayman JA, Solin LJ: Decision-analytic model and cost-effectiveness evaluation of postmastectomy radiation therapy in high-risk premenopausal breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 2002, 20:2713–2725. pmid:12039934
- 24. Arias E, Xu J: United States Life Tables, 2015. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2018, 67:1–64. pmid:30707669
- 25. Henson KE, McGale P, Taylor C, Darby SC: Radiation-related mortality from heart disease and lung cancer more than 20 years after radiotherapy for breast cancer. Br J Cancer 2013, 108:179–182. pmid:23257897
- 26. Correa C, McGale P, Taylor C, Wang Y, Clarke M, Davies C, et al.: Overview of the randomized trials of radiotherapy in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2010, 2010:162–177. pmid:20956824
- 27. Arias E: United States Life Tables, 2017. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2019, 68:1–66. pmid:32501200
- 28. Stout NK, Rosenberg MA, Trentham-Dietz A, Smith MA, Robinson SM, Fryback DG: Retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis of screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006, 98:774–782. pmid:16757702
- 29. Lundkvist J, Ekman M, Ericsson SR, Isacsson U, Jonsson B, Glimelius B: Economic evaluation of proton radiation therapy in the treatment of breast cancer. Radiother Oncol 2005, 75:179–185. pmid:15885828
- 30. Sullivan PW, Ghushchyan V: Preference-Based EQ-5D index scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Med Decis Making 2006, 26:410–420. pmid:16855129
- 31. Villanti AC, Jiang Y, Abrams DB, Pyenson BS: A cost-utility analysis of lung cancer screening and the additional benefits of incorporating smoking cessation interventions. PLoS One 2013, 8:e71379. pmid:23940744
- 32.
Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC: Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
- 33. Roberts ET, Horne A, Martin SS, Blaha MJ, Blankstein R, Budoff MJ, et al.: Cost-effectiveness of coronary artery calcium testing for coronary heart and cardiovascular disease risk prediction to guide statin allocation: the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). PLoS One 2015, 10:e0116377. pmid:25786208
- 34. Roberts A, Habibi M, Frick KD: Cost-effectiveness of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for prevention of contralateral breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2014, 21:2209–2217. pmid:24633665
- 35. Andreas S, Chouaid C, Danson S, Siakpere O, Benjamin L, Ehness R, et al: Economic burden of resected (stage IB-IIIA) non-small cell lung cancer in France, Germany and the United Kingdom: A retrospective observational study (LuCaBIS). Lung Cancer 2018, 124:298–309. pmid:29961557
- 36. Schwarzkopf L, Wacker M, Holle R, Leidl R, Gunster C, Adler JB, et al.: Cost-components of lung cancer care within the first three years after initial diagnosis in context of different treatment regimens. Lung Cancer 2015, 90:274–280. pmid:26384433
- 37. Keusters WR, de Weger VA, Hovels A, Schellens JHM, Frederix GWJ: Changing costs of metastatic non small cell lung cancer in the Netherlands. Lung Cancer 2017, 114:56–61. pmid:29173766
- 38. Stokes ME, Thompson D, Montoya EL, Weinstein MC, Winer EP, Earle CC: Ten-year survival and cost following breast cancer recurrence: estimates from SEER-medicare data. Value Health 2008, 11:213–220. pmid:18380633
- 39.
National Research Council. Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radation: BEIR VII—Phase 2. Washington, DC: Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2006.
- 40. Darby SC, Ewertz M, McGale P, Bennet AM, Blom-Goldman U, Bronnum D, et al: Risk of ischemic heart disease in women after radiotherapy for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2013, 368:987–998. pmid:23484825
- 41. Ridker PM, Buring JE, Rifai N, Cook NR: Development and validation of improved algorithms for the assessment of global cardiovascular risk in women: the Reynolds Risk Score. JAMA 2007, 297:611–619. pmid:17299196
- 42. Roychoudhuri R, Evans H, Robinson D, Moller H: Radiation-induced malignancies following radiotherapy for breast cancer. Br J Cancer 2004, 91:868–872. pmid:15292931
- 43. Yadav BS, Sharma SC, Patel FD, Ghoshal S, Kapoor RK: Second primary in the contralateral breast after treatment of breast cancer. Radiother Oncol 2008, 86:171–176. pmid:17961777
- 44. Xie Y, Bourgeois D, Guo B, Zhang R: Comparison of conventional and advanced radiotherapy techniques for left-sided breast cancer after breast conserving surgery. Med Dosim 2020, 45:e9–e16. pmid:32646715
- 45.
Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Calculator: http://www.lifemath.net/cancer/breastcancer/therapy/index.php
- 46. Michaelson JS, Chen LL, Bush D, Fong A, Smith B, Younger J: Improved web-based calculators for predicting breast carcinoma outcomes. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011, 128:827–835. pmid:21327471
- 47. Briggs A: Probabilistic analysis of cost-effectiveness models: statistical representation of parameter uncertainty. Value Health 2005, 8:1–2. pmid:15841888
- 48. Garber A, Goldman DP, Jena AB: The promise of health care cost containment. Health Aff (Millwood) 2007, 26:1545–1547. pmid:17978370
- 49. Fisher ES, Wennberg DE, Stukel TA, Gottlieb DJ, Lucas FL, Pinder EL: The implications of regional variations in Medicare spending. Part 2: health outcomes and satisfaction with care. Ann Intern Med 2003, 138:288–298. pmid:12585826
- 50. Shah C, Lanni TB, Saini H, Nanavati A, Wilkinson JB, Badiyan S, et al.: Cost-efficacy of acceleration partial-breast irradiation compared with whole-breast irradiation. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2013, 138:127–135. pmid:23329353
- 51. Sen S, Wang SY, Soulos PR, Frick KD, Long JB, Roberts KB, et al.: Examining the cost-effectiveness of radiation therapy among older women with favorable-risk breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014, 106:dju008. pmid:24598714
- 52. Inskip PD, Stovall M, Flannery JT: Lung cancer risk and radiation dose among women treated for breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994, 86:983–988. pmid:8007020
- 53. Little MP, Zablotska LB, Lipshultz SE: Ischemic heart disease after breast cancer radiotherapy. N Engl J Med 2013, 368:2523–2524. pmid:23802524
- 54. Xie Y, Guo B, Zhang R: Cost-effectiveness analysis of advanced radiotherapy techniques for post-mastectomy breast cancer patients. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2020, 18:26. pmid:32774176
- 55. Ares C, Khan S, Macartain AM, Heuberger J, Goitein G, Gruber G, et al.: Postoperative proton radiotherapy for localized and locoregional breast cancer: potential for clinically relevant improvements? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010, 76:685–697. pmid:19615828
- 56. Lin LL, Vennarini S, Dimofte A, Ravanelli D, Shillington K, Batra S, et al.: Proton beam versus photon beam dose to the heart and left anterior descending artery for left-sided breast cancer. Acta Oncol 2015, 54:1032–1039. pmid:25789715
- 57. Lomax AJ: Intensity modulated proton therapy and its sensitivity to treatment uncertainties 2: the potential effects of inter-fraction and inter-field motions. Phys Med Biol 2008, 53:1043–1056. pmid:18263957
- 58. Lomax AJ: Intensity modulated proton therapy and its sensitivity to treatment uncertainties 1: the potential effects of calculational uncertainties. Phys Med Biol 2008, 53:1027–1042. pmid:18263956
- 59. Kozak KR, Smith BL, Adams J, Kornmehl E, Katz A, Gadd M, et al: Accelerated partial-breast irradiation using proton beams: initial clinical experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006, 66:691–698. pmid:17011445
- 60. Liang X, Bradley JA, Zheng D, Rutenberg M, Yeung D, Mendenhall N, et al.: Prognostic factors of radiation dermatitis following passive-scattering proton therapy for breast cancer. Radiat Oncol 2018, 13:72. pmid:29673384
- 61. Latty D, Stuart KE, Wang W, Ahern V: Review of deep inspiration breath-hold techniques for the treatment of breast cancer. J Med Radiat Sci 2015, 62:74–81. pmid:26229670
- 62. Dell’Oro M, Giles E, Sharkey A, Borg M, Connell C, Bezak E: A Retrospective Dosimetric Study of Radiotherapy Patients with Left-Sided Breast Cancer; Patient Selection Criteria for Deep Inspiration Breath Hold Technique. Cancers (Basel) 2019, 11. pmid:31888295
- 63. Macrie BD, Donnelly ED, Hayes JP, Gopalakrishnan M, Philip RT, Reczek J, et al.: A cost-effective technique for cardiac sparing with deep inspiration-breath hold (DIBH). Phys Med 2015, 31:733–737. pmid:26117242
- 64. Chatterjee S, Chakraborty S, Moses A, Nallathambi C, Mahata A, Mandal S, et al: Resource requirements and reduction in cardiac mortality from deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) radiation therapy for left sided breast cancer patients: A prospective service development analysis. Pract Radiat Oncol 2018, 8:382–387. pmid:29699893
- 65. Campbell JD, Ramsey SD: The costs of treating breast cancer in the US: a synthesis of published evidence. Pharmacoeconomics 2009, 27:199–209. pmid:19354340