Economical Evaluation of Cancer Types Using Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy Compared to 3D Conformal Radiation Therapy: A Systematic Review.
Cancer
Economic evaluation
Radiation therapy
Radiotherapy
Journal
Iranian journal of public health
ISSN: 2251-6093
Titre abrégé: Iran J Public Health
Pays: Iran
ID NLM: 7505531
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2023
Jul 2023
Historique:
received:
20
09
2022
accepted:
19
12
2022
medline:
18
8
2023
pubmed:
18
8
2023
entrez:
18
8
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Cancer is the second most common cause of death worldwide. Economic evaluation of cancer treatment to reduce costs can save the health care system millions of dollars while optimizing care. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to study the economic evaluation of cancer treatment using intermediate intensity radiation therapy (IMRT) compared to conventional 3D conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT). Literatures from PubMed, Embase, Cochran Library, Google scholar, Scopus and Iranian databases were retrieved since Jan 2000 to Apr 2020 for eligible English studies. The quality of the studies was evaluated using Cheers' checklist and then the textual data were analyzed manually by content analysis method. Overall, 1790 articles were retrieved, of which 12 studies were reviewed. The article quality score ranged from 14.5 to 23 out of a maximum of 24 points. Eleven studies referred to cost-effectiveness analysis and one study referred to cost-utility analysis. Studies have been conducted in the United States, Canada, Australia, Brazil, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Hungary. IMRT appears to be a cost-effective treatment strategy for rectal cancer, soft tissue sarcoma, and localized carcinoma of the pharynx, and for prostate cancer in terms of prolonging survival, but it is a cost-effective treatment strategy for head cancer. In addition, the neck was not in India's cancer control program. The results can help to decide whether to use radiation therapy and radiotherapy in the standard treatment path. Furthermore, they underline that IMRT treatment technique was cost effective for a long-time care service.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Cancer is the second most common cause of death worldwide. Economic evaluation of cancer treatment to reduce costs can save the health care system millions of dollars while optimizing care. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to study the economic evaluation of cancer treatment using intermediate intensity radiation therapy (IMRT) compared to conventional 3D conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT).
Methods
UNASSIGNED
Literatures from PubMed, Embase, Cochran Library, Google scholar, Scopus and Iranian databases were retrieved since Jan 2000 to Apr 2020 for eligible English studies. The quality of the studies was evaluated using Cheers' checklist and then the textual data were analyzed manually by content analysis method.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Overall, 1790 articles were retrieved, of which 12 studies were reviewed. The article quality score ranged from 14.5 to 23 out of a maximum of 24 points. Eleven studies referred to cost-effectiveness analysis and one study referred to cost-utility analysis. Studies have been conducted in the United States, Canada, Australia, Brazil, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Hungary. IMRT appears to be a cost-effective treatment strategy for rectal cancer, soft tissue sarcoma, and localized carcinoma of the pharynx, and for prostate cancer in terms of prolonging survival, but it is a cost-effective treatment strategy for head cancer. In addition, the neck was not in India's cancer control program.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
The results can help to decide whether to use radiation therapy and radiotherapy in the standard treatment path. Furthermore, they underline that IMRT treatment technique was cost effective for a long-time care service.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37593521
doi: 10.18502/ijph.v52i7.13237
pii: IJPH-52-1355
pmc: PMC10430406
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
1355-1366Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Alipour et al. Published by Tehran University of Medical Sciences.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of interest The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests.
Références
Med Phys. 2003 Aug;30(8):2089-115
pubmed: 12945975
Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2018 Jan;27(1):
pubmed: 26782759
Ann Oncol. 2006 Jun;17 Suppl 8:viii15-viii23
pubmed: 16801335
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020 Oct;36(5):492-499
pubmed: 32962782
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2012 Sep;24(7):532-8
pubmed: 22739256
Cancer. 2010 Jul 15;116(14):3505-12
pubmed: 20564123
ESMO Open. 2018 Feb 2;3(2):e000285
pubmed: 29464109
Acta Oncol. 2005;44(8):816-24
pubmed: 16332588
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014 Jul 15;89(4):773-83
pubmed: 24726392
Radiother Oncol. 2014 Aug;112(2):187-93
pubmed: 24929702
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2012 Sep;24(7):521-31
pubmed: 22705100
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Oct 1;66(2):408-15
pubmed: 16887291
J Educ Health Promot. 2021 May 20;10:134
pubmed: 34222509
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2012 Dec;24(10):e159-67
pubmed: 23040143
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2005 Apr;5(2):137-40
pubmed: 19807569
Transl Androl Urol. 2018 Jun;7(3):371-377
pubmed: 30050797
Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Mar;97(10):e9958
pubmed: 29517703
Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992). 2018 Apr;64(4):318-323
pubmed: 30133610
BMC Cancer. 2018 Jan 18;18(1):84
pubmed: 29347916
Cancer. 2005 Sep 15;104(6):1296-303
pubmed: 16078260
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016 Jul 1;95(3):999-1008
pubmed: 27130792
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Apr 20;32(12):1195-201
pubmed: 24616315
BMJ Open. 2017 Jan 27;7(1):e012648
pubmed: 28131999
Adv Radiat Oncol. 2017 Oct 12;3(1):34-41
pubmed: 29556578
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013 Nov 15;87(4):683-9
pubmed: 24138916