Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 21, 2026
Proton Therapy Delivery and Its Clinical Application in Select Solid Tumor Malignancies
Published on: February 6, 2019
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Versus 3-Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy
Patrick Richard1, Mark Phillips1, Wade Smith1
1Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Purpose:
Create a cost-effectiveness model comparing preoperative intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) versus 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) for extremity soft tissue sarcomas.
Methods And Materials:
Input parameters included 5-year local recurrence rates, rates of acute wound adverse events, and chronic toxicities (edema, fracture, joint stiffness, and fibrosis). Health-state utilities were used to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Overall treatment costs per QALY or incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. Roll-back analysis was performed using average costs and utilities to determine the baseline preferred radiation technique. One-way, 2-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed for input parameters with the largest impact on the ICER.
Results:
Overall treatment costs were $17,515.58 for 3DCRT compared with $22,920.51 for IMRT. The effectiveness was higher for IMRT (3.68 QALYs) than for 3DCRT (3.35 QALYs). The baseline ICER for IMRT was $16,842.75/QALY, making it the preferable treatment. The ICER was most sensitive to the probability of local recurrence, upfront radiation costs, local recurrence costs, certain utilities (no toxicity/no recurrence, grade 1 toxicity/no local recurrence, grade 4 toxicity/no local recurrence), and life expectancy. Dominance patterns emerged when the cost of 3DCRT exceeded $15,532.05 (IMRT dominates) or the life expectancy was under 1.68 years (3DCRT dominates). Furthermore, preference patterns changed based on the rate of local recurrence (threshold: 13%). The PSA results demonstrated that IMRT was the preferred cost-effective technique for 64% of trials compared with 36% for 3DCRT.
Conclusions:
Based on our model, IMRT is the preferred technique by lowering rates of local recurrence, severe toxicities, and improving QALYs. From a third-party payer perspective, IMRT should be a supported approach for extremity soft tissue sarcomas.
