{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03328402366863906, 'fraction_numerical': 0.021449704142011833, 'mean_word_length': 5.322429906542056, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Cost‐effectiveness analysis of intensity‐modulated radiation therapy with normal and hypofractionated schemes for the treatment of localised prostate cancer

The aim of our analysis was to compare the cost-effectiveness of high-dose intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (HF-IMRT) versus conventional dose three-dimensional radiation therapy (3DCRT) for the treatment of localised prostate cancer. A Markov model was constructed to calculate the incremental quality-adjusted life years and costs. Transition probabilities, adverse events and utilities were derived from relevant systematic reviews. Microcosting in a large university hospital was applied to calculate cost vectors. The expected mean lifetime cost of patients undergoing 3DCRT, IMRT and HF-IMRT were 7,160 euros, 6,831 euros and 6,019 euros respectively. The expected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were 5.753 for 3DCRT, 5.956 for IMRT and 5.957 for HF-IMRT. Compared to 3DCRT, both IMRT and HF-IMRT resulted in more health gains at a lower cost. It can be concluded that high-dose IMRT is not only cost-effective compared to the conventional dose 3DCRT but, when used with a hypofractionation scheme, it has great cost-saving potential for the public payer and may improve access to radiation therapy for patients.