PHOENIX – Intensity-modulated radiotherapy is more expensive than 3-D–conformal radiotherapy is and has not been shown to improve standard outcomes in patients with head and neck cancer. But it results in better quality of life.

These findings from two studies presented at the Multidisciplinary Head and Neck Cancer Symposium raise the question: Does improved quality of life justify the greater expense of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), which has been rapidly adopted for the treatment of head and neck cancer?

Because IMRT spares surrounding tissues, it reduces the likelihood of developing xerostomia, noted Dr. Nathan C. Sheets, who presented data on billing charges associated with IMRT, compared with 3-D–conformal radiotherapy (CRT). IMRT is reimbursed at a substantially higher level than CRT, however, and it is unclear how to assess this cost relative to other aspects of care in this population, said Dr. Sheets, a radiation oncology resident at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

A separate study presented by Dr. Allen M. Chen compared quality of life in patients who received IMRT vs. CRT. "There’s very little data to suggest IMRT is better than non-IMRT using traditional end points. But the question is: How do you define ‘better’?" said Dr. Chen, director of the radiation oncology residency training program at the University of California, Davis in Sacramento.

"IMRT might not particularly involve better cure rates, but it could make a difference in terms of other end points, such as quality of life, which we all know is very important to patients," he said.

Gap Ranges from $5,000 to $6,000

The cost study analyzed data for 184 patients who had received definitive radiation therapy for head and neck squamous cell cancer at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill during 2000-2009 and for whom billing records were available.

The median year of treatment was 2004 for 89 patients treated with CRT, and 2007 for 95 IMRT patients, reflecting the shift to use of IMRT over time. The majority of patients – 87% of CRT and 94% of IMRT – received concurrent chemotherapy. More IMRT patients received positron emission tomography (PET) scans at any point (69% vs. 37%).

Over 36 months’ follow-up, locoregional control was nearly identical for the two patient groups (P = .73). Mean total costs, from the time of diagnosis through the first year of follow-up, were considerably higher for IMRT, at $50,502 vs. $38,977 for CRT. Outpatient costs accounted for the bulk of the difference ($35,418 IMRT vs. $22,696 CRT), whereas inpatient costs were similar, Dr. Sheets reported.

Multivariate analysis showed that factors associated with increased cost of radiotherapy included IMRT, recurrent disease, comorbidities, non-white race, and use of positron-emission scanning. After adjustment for inflation, each of these factors, including IMRT, independently increased the total cost by approximately $5,000-$6000. (Treatment failure was much more expensive, contributing about $14,274 to the total cost.)

Dr. Sheets ended his presentation with the question, "Do the benefits of IMRT outweigh the costs?"

QOL Improves Over 2 Years’ Follow-up

Dr. Chen’s quality of life study addressed that question. The study used the University of Washington Quality of Life instrument (UW-QOL), a previously validated, self-administered questionnaire given to patients returning for follow-up after completion of radiation therapy for head and neck cancer. The University of California, Davis, routinely uses the measure in clinical practice.