Economic evaluation of stereotactic radiotherapy and stereotactic radiosurgery technologies in the treatment of cancers: a systematic review

ABSTRACT

Introduction

This systematic review study investigated the cost-effectiveness of stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for treatment of various types of cancers.

Methods

PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from 30 December 1990 to 1 January 2023. The entered studies were screened in accordance with the inclusion criteria. The inclusion criteria encompassed all types of economic evaluation studies that investigated SRT/SRS technologies in the treatment of various cancers.

Results

A total of 47 articles were included in the review. The findings suggest that the use of Linear accelerator technology for the treatment of lung cancer (8 out of 12 studies) and prostate cancer (4 out of 5 studies) was a cost-effective strategy. Linear accelerator was found to be cost-effective in the treatment of liver metastases and liver cancer (2 out of 5 studies). All of the included studies that used Gamma Knife technology in brain metastases reported Gamma-Knife was a cost-effective treatment. Furthermore, in the treatment of prostate and liver cancer, proton therapy was identified as a cost-effective option than other treatments.

Conclusions

This study confirms that SRT/SRS is a cost-effective procedure for the treatment of various types of cancers. Therefore, it is recommended to use SRT/SRS technology for optimal use of resources.

KEYWORDS:

• Cost-effectiveness
• stereotactic radiosurgery
• linear accelerator
• Gamma Knife
• proton therapy
• cancer

Article highlights

• In this study, we focused on effective and new interventions.

• In this study, we coverd several types of cancers.

• In this study, the most cost-effectiveness intervention was introduced by reviewed the literature.

Declaration of interest

The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

Reviewer disclosures

Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial or other relationships to disclose.

Author contributions

The authors collectively contributed to the conception and design of the research, interpretation of the data, drafting of the paper, and final approval. They mutually accept accountability for all facets of the work.

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2024.2353727.

Additional information

Funding

This paper was a part of an economic evaluation project that was funded by Health Technology assessment office of ministry of Health and medical Education.