Evaluation of Health Economics in Radiation Oncology: A Systematic Review

Purpose: Despite the rising costs in radiation oncology, the impact of health economics research on radiation therapy practice analysis patterns is unclear. We performed a systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) and cost-utility analyses (CUAs) to identify trends in reporting quality in the radiation oncology literature over time. Methods and Materials: A systematic review of radiation oncology economic evaluations up to 2014 was performed, using MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards guideline informed data abstraction variables including study demographics, economic parameters, and methodological details. Tufts Medical Center CEA registry quality scores provided a basis for qualitative assessment of included studies. Studies were stratified by 3 time periods (1995-2004, 2005-2009, and 2010-2014). The Cochran-Armitage trend test and linear trend test were used to identify trends over time. Results: In total, 102 articles were selected for final review. Most studies were in the context of a model (61%) or clinical trial (28%). Many studies lacked a conflict of interest (COI) statement (67%), a sponsorship statement (48%), a reported study time horizon (35%), and the use of discounting (29%). There was a significant increase over time in the reporting of a COI statement (P<.001), health care payer perspective (P=.019), sensitivity analyses using multivariate (P=.043) or probabilistic methods (P=.011), incremental cost-effectiveness threshold (P<.001), secondary source utility weights (P=.010), and cost effectiveness acceptability curves (P=.049). There was a trend toward improvement in Tuft scores over time (P=.065). Conclusions: Recent reports demonstrate improved reporting rates in economic evaluations; however, there remains significant room for improvement as reporting rates are still suboptimal. As fiscal pressures rise, we will rely on economic assessments to guide our practice decisions and policies. We recommend improved adherence to published guidelines and further research to determine the clinical implications of our findings. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.