Cost Analysis of MR-Guided vs. CT-Guided Radiation Therapy for Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

Abstract

Stereotactic magnetic resonance guided on-table adaptive radiotherapy (SMART) is an increasingly utilized radiotherapy (RT) treatment for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC), providing improved local control and overall survival with reduced toxicity. Computed tomography (CT) guided RT options include stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and hypofractionated RT with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Currently there are no financial comparisons for MR vs CT-guided RT for LAPC. We completed a cost analysis comparing the physician and hospital charges associated with RT options for LAPC. To compare RT costs, we identified Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes utilized for 5-fraction SMART with adaptation (50 Gy, biological effective dose (BED) 100 Gy), 5-fraction CT-guided SBRT (33 Gy, BED 55 Gy), and 15-fraction CT-guided hypofractionated VMAT (67.5 Gy, BED 98 Gy) in a hospital-based practice setting. Physician and hospital Medicare prices associated with these codes together summarize the overall cost. We determined physician fees using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician Fee Schedule Search to search the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) for "professional" costs included within "facility" costs. We determined hospital fees using the Outpatient Prospective Payment System addendum. To standardize costs, we searched for national payment amounts for the 2022 calendar year. Total cost of SMART with adaptation was 136% higher than the cost of CT-SBRT and 149% higher than the cost of hypofractionated RT. Physician fees for SMART were 173% higher and 157% higher than the fees for CT-SBRT and hypofractionated RT, respectively. Hospital fees for SMART were 129% higher and 147% higher than the fees for CT-SBRT and hypofractionated RT, respectively. The total cost of CT-SBRT was only 5% higher than cost of hypofractionated RT. The physician fees for hypofractionated RT were 6% higher than those for CT-SBRT, while the outpatient fees for CT SBRT were 7% higher than those for hypofractionated RT. With recent data demonstrating favorable efficacy and toxicity rates for SMART, practices may increasingly consider investing in this treatment modality. This is the first cost analysis comparing SMART to CT-guided SBRT and hypofractionated RT in LAPC. We demonstrate higher costs of SMART compared to CT-guided RT, attributable primarily to higher number of dosimetry calculations for this modality and for adapted fractions. We also demonstrate comparable costs of lower BED CT-guided SBRT and higher BED hypofractionated RT. Further investigation is needed to assess whether the survival benefit of SMART translates to favorable cost per quality adjusted life year.