Here is the link to the story and article as reported on "Medpage Today":www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyOncology/ProstateCancer/39287
Primarily the study found that there was no real difference in treating post-prostatectomy patients with CRT versus IMRT.
Of particular not was this quote near the end of the article;
Cost is a major consideration with IMRT that the authors addressed only briefly, he said.
"A critical difference between the recent evolution of surgery and that of radiation is that most payers pay no more for robot-assisted prostatectomy than for
open surgery," Cooperberg continued. "The additional costs associated with the robot-assisted approach are largely borne by hospitals."
"On the other hand, IMRT is reimbursed at a high premium compared with CRT -- and an exceptional one compared with surgery or brachytherapy. In fact, from a payer perspective, IMRT is rarely cost-effective for most patients compared with these alternatives," Cooperberg added.
At a time when treatment for prostate cancer should be cost-effective and clinically effective, the U.S. reimbursement system rewards "technological arms races" rather than a focus on outcomes improvement.
"Prostate cancer care remains preference sensitive -- driven by various nonevidence-based motivations of clinicians and patients in the absence of clear comparative effectiveness data -- and supply sensitive, with utilization rates of interventions correlating with extent of availability of those services," Cooperberg said.