Background: In advanced oesophageal cancer (OC), 90% of patients have dysphagia as a principal symptom. The randomised TROG 03.01 trial reported no significant overall survival or dysphagia relief difference between 15 fractions (#) radiotherapy alone (RT) or RT plus chemotherapy (CRT) Future studies may consider RT hypofractionation, different chemotherapy, esophageal stenting, and best supportive care. Comparing costs and outcomes, economic evaluation often informs public funding decisions in countries such as Australia and the UK. The objective of this analysis was to derive baseline cost and outcome for further studies. Methods: Given equal outcomes (non-inferiority) between treatment arms, cost-minimisation analysis (CMA) was used to evaluate cost-effectiveness, cost a deciding factor if no other benefit was predicted. We explored 15 and 10 # courses used in TROG 03.01 and alternatives, 1 or 5 # Study design and uncertainty analyses were provided. Sub-analysis assessed salvage therapy for local and systemic progression. The EQ-5D (and SF-12) was used to determine utility values to estimate Quality-Adjusted Life years (QALYs) for evaluation. Results: From a health system perspective, costs and outcomes of RT were estimated at $4,700 AUD (15 # course). If, compared with RT alone, an alternative option is more costly but more effective, then a cost-utility analysis (CUA) is preferred economic evaluation. Intervention and in/outpatient costs, initial phase and post treatment were considered for stent insertion and alternative chemotherapy regimens. Alternatively, autocontoured CT planning and machine learning were modelled to reduce RT planning cost (est. $650/p). Total cost for 5 # is $3200 could be further reduced through process efficiency savings using CMA approach. Conclusions: The value of palliative approaches in common malignancies is difficult to assess. This study uses economic analysis to guide paying authority decisions. RT can be simplified from the TROG 03.01 approach to lessen cost and simplify treatment. The clinical efficiency of 1 or 5 # should be evaluated.