Cost-effectiveness of stereotactic body radiation therapy versus surgical resection for stage I non-small cell lung cancer

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

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.

Systematic review of economic evaluations on stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) compared to other radiotherapy techniques or surgical procedures for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is recommended as first-choice treatment to inoperable early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, it is not widely adopted in developing countries, and its cost-effectiveness is unclear. We aimed to perform a systematic review of full economic evaluations (EE) that compared SABR with other radiotherapy or surgical procedures to assess the results and methodological approach.

METHODS

The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021241640). We included full EE studies with early-stage NSCLC in which one group was submitted to SABR. Studies that were partial EE, included advanced NSCLC or other neoplasm were excluded. We performed the last search on June 2021 in Medline, EMBASE and other databases. The reporting quality were assessed by CHEERS checklist. The main characteristics of each study were tabulated, and the results were presented by a narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

We included nine studies. Three compared radiotherapy techniques, in which SABR was found to be dominant or cost-effective. Six compared SABR with surgery, and in this group, there was not a unanimous decision. All included only direct healthcare costs but varied about categories included. The parameters used in the model-based studies were highly heterogeneous using mixed data from various sources. The items properly reported varied from 29 to 67%.

CONCLUSIONS

The studies were all from developed countries and lacked in reporting quality. We recommend that developing countries produce their own studies. More strict alignment to reporting guidelines and use of robust evidence as model parameters are also advised.

Microwave Ablation versus Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Stage I Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

PURPOSE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of microwave ablation (MWA) and SBRT for patients with inoperable stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search was performed in MEDLINE with broad search clusters. A decision-analysis model was constructed over a 5-year period. The model incorporated treatment-related complications and long-term recurrence. All clinical parameters were derived from the literature with preference to long-term prospective trials. A healthcare payers' perspective was adopted. Outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALY) extracted from prior studies and United States dollars from Medicare reimbursements and prior studies. Base case calculations, probabilistic sensitivity analysis with 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations, and multiple one- and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

MWA yielded a health benefit of 2.31 QALY at a cost of $195,331, whereas SBRT yielded a health benefit of 2.33 QALY at a cost of $225,271. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $1,480,597/QALY, indicating that MWA is the more cost-effective strategy. The conclusion remains unchanged in probabilistic sensitivity analysis with MWA being the optimal cost strategy in 99.84% simulations. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that MWA remains cost-effective when its annual recurrence risk is below 18.4% averaged over 5 years, when the SBRT annual recurrence risk is above 1.44% averaged over 5 years, or when MWA is at least $7,500 cheaper than SBRT.

CONCLUSION

Microwave ablation appears to be a more cost-effective than stereotactic body radiotherapy for patients with inoperable stage I non-small cell lung cancer.

Cost-effectiveness of stereotactic body radiotherapy in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to systematically review the studies on the cost-effectiveness of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in databases from 2000 through April 2021. The search terms included 'economics,' 'cost,' 'cost effectiveness,' 'SBRT,' and all names for NSCLC. Two reviewers independently screened the titles, abstracts and full texts to determine the studies for the final sample. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies checklist.

RESULTS

Eleven studies were identified and included in our final review. SBRT was reported to be a cost-effective (5 of 5) option compared to conventional radiotherapy, radiofrequency ablation, and best supportive care for medically inoperable, early-stage NSCLC. However, the identified studies revealed that no single treatment was found to be more cost-effective than others between SBRT and surgical interventions. The key drivers of this cost-effectiveness were the cost of the treatment, utility value, and the rate of surgical mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

SBRT may be considered a more cost-effective strategy for medically inoperable, early-stage NSCLC. Considering the limited studies available, more related research should be conducted to further validate these results.

SPECT/CT versus planar imaging to determine treatment strategy for non-small-cell lung cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Aim: SPECT/CT has been found to improve predicted postoperative forced expiratory volume in one second (ppoFEV₁) assessments in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: An economic simulation was developed comparing the cost-effectiveness of SPECT/CT versus planar scintigraphy for a US payer. Clinical outcomes and cost data were obtained through review of the published literature. Results: SPECT/CT increased the accuracy ppoFEV₁ assessment, changing the therapeutic decision for 1.3% of nonsurgical patients to a surgical option, while 3.3% of surgical patients shifted to more aggressive procedures. SPECT/CT led to an expected cost of $4694 per life year gained, well below typical thresholds. Conclusion: SPECT/CT resulted in substantially improved health outcomes and was found to be highly cost-effective.

Cost-effectiveness of carbon-ion radiotherapy versus stereotactic body radiotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer

Carbon-ion radiotherapy (CIRT) for clinical stage I non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is used as an advanced medical treatment regimen in Japan. Carbon-ion radiotherapy reportedly aids in achieving excellent treatment outcomes, despite its high medical cost. We aimed to compare CIRT with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in terms of cost-effectiveness for treating clinical stage I NSCLC. Data of patients with clinical stage I NSCLC treated with CIRT or SBRT at Gunma University between 2010 and 2015 were analyzed. The CIRT and SBRT groups included 62 and 27 patients, respectively. After propensity-score matching, both groups comprised 15 patients. Life year (LY) was used as an indicator of outcome. The CIRT technical fee was 3 140 000 JPY. There was no technical fee for the second CIRT carried out on the same organ within 2 years. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated by dividing the incremental cost by the incremental LY for 5 years after treatment. Sensitivity analysis was applied to evaluate the impact of LY or costs of each group on ICER. The ICERs were 7 491 017 JPY/LY and 3 708 330 JPY/LY for all patients and matched patients, respectively. Hospitalization and examination costs were significantly higher in the CIRT group, and the impact of the CIRT technical costs was smaller than other costs and LY. Carbon-ion radiotherapy is a cost-effective treatment approach. However, our findings suggest that reducing excessive costs by considering the validity and necessity of examinations and hospitalizations would make CIRT a more cost-effective approach.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Local Treatment in Oligometastatic Disease

BACKGROUND

In certain malignancies, patients with oligometastatic disease benefit from radical ablative or surgical treatment. The SABR-COMET trial demonstrated a survival benefit for oligometastatic patients randomized to local stereotactic ablative radiation (SABR) compared to patients receiving standard care (SC) alone. Our aim was to determine the cost-effectiveness of SABR.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A decision model based on partitioned survival simulations estimated costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) associated with both strategies in a United States setting from a health care perspective. Analyses were performed over the trial duration of six years as well as a long-term horizon of 16 years. Model input parameters were based on the SABR-COMET trial data as well as best available and most recent data provided in the published literature. An annual discount of 3% for costs was implemented in the analysis. All costs were adjusted to 2019 US Dollars according to the United States Consumer Price Index. SABR costs were reported with an average of $11,700 per treatment. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Incremental costs, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set to $100,000/QALY.

RESULTS

Based on increased overall and progression-free survival, the SABR group showed 0.78 incremental QALYs over the trial duration and 1.34 incremental QALYs over the long-term analysis. Treatment with SABR led to a marginal increase in costs compared to SC alone (SABR: $304,656; SC: $303,523 for 6 years; ICER $1,446/QALY and SABR: $402,888; SC: $350,708 for long-term analysis; ICER $38,874/QALY). Therapy with SABR remained cost-effective until treatment costs of $88,969 over the trial duration (i.e. 7.6 times the average cost). Sensitivity analysis identified a strong model impact for ongoing annual costs of oligo- and polymetastatic disease states.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis suggests that local treatment with SABR adds QALYs for patients with certain oligometastatic cancers and represents an intermediate- and long-term cost-effective treatment strategy.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy for the Treatment of Oligometastatic Tumors versus Standard of Care

BACKGROUND

Recent clinical trial results reported that stereotactic radiotherapy (SABR) may improve survival for patients with oligometastatic (OM) cancer. Given that these results come from a phase II trial, there remains considerable uncertainty about this finding, and about the cost-effectiveness of SABR for patients with OM cancer. In this analysis, we estimate the cost-effectiveness of SABR for oligometastatic cancer patients.

METHODS

A probabilistic time-dependent Markov model was constructed to simulate treatment of oligometastatic cancer patients over five- and ten-year time horizons. The primary data source was the phase II, Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy for the Comprehensive Treatment of Oligometastases (SABR-COMET )trial and supplemented with data from the literature. We estimated the effect of SABR and the standard of care (SoC) using quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs were measured from a provincial payer perspective (2018 Canadian dollars).

RESULTS

In the reference case analysis (five-year time horizon), SABR was associated with additional incremental costs of CAD 38,487 and an incremental QALY gain of 0.84. This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CAD 45,726 per QALY gained. Over a ten-year time horizon, the increased uncertainty in the long-term effectiveness of SABR resulted in an ICER of CAD 291,544 per QALY gained. Estimates from the probabilistic analysis indicated that at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of CAD 50,000 and CAD 100,000 per QALY gained, there is 54% and 78% probability (respectively) that SABR would be cost-effective using the five-year time horizon.

CONCLUSIONS

The adoption of SABR therapy requires a considerable upfront capital investment. Our results suggest that the cost-effectiveness of SABR is contingent on the uncertainty in the evidence base. Further clinical trials to confirm the effectiveness of SABR and research into the real-world costs associated with this treatment could reduce the uncertainty around implementation of the technology.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for patients with stage I non-small cell lung cancer is applicable to more tumors than sublobar resection

Background

Virtually all patients with medically inoperable stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) can receive stereotactic body radiation therapy. However, the percentage of such patients in whom sublobar resection is technically feasible is unknown. This discrepancy can confound clinical trial eligibility and designs comparing stereotactic body radiation therapy vs. sublobar resection.

Methods

A total of 137 patients treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy for lung lesions (3/2013–11/2017) underwent retrospective review. Diagnostic CT chest and PET/CT images, stereotactic body radiation therapy dates, and demographic data were collected on 100 of 137 patients. Two experienced board-certified thoracic surgeons independently reviewed anonymized patients’ pre-stereotactic body radiation therapy diagnostic imaging and completed a custom survey about the technical feasibility of sublobar resection for each patient. Interrater agreement was measured using Cohen’s kappa coefficient by bootstrap methodology. Summary statistics were performed for baseline demographics and tumor characteristics.

Results

Of the 100 patients, 57% were female, with median age of 75 years (range, 52–95 years) and Karnofsky Performance Status of 80 (range, 40–100). Most patients (61%) had Stage IA1, T1a tumors. For interrater agreement analysis, one patient was removed from each cohort due to inability to locate tumor on images, leaving 98 patients analyzed. Comparing Surgeon #1 vs. Surgeon #2, 64 (65.3%) vs. 69 (70.3%) of tumors were thought eligible for sublobar resection, respectively (κ=0.414).

Conclusions

Stereotactic body radiation therapy for stage I NSCLC is applicable to more tumors than sublobar resection, with ~30–35% of stereotactic body radiation therapy patients unable to undergo sublobar resection assessed by pretreatment diagnostic imaging based on technical grounds. This study illustrates that clinical trials comparing stereotactic body radiation therapy vs. sublobar resection are limited to only a subpopulation of patients with stage I NSCLC.

Use of Multi-Site Radiation Therapy for Systemic Disease Control

Metastatic cancer is a heterogeneous entity, some of which could benefit from local consolidative radiation therapy (RT). Although randomized evidence is growing in support of using RT for oligometastatic disease, a highly active area of investigation relates to whether RT could benefit patients with polymetastatic disease. This article highlights the preclinical and clinical rationale for using RT for polymetastatic disease, proposes an exploratory framework for selecting patients best suited for these types of treatments, and briefly reviews potential challenges. The goal of this hypothesis-generating review is to address personalized multimodality systemic treatment for patients with metastatic cancer. The rationale for using high-dose RT is primarily for local control and immune activation in either oligometastatic or polymetastatic disease. However, the primary application of low-dose RT is to activate distinct antitumor immune pathways and modulate the tumor stroma in efforts to better facilitate T cell infiltration. We explore clinical cases involving high- and low-dose RT to demonstrate the potential efficacy of such treatment. We then group patients by extent of disease burden to implement high- and/or low-dose RT. Patients with low-volume disease may receive high-dose RT to all sites as part of an oligometastatic paradigm. Subjects with high-volume disease (for whom standard of care remains palliative RT only) could be treated with a combination of high-dose RT to a few sites for immune activation, while receiving low-dose RT to several remaining lesions to enhance systemic responses from high-dose RT and immunotherapy. We further discuss how emerging but speculative concepts such as immune function may be integrated into this approach and examine therapies currently under investigation that may help address immune deficiencies. The review concludes by addressing challenges in using RT for polymetastatic disease, such as concerns about treatment planning workflows, treatment times, dose constraints for multiple-isocenter treatments, and economic considerations.

Cost-effectiveness of stereotactic body radiation therapy versus video assisted thoracic surgery in medically operable stage I non-small cell lung cancer: A modeling study

OBJECTIVES

Stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) can be treated with either Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) or Video Assisted Thoracic Surgery (VATS) resection. To support decision making, not only the impact on survival needs to be taken into account, but also on quality of life, costs and cost-effectiveness. Therefore, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing SBRT to VATS resection with respect to quality adjusted life years (QALY) lived and costs in operable stage I NSCLC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patient level and aggregate data from eight Dutch databases were used to estimate costs, health utilities, recurrence free and overall survival. Propensity score matching was used to minimize selection bias in these studies. A microsimulation model predicting lifetime outcomes after treatment in stage I NSCLC patients was used for the cost-effectiveness analysis. Model outcomes for the two treatments were overall survival, QALYs, and total costs. We used a Dutch health care perspective with 1.5 % discounting for health effects, and 4 % discounting for costs, using 2018 cost data. The impact of model parameter uncertainty was assessed with deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Patients receiving either VATS resection or SBRT were estimated to live 5.81 and 5.86 discounted QALYs, respectively. Average discounted lifetime costs in the VATS group were €29,269 versus €21,175 for SBRT. Difference in 90-day excess mortality between SBRT and VATS resection was the main driver for the difference in QALYs. SBRT was dominant in at least 74 % of the probabilistic simulations.

CONCLUSION

Using a microsimulation model to combine available evidence on survival, costs, and health utilities in a cost-effectiveness analysis for stage I NSCLC led to the conclusion that SBRT dominates VATS resection in the majority of simulations.

Safety and clinical outcomes of computed tomography-guided percutaneous microwave ablation in patients aged 80 years and older with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer: A multicenter retrospective study

Background

Previous studies have documented the therapeutic value of computed tomography (CT)‐guided percutaneous microwave ablation (MWA) for early‐stage non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, few studies have focused on patients aged 80 years and older. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the safety and clinical outcomes of CT‐guided percutaneous MWA in patients aged 80 years and older with early‐stage peripheral NSCLC.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of 63 patients aged 80 years and older with cT1a‐2bN0M0 peripheral NSCLC who underwent CT‐guided percutaneous MWA was performed between January 2008 and January 2018 at 11 hospitals in Shandong Province, China.

Results

The median follow‐up time was 21.0 months. The overall median survival time was 50 months. The cancer‐specific median survival time was not reached in five years. The one‐, two‐, three‐, four‐, and five‐year overall survival rates were 97.1%, 92.6%, 63.4%, 54.4%, and 32.6%, respectively. The one‐, two‐, and three‐year cancer‐specific survival (CSS) rates were 97.9%, 97.9%, and 69.4%, respectively. The four‐ and five‐year CSS rates were not achieved. A total of 14 patients (22.2%) had local progression. The one‐, two‐, three‐, four‐, and five‐year local control rates were 88.8%, 78.8%, 70.3%, 63.9%, and 63.9%, respectively. The mortality rate was 0% within 30 days after the procedure. Major complications included pneumothorax requiring drainage (21.1%), pulmonary infection (4.2%), and pleural effusions requiring drainage (2.8%).

Conclusions

CT‐guided percutaneous MWA is a safe and effective modality for treating patients aged 80 years and older with early‐stage peripheral NSCLC.

[Stereotactic radiotherapy of stage I non-small cell lung cancer. State of the art in 2019 and recommendations: Stereotaxy as an alternative to surgery?]

Stereotactic radiotherapy (or Stereotactic body radiotherapy [SBRT]) is a technique currently well established in the therapeutic arsenal for the management of bronchial cancers. It represents the standard treatment for inoperable patients or who refuses surgery. It is well tolerated, especially in elderly and frail patients, and the current issue is to define its indications in operated patients, based on retrospective and randomized trials comparing stereotactic radiotherapy and surgery, with results equivalents. This work analyzes in detail the different aspects of pulmonary stereotactic radiotherapy and suggests arguments that help in the therapeutic choice between surgery and stereotaxic irradiation. In all cases, the therapeutic decision must be discussed in a multidisciplinary consultation meeting, while informing the patient of the possible therapeutic options.

Stereotactic ablative radiation therapy in lung cancer: an emerging standard

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Significant advances have been made in the field of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) for the treatment of pulmonary neoplasms in recent years. This review aims to summarize recent salient evidence on SABR for early-stage nonsmall cell lung cancer (ES-NSCLC).

RECENT FINDINGS

In medically inoperable patients, SABR remains the standard of care. The optimal SABR dosing regimen is being studied. Comparisons with non-SABR radiotherapy regimens with lower doses per fraction revealed benefit of SABR. In operable patients, no prospective clinical trial comparing SABR and surgery has been completed, although multiple trials are currently underway to address this question. SABR is generally cost-effective and safe in most patients, with preserved patient-reported quality of life. However, increased toxicity with SABR is noted in patients with disease close to, or invading the proximal tracheobronchial tree. Significant SABR-related toxicity and mortality is also reported in patients with coexisting interstitial lung disease. Considerations on pathologic confirmation, surveillance and multiple primaries are also addressed.

SUMMARY

SABR is an effective and safe treatment for inoperable ES-NSCLC. Ongoing trials and comparative effectiveness research will help to clarify SABR's role in various lung cancer indications going forward.

Promising Clinical Outcome With Long Term Follow-Up After Body Gamma Knife Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Patients With Early Stage Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

Introduction: Stereotactic ablative radiosurgery (SRS) or stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) is the standard treatment for patients with inoperable early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the body gamma knife SRS (ɤ-SRS) is a special SABR technology developed in China. This study prospectively assessed the clinical outcome, toxicity and cost following body ɤ-SRS for early stage NSCLC. Methods: From 2007 to 2010, a total of 29 patients with early stage NSCLC were prospectively enrolled in this study. The prescription dose for Planning Target Volume (PTV), Clinical Target Volume (CTV), and Gross Target Volume (GTV) were 50, 60, and 70 gray (Gy) in 10 fractions. Isodose curves of 50, 60, and 70% covered at least 100% of PTV, 90% of CTV, and 80% of GTV, respectively. The body ɤ-SRS was delivered 5 days per week and completed in 2 weeks. Results: Median follow-up time was 62.0 (range 11.1-140.3) months. 1-, 3-, 5-year OS rates were 93.1%, 72.0%, 60.3%; PFS rates were 86.2, 64.2 and 48.8%; and LR, RR, and DM rates were 10.9%, 21.4%, 29.0%. The median cost of the body ɤ-SRS during treatment was 4,838 (range 4,615-4,923) dollars and the median cost through 5 years was 36,960 (range 9920-56,824) dollars. Conclusion: With existing clinical data, the body ɤ-SRS is an effective treatment option for patients with medically inoperable early stage NSCLC or patients who do not prefer operation, as they may benefit from the minimized toxicity. Due to excellent cost effectiveness, the availability of the body ɤ-SRS will expand, especially in developing nations, and underdeveloped countries.

Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy as an Alternative to Lobectomy in Patients With Medically Operable Stage I NSCLC: A Retrospective, Multicenter Analysis

BACKGROUND

Stereotactic ablative body radiation therapy (SBRT) has evolved as the standard treatment for patients with inoperable stage I non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We report the results of a retrospective analysis conducted on a large, well-controlled cohort of patients with stage I to II NSCLC who underwent lobectomy (LOB) or SBRT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred eighty-seven patients with clinical-stage T1a-T2bNoMO NSCLC were treated in 2 academic hospitals between August 2008 and May 2015. Patients underwent LOB or SBRT; those undergoing SBRT were sub-classified as surgical candidates and nonsurgical candidates, according to the presence of surgical contraindications or comorbidities.

RESULTS

In univariate analysis, no significant difference was found in local control between patients who underwent SBRT and LOB, with a trend in favor of surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 0.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.07-1.01; P < .053). Univariate analysis showed that overall survival (OS) was significantly better in patients who underwent LOB (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.23-0.85) with a 3-year OS of 73.4% versus 65.2% for surgery and radiation therapy patients, respectively (P < .01). However, no difference in OS was observed between operable patients undergoing SBRT and patients who underwent LOB (HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 0.72-3.90). Progression-free survival was comparable between patients who underwent LOB and SBRT (HR, 0.61; P = .09).

CONCLUSION

SBRT is a valid therapeutic approach in early-stage NSCLC. Furthermore, SBRT seems to be very well-tolerated and might lead to the same optimal locoregional control provided by surgery for patients with either operable or inoperable early-stage NSCLC.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of stereotactic body radiotherapy and surgery for medically operable early stage non small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Projections estimate an increase of 50% of the incidence of lung cancer by 2030. Early-stage non-small cell lung cancer represented 19% of NSCLC cases diagnosed in the US between 2005 and 2011. There is rising evidence in favour of lung cancer screening, which will reduce the occurrence of later-stage lung cancers while raising the incidence of early-stage NSCLC. Current guidelines state that for early-stage NSCLC, surgical resection should be performed, and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is an option for patients who are non-medically operable. In this study, we compared the cost-effectiveness of SBRT with lobectomy in medically operable patients.

METHODS

We developed a Markov model based on the survival results of two randomized studies comparing SBRT and video assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) lobectomy in early-stage NSCLC, to describe survival and treatment related complications of patients treated for early-stage NSCLC. This analysis was conducted from the French payer perspective on a lifetime perspective. Utility values, recurrence risks, and costs were adapted from the literature. Deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic (PSA) sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the influence of the assumptions made.

RESULTS

The Markov model developed was consistent with survival data reported in the pool analysis of the randomized studies. SBRT and lobectomy total costs were 9,234.15€ and 10,726.98€, respectively, and the quality-adjusted life expectancies were 16.35 and 15.80 QALYs, respectively. The DSA, run on every assumption made, revealed that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was mainly sensitive to the decrement of utility caused by treatment related complications and initial cost of both surgery and SBRT. The PSA showed that SBRT had the highest probability of cost-effectiveness compared to lobectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first medico-economic study evaluating SBRT and lobectomy in stage I NSCLC based on randomized studies, and our analyses suggest that SBRT is dominant over lobectomy in operable early-stage NSCLC treatment. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed that this result was robust and that it was not modified by the assumptions made in the Markov model building.

Decision analytic modeling for the economic analysis of proton radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer

Background

Although proton radiation treatments are more costly than photon/X-ray therapy, they may lower overall treatment costs through reducing rates of severe toxicities and the costly management of those toxicities. To study this issue, we created a decision-model comparing proton vs. X-ray radiotherapy for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients.

Methods

An influence diagram was created to model for radiation delivery, associated 6-month pneumonitis/esophagitis rates, and overall costs (radiation plus toxicity costs). Pneumonitis (age, chemo type, V20, MLD) and esophagitis (V60) predictors were modeled to impact toxicity rates. We performed toxicity-adjusted, rate-adjusted, risk group-adjusted, and radiosensitivity analyses.

Results

Upfront proton treatment costs exceeded that of photons [$16,730.37 (3DCRT), $23,893.83 (IMRT), $41,061.80 (protons)]. Based upon expected population pneumonitis and esophagitis rates for each modality, protons would be expected to recover $1,065.62 and $1,139.63 of the cost difference compared to 3DCRT or IMRT. For patients treated with IMRT experiencing grade 4 pneumonitis or grade 4 esophagitis, costs exceeded patients treated with protons without this toxicity. 3DCRT patients with grade 4 esophagitis had higher costs than proton patients without this toxicity. For the risk group analysis, high risk patients (age >65, carboplatin/paclitaxel) benefited more from proton therapy. A biomarker may allow patient selection for proton therapy, although the AUC alone is not sufficient to determine if the biomarker is clinically useful.

Conclusions

The comparison between proton and photon/X-ray radiation therapy for NSCLC needs to consider both the up-front cost of treatment and the possible long term cost of complications. In our analysis, current costs favor X-ray therapy. However, relatively small reductions in the cost of proton therapy may result in a shift to the preference for proton therapy.

Proceedings of the National Cancer Institute Workshop on Charged Particle Radiobiology

In April 2016, the National Cancer Institute hosted a multidisciplinary workshop to discuss the current knowledge of the radiobiological aspects of charged particles used in cancer therapy to identify gaps in that knowledge that might hinder the effective clinical use of charged particles and to propose research that could help fill those gaps. The workshop was organized into 10 topics ranging from biophysical models to clinical trials and included treatment optimization, relative biological effectiveness of tumors and normal tissues, hypofractionation with particles, combination with immunotherapy, "omics," hypoxia, and particle-induced second malignancies. Given that the most commonly used charged particle in the clinic currently is protons, much of the discussion revolved around evaluating the state of knowledge and current practice of using a relative biological effectiveness of 1.1 for protons. Discussion also included the potential advantages of heavier ions, notably carbon ions, because of their increased biological effectiveness, especially for tumors frequently considered to be radiation resistant, increased effectiveness in hypoxic cells, and potential for differentially altering immune responses. The participants identified a large number of research areas in which information is needed to inform the most effective use of charged particles in the future in clinical radiation therapy. This unique form of radiation therapy holds great promise for improving cancer treatment.

A Propensity-Matched Analysis of Outcomes of Patients with Clinical Stage I Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Treated surgically or with stereotactic radiotherapy: A Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy between SBRT and surgery based on the Propensity-Matched Analysis.

METHODS

Publications on comparison SBRT and Surgery for early stage non- small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from 2011 to 2017 were collected. Propensity score matching was used to achieve comparable treatment hazard ratios of the overall survival (OS), local control survival (LC), regional control survival (RC), loco-regional control survival (LRC), distant control survival (DC), disease-free survival (DFS), and progression-free survival (PFS) between SBRT and Surgery. The major outcomes measures were hazard ratios (HRs). Meta-analysis Revman 5.3 software was used to analyze the combined Pooled HRs using fixed- or random-effects models according to the heterogeneity.

RESULT

Eleven studies met our inclusion criteria. The LC, L-R C, DC, DFS and PFS rates of patients with early-stage lung cancer who were treated with SBRT are equal to surgical results. While, patients with surgery achieved superior OS compared with SBRT.

CONCLUSION

In this study we carried out a meta-analysis, which controls the acceptable level of the efficacy in the propensity score to match patients. The surgery had obvious OS advantages in this meta-analysis. However, these conclusions would be proven by further studies incorporating comorbidity data, and outcomes from randomized control study. The final decision for the optimal treatment of a patient with early-stage NSCLC can be substantiated by a personalized treatment model.

Cost-Effectiveness of Surveillance for Distant Recurrence in Extremity Soft Tissue Sarcoma

BACKGROUND

Optimal distant recurrence (DR) surveillance strategies for extremity soft tissue sarcoma (STS) are unknown. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of different imaging modalities performed at guideline-specified intervals.

METHODS

We developed a Markov model simulating lifetime outcomes for 54-year-old patients after definitive treatment for American Joint Committee on Cancer stage II-III extremity STS using four surveillance strategies: watchful waiting (WW), chest X-ray (CXR), chest computed tomography (CCT), and positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET/CT). Probabilities, utilities, and costs were extracted from the literature and Medicare claims to determine incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER).

RESULTS

CCT was the most effective and most costly strategy with CXR the most cost-effective strategy at a societal willing-to-pay (WTP) of $100,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). The ICER was $12,113/QALY for CXR versus $104,366/QALY for CCT while PET/CT was never cost-effective. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated CCT becomes the preferred imaging modality as the lifetime risk of DR increases beyond 33% or as the WTP increases beyond $120,000/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimal DR surveillance imaging for stage II-III extremity STS should be individualized based on patients' risks for DR. These results suggest CXR, or CCT performed at more protracted intervals, may be preferred for lower-risk patients (i.e., DR risk <33%), whereas CCT may be preferred for higher-risk patients (i.e., DR risk >33%). Further study of optimal strategies is needed. In the interim, these findings may help to refine guidelines to reduce resource overutilization during routine surveillance of lower-risk sarcoma patients.

Cost-Effectiveness of Stereotactic Radiosurgery and Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy: a Critical Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review aims to summarize and appraise published cost-effectiveness studies on stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT).

RECENT FINDINGS

We performed a Medline search of cost-effectiveness studies of SRS, SBRT, and other cancer treatment modalities such as surgery and systemic therapy from 2006 to 2016. We included studies that used both modeling and retrospective review techniques. We excluded studies of benign disease. We defined a strategy whose incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is ≤$50,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) as "clearly cost-effective," a strategy whose ICER is ≤$100,000/QALY as "probably cost-effective," and a strategy ≤$200,000/QALY as "possibly cost-effective." We appraised modeling studies by determining whether or not they conform to the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Good Research Practices (ISPOR) in modeling task force good research practices in model transparency and validation. We identified 24 studies that met inclusion criteria. Treatment sites included brain, bone, liver, lung, pancreas, and prostate. SRS and SBRT were clearly cost-effective strategies in 17 studies, probably cost-effective in 3 studies, and possibly cost-effective in 2 studies. Of the 16 modeling studies,15 conformed to transparency best practices; however, only 6 studies performed rigorous validation as described by the ISPOR guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

SRS and SBRT are likely to be cost-effective management strategies across a large variety of treatment sites and techniques. However, rigorous model validation techniques are lacking in these modeling studies.

Pregnane X receptors regulate CYP2C8 and P-glycoprotein to impact on the resistance of NSCLC cells to Taxol

Cytochrome P450 2C8 (CYP2C8) is one of the enzymes that primarily participate in producing metabolisms of medications and P‐glycoprotein (P‐gp) has been regarded as one of the important molecules in chemotherapeutically induced multidrug resistance (MDR). In addition, the pregnane X receptor (PXR) is involved in regulating both CYP2C8 and P‐gp. We aim to research the effect of PXR on Taxol‐resistant non–small‐cell lung cancer (NSCLC cells) via regulating CYP2C8 and P‐gp. NSCLC cells were treated with SR12813, LY335979, or PXR siRNA. Cell counting kit (CCK‐8) assay was used to detect cell vitality. Colony formation assay was used to observe cell proliferation. Western blotting, real‐time polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR), and immunofluorescence staining were conducted to analyze the expressions of PXR, CYP2C8, and P‐gp. Taxol and its metabolic products were detected by high‐performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). The expression of PXR in A549 cell line was higher than that in other cell lines. The accumulation of PXR was observed in the nucleus after cells were treated with SR12813. Besides, SR12813 induced higher expressions of CYP2C8 and P‐gp proteins. We also discovered that pretreatment with SR12813 reversed the inhibition of cell viability and proliferation after the Taxol treatment in comparison to the SR12813 untreated group. Furthermore, the hydroxylation products of Taxol analyzed by HPLC were increased in comparison to the SR12813 untreated group, indicating that high expressions of CYP2C8 and P‐gp enhanced the resistance of A549 cells to Taxol. For cells treated with PXR siRNA, cell viability, cell proliferation, and Taxol metabolites were significantly reduced after the Taxol treatment in comparison to the siRNA‐negative group. The cell viability, cell proliferation, and Taxol metabolites were regulated by the expressions of PXR, P‐gp, and CYP2C8. That is, PXR expression has an important effect on the resistance of NSCLC cells to Taxol via upregulating P‐gp and CYP2C8.

Treatment recommendations by clinicians in stage I non-small cell lung cancer: A study of factors that influence the likelihood of accounting for the patient's preference

OBJECTIVES

Surgery and stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) are both curative treatment options for patients with stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Shared decision making (SDM) has been advocated in this patient group. This study explored clinician decision making in relation to the stated treatment preferences of patients.

METHODS

In a previous study, we conducted a binary choice experiment with hypothetical cases among 126 clinicians. Secondary data analysis was performed using multilevel logistic regression models, in which random differences between clinicians' decisions were taken into account. We analyzed the influence of patient- and clinician-related characteristics, and uncertainty as experienced by clinicians about their recommendation on the clinician's decision (either in line with the patient's preference or not).

RESULTS

Significant interactions were observed between patient- and clinician-related characteristics, indicating that patient preferences were selectively taken into account, depending on clinicians' specialty, their views about the comparability of cancer-related outcomes following surgery and SABR, and the degree of uncertainty about the treatment recommendation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that SDM for stage I NSCLC care is largely influenced by how clinicians weigh available scientific evidence.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Clinicians should involve lung cancer patients more and ask for their preferences in making treatment recommendations.

Patient Preferences in Treatment Choices for Early-Stage Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

Decision-making for lung cancer treatment can be complex because it involves both provider recommendations based on the patient's clinical condition and patient preferences. This study describes the relative importance of several considerations in lung cancer treatment from the patient's perspective.

METHODS

A conjoint preference experiment began by asking respondents to imagine that they had just been diagnosed with lung cancer. Respondents then chose among procedures that differed regarding treatment modalities, the potential for treatment-related complications, the likelihood of recurrence, provider case volume, and distance needed to travel for treatment. Conjoint analysis derived relative weights for these attributes.

RESULTS

A total of 225 responses were analyzed. Respondents were most willing to accept minimally invasive operations for treatment of their hypothetical lung cancer, followed by stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT); they were least willing to accept thoracotomy. Treatment type and risk of recurrence were the most important attributes from the conjoint experiment (each with a relative weight of 0.23), followed by provider volume (relative weight of 0.21), risk of major complications (relative weight of 0.18), and distance needed to travel for treatment (relative weight of 0.15). Procedural and treatment preferences did not vary with demographics, self-reported health status, or familiarity with the procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Survey respondents preferred minimally invasive operations over SBRT or thoracotomy for treatment of early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. Treatment modality and risk of cancer recurrence were the most important factors associated with treatment preferences. Provider experience outweighed the potential need to travel for lung cancer treatment.

Radiation costing methods: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Costs for radiation therapy (rt) and the methods used to cost rt are highly diverse across the literature. To date, no study has compared various costing methods in detail. Our objective was to perform a thorough review of the radiation costing literature to identify sources of costs and methods used.

METHODS

A systematic review of Ovid medline, Ovid oldmedline, embase, Ovid HealthStar, and EconLit from 2005 to 23 March 2015 used search terms such as "radiation," "radiotherapy," "neoplasm," "cost," " cost analysis," and "cost benefit analysis" to locate relevant articles. Original papers were reviewed for detailed costing methods. Cost sources and methods were extracted for papers investigating rt modalities, including three-dimensional conformal rt (3D-crt), intensity-modulated rt (imrt), stereotactic body rt (sbrt), and brachytherapy (bt). All costs were translated into 2014 U.S. dollars.

RESULTS

Most of the studies (91%) reported in the 33 articles retrieved provided rt costs from the health system perspective. The cost of rt ranged from US$2,687.87 to US$111,900.60 per treatment for imrt, followed by US$5,583.28 to US$90,055 for 3D-crt, US$10,544.22 to US$78,667.40 for bt, and US$6,520.58 to US$19,602.68 for sbrt. Cost drivers were professional or personnel costs and the cost of rt treatment. Most studies did not address the cost of rt equipment (85%) and institutional or facility costs (66%).

CONCLUSIONS

Costing methods and sources were widely variable across studies, highlighting the need for consistency in the reporting of rt costs. More work to promote comparability and consistency across studies is needed.

Cost-Effectiveness of Surgery, Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy, and Systemic Therapy for Pulmonary Oligometastases

INTRODUCTION

Pulmonary oligometastases have conventionally been managed with surgery and/or systemic therapy. However, given concerns about the high cost of systemic therapy and improvements in local treatment of metastatic cancer, the optimal cost-effective management of these patients is unclear. Therefore, we sought to assess the cost-effectiveness of initial management strategies for pulmonary oligometastases.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov modeling approach was used to compare average cumulative costs, quality adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) among 3 initial disease management strategies: video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) wedge resection, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), and systemic therapy among 5 different cohorts of patient disease: (1) melanoma; (2) non-small cell lung cancer adenocarcinoma without an EGFR mutation (NSCLC AC); (3) NSCLC with an EGFR mutation (NSCLC EGFRm AC); (4) NSCLC squamous cell carcinoma (NSCLC SCC); and (5) colon cancer. One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to analyze uncertainty with regard to model parameters.

RESULTS

In the base case, SBRT was cost effective for melanoma, with costs/net QALYs of $467,787/0.85. In patients with NSCLC, the most cost-effective strategies were SBRT for AC ($156,725/0.80), paclitaxel/carboplatin for SCC ($123,799/0.48), and erlotinib for EGFRm AC ($147,091/1.90). Stereotactic body radiation therapy was marginally cost-effective for EGFRm AC compared to erlotinib with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $126,303/QALY. For colon cancer, VATS wedge resection ($147,730/2.14) was the most cost-effective strategy. Variables with the greatest influence in the model were erlotinib-associated progression-free survival (EGFRm AC), toxicity (EGFRm AC), cost of SBRT (NSCLC SCC), and patient utilities (all histologies).

CONCLUSIONS

Video-assisted thoracic surgery wedge resection or SBRT can be cost-effective in select patients with pulmonary oligometastases, depending on histology, efficacy, and tolerability of treatment and patient preferences.

The Role of Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy with Photons, Protons, and Heavy Ions for Treating Extracranial Lesions

Traditionally, the ability to deliver large doses of ionizing radiation to a tumor has been limited by radiation-induced toxicity to normal surrounding tissues. This was the initial impetus for the development of conventionally fractionated radiation therapy, where large volumes of healthy tissue received radiation and were allowed the time to repair the radiation damage. However, advances in radiation delivery techniques and image guidance have allowed for more ablative doses of radiation to be delivered in a very accurate, conformal, and safe manner with shortened fractionation schemes. Hypofractionated regimens with photons have already transformed how certain tumor types are treated with radiation therapy. Additionally, hypofractionation is able to deliver a complete course of ablative radiation therapy over a shorter period of time compared to conventional fractionation regimens making treatment more convenient to the patient and potentially more cost-effective. Recently, there has been an increased interest in proton therapy because of the potential further improvement in dose distributions achievable due to their unique physical characteristics. Furthermore, with heavier ions the dose conformality is increased and, in addition, there is potentially a higher biological effectiveness compared to protons and photons. Due to the properties mentioned above, charged particle therapy has already become an attractive modality to further investigate the role of hypofractionation in the treatment of various tumors. This review will discuss the rationale and evolution of hypofractionated radiation therapy, the reported clinical success with initially photon and then charged particle modalities, and further potential implementation into treatment regimens going forward.

Direct costs of care for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with hepatitis C cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is the commonest cause of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the United States. The benefits of HCV therapy may be measured in part by the prevention of HCC and other complications of cirrhosis. The true cost of care of the HCV patient with HCC is unknown.

METHODS

One hundred patients were randomly selected from a cohort of all HCC patients with HCV at a US transplant center between 2003 and 2013. Patients were categorized by the primary treatment modality, Barcelona class, and ultimate transplant status. Costs included the unit costs of procedures, imaging, hospitalizations, medications, and all subsequent care of the HCC patient until either death or the end of follow-up. Associations with survival and cost were assessed in multivariate regression models.

RESULTS

Overall costs included a median of $176,456 (interquartile range [IQR], $84,489-$292,192) per patient or $6279 (IQR, $4043-$9720) per patient-month of observation. The median costs per patient-month were $7492 (IQR, $5137-$11,057) for transplant patients and $4830 for nontransplant patients. The highest median monthly costs were for transplant patients with Barcelona A4 disease ($11,349) and patients who received chemoembolization whether they underwent transplantation ($10,244) or not ($8853). Transarterial chemoembolization and radiofrequency ablation were independently associated with a 28% increase and a 22% decrease in costs, respectively, with adjustments for the severity of liver disease and Barcelona class.

CONCLUSIONS

These data represent real-world estimates of the cost of HCC care provided at a transplant center and should inform economic studies of HCV therapy.

Stereotactic radiotherapy for early lung cancer: Evidence-based approach and future directions

AIM

To review key studies evaluating stereotactic radiotherapy in the setting of early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) for inoperable or high-risk patients, and discuss areas of ongoing research and clinical trials.

BACKGROUND

The use of stereotactic radiotherapy for the treatment of early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has increased rapidly over the past decade. Numerous studies have reported outcomes for patients treated with SBRT who are unfit for surgical resection, or at high risk of surgical complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A narrative review.

RESULTS

The preponderance of evidence suggests that SBRT is associated with excellent local control (∼90% at 3 years) and a favorable toxicity profile. In patients with higher operative risks, such as the elderly and patients with severe COPD, SBRT may provide a less-toxic treatment than surgery with similar oncologic outcomes. Ongoing studies are evaluating the use of SBRT for locally advanced or oligometastatic NSCLC.

CONCLUSIONS

A large body of evidence now exists to support the use of SBRT for early-stage NSCLC. Decisions regarding the optimal choice of treatment should be individualized, and made in the context of a multidisciplinary team.

The Role of Surgical Resection in Stage IIIA Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Decision and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of combination chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgical intervention (CRS) vs definitive chemotherapy and radiotherapy (CR) in clinical stage IIIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients at academic and nonacademic centers.

METHODS

Patients with clinical stage IIIA NSCLC receiving CR or CRS from 1998 to 2010 were identified in the National Cancer Data Base. Propensity score matching on patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics was performed. Medicare allowable charges were used for treatment costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was based on probabilistic 5-year survival and calculated as cost per life-year gained.

RESULTS

We identified 5,265 CR and CRS matched patient pairs. Surgical resection imparted an increased effectiveness of 0.83 life-years, with an ICER of $17,618. Among nonacademic centers, 1,634 matched CR and CRS patients demonstrated a benefit with surgical resection of 0.86 life-years gained, for an ICER of $17,124. At academic centers, 3,201 matched CR and CRS patients had increased survival of 0.81 life-years with surgical resection, for an ICER of $18,144. Finally, 3,713 CRS patients were matched between academic and nonacademic centers. Academic center surgical patients had an increased effectiveness of 1.5 months gained and dominated the model with lower surgical cost estimates associated with lower 30-day mortality rates.

CONCLUSIONS

In stage IIIA NSCLC, the selective addition of surgical resection to CR is cost-effective compared with definitive chemoradiation therapy at nonacademic and academic centers. These conclusions are valid over a range of clinically meaningful variations in cost and treatment outcomes.

[Place of limited resections and prognostic factors in non-small lung cancer]

INTRODUCTION

Results of surgery for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are poorer after limited resection, wedge and segmentectomy, than after lobectomy. Guidelines recommend avoiding wedge-resection, which new techniques (radiofrequency ablation and cyberknife) tend to replace. This work aimed to study the wedge-resection carcinological value.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

NSCLC without previous other cancer history and neoadjuvant therapy measuring less than 31 millimetres and operated from 1980 to 2009 were reviewed. Analyzed variables were: location, gender, age, FEVS, type of resection, histology, pT and pN.

RESULTS

There were 66 wedge-resections (10.9%), 32 segmentectomies (5.3%), 507 lobectomies (83.8%), nine postoperative deaths (1.5%), 136 complications (22.5%), 557 complete resections (R0=92%); 72.2% of NSCLC upper lobe location (437/605). Age was more advanced in wedge-resection and segmentectomy, FEVS lower and NSCLC most often a squamous cell pN0 and pStage I carcinoma than in lobectomy. Lymphadenectomy was not performed in half the wedge-resections. Five-year survival rates were poorer after wedge-resection: 50% versus segmentectomy 59.8% (P=0.09), and lobectomy 66% (P=0.0035), but the number of recurrences was similar. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that age, FEVS, type of surgery and lymphadenectomy, pN in pTNM were the only prognosis factors.

CONCLUSION

Wedge-resection is less carcinological than segmentectomy when the patient-status and NSCLC location allow performing the latter, but more than the new techniques, because of its pathological yield, when the patient-status and nodule peripheral location allow wedging.

Additional data in the debate on stage I non-small cell lung cancer: surgery versus stereotactic ablative radiotherapy

Lobectomy has been the standard of care for patients with early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), resulting in nearly universal local control and excellent overall survival. However, up to one-quarter of early stage patients are unable to undergo or refuse definitive resection. With the increasing adoption of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) over conventionally fractionated radiotherapy among medical inoperable patients, tumor control and overall survival rates in this population have significantly improved. Trials demonstrating excellent outcomes among both medically inoperable and medical operable patients with stage I NSCLC have spurred interest in comparisons between surgery and SABR. The recent publication of the randomized STARS and ROSEL trials demonstrated fewer toxicities and an improvement in overall survival among patients treated with SABR compared with surgery. Based on these trials and retrospective comparisons between the modalities, definitive SABR now more firmly appears to be a viable first-line option for treating patients with operable stage I NSCLC.

Diagnosing and staging lung cancer involving the mediastinum

The purpose of this article is to provide an update on evidence-based methods for mediastinal staging in patients with lung cancer. This is a review of the recently published studies and a summary of relevant guidelines addressing the role of CT scan, PET scan, endobronchial ultrasound transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA), and mediastinoscopy as pertinent to lung cancer staging and restaging. The focus is on how these diagnostic methods fit into the best algorithm for patients with chest imaging abnormalities suspected of malignant disease. Several studies, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews specifically targeted the role of PET scan, EBUS-TBNA, and mediastinoscopy for detecting mediastinal lymph node involvement in patients suffering from lung cancer. Based on the recommendations from the currently published guidelines, algorithms of care are proposed for staging and restaging of the mediastinum.

Cost-effectiveness of stereotactic radiation, sublobar resection, and lobectomy for early non-small cell lung cancers in older adults

OBJECTIVES

Stereotactic ablative radiation (SABR) is a promising alternative to lobectomy or sublobar resection for early lung cancer, but the value of SABR in comparison to surgical therapy remains debated. We examined the cost-effectiveness of SABR relative to surgery using SEER-Medicare data.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients age ≥66 years with localized (<5 cm) non-small cell lung cancers diagnosed from 2003-2009 were selected. Propensity score matching generated cohorts comparing SABR with either sublobar resection or lobectomy. Costs were determined via claims. Median survival was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs) were constructed from joint distribution of incremental costs and effects estimated by non-parametric bootstrap.

RESULTS

In comparing SABR to sublobar resection, 5-year total costs were $55,120 with SABR vs. $77,964 with sublobar resection (P<0.001) and median survival was 3.6 years with SABR vs. 4.1 years with sublobar resection (P=0.95). The ICER for sublobar resection compared to SABR was $45,683/life-year gained, yielding a 46% probability that sublobar resection is cost-effective. In comparing SABR to lobectomy, 5-year total costs were $54,968 with SABR vs. $82,641 with lobectomy (P<0.001) and median survival was 3.8 years with SABR vs. 4.7 years with lobectomy (P=0.81). The ICER for lobectomy compared to SABR was $28,645/life-year gained, yielding a 78% probability that lobectomy is cost-effective.

CONCLUSION

SABR is less costly than surgery. While lobectomy may be cost-effective compared to SABR, sublobar resection is less likely to be cost-effective. Assessment of the relative value of SABR versus surgical therapy requires further research.