Cost-efficacy of acceleration partial-breast irradiation compared with whole-breast irradiation

Comparison of adverse events in partial- or whole breast radiotherapy: investigation of cosmesis, toxicities and quality of life in a meta-analysis of randomized trials

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

Adjuvant whole breast radiotherapy and systemic therapy are part of the current evidence-based treatment protocols for early breast cancer, after breast-conserving surgery. Numerous randomized trials have investigated the therapeutic effects of partial breast irradiation (PBI) compared to whole breast irradiation (WBI), limiting the treated breast tissue. These trials were designed to achieve equal control of the disease with possible reduction in adverse events, improvements in cosmesis and quality of life (QoL). In this meta-analysis, we aimed to investigate the differences between PBI and WBI in side effects and QoL.

MATERIAL/METHODS

We performed a systematic literature review searching for randomized trials comparing WBI and PBI in early-stage breast cancer with publication dates after 2009. The meta-analysis was performed using the published event rates and the effect-sizes for available acute and late adverse events. Additionally, we evaluated cosmetic outcomes as well as general and breast-specific QoL using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 questionnaires.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies were identified (n = 19,085 patients). PBI was associated with a lower prevalence in any grade 1 + acute toxicity and grade 2 + skin toxicity (OR = 0.12; 95% CI 0.09-0.18; p < 0.001); (OR = 0.16; 95% CI 0.07-0.41; p < 0.001). There was neither a significant difference in late adverse events between the two treatments, nor in any unfavorable cosmetic outcomes, rated by either medical professionals or patients. PBI-technique using EBRT with twice-daily fractionation schedules resulted in worse cosmesis rated by patients (n = 3215; OR = 2.08; 95% CI 1.22-3.54; p = 0.007) compared to WBI. Maximum once-daily EBRT schedules (n = 2071; OR = 0.60; 95% CI 0.45-0.79; p < 0.001) and IORT (p = 0.042) resulted in better cosmetic results grade by medical professionals. Functional- and symptom-based QoL in the C30-scale was not different between PBI and WBI. Breast-specific QoL was superior after PBI in the subdomains of "systemic therapy side effects" as well as "breast-" and "arm symptoms".

CONCLUSION

The analysis of multiple randomized trials demonstrate a superiority of PBI in acute toxicity as well breast-specific quality of life, when compared with WBI. Overall, late toxicities and cosmetic results were similar. PBI-technique with a fractionation of twice-daily schedules resulted in worse cosmesis rated by patients.

Cost-effectiveness of 5 fraction and partial breast radiotherapy for early breast cancer in the UK: model-based multi-trial analysis

PURPOSE

We estimated the cost-effectiveness of 4 radiotherapy modalities to treat early breast cancer in the UK. In a subgroup of patients eligible for all modalities, we compared whole-breast (WB) and partial breast (PB) radiotherapy delivered in either 15 (WB15F, PB15F) or 5 fractions (WB5F, PB5F). In a subgroup ineligible for PB radiotherapy, we compared WB15F to WB5F.

METHODS

We developed a Markov cohort model to simulate lifetime healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for each modality. This was informed by the clinical analysis of two non-inferiority trials (FAST Forward and IMPORT LOW) and supplemented with external literature. The primary analysis assumed that radiotherapy modality influences health only through its impact on locoregional recurrence and radiotherapy-related adverse events.

RESULTS

In the primary analysis, PB5F had the least cost and greatest expected QALYs. WB5F had the least cost and the greatest expected QALYs in those only eligible for WB radiotherapy. Applying a cost-effectiveness threshold of £15,000/QALY, there was a 62% chance that PB5F was the cost-effective alternative in the PB eligible group, and there was a 100% chance that WB5F was cost-effective in the subgroup ineligible for PB radiotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Hypofractionation to 5 fractions and partial breast radiotherapy modalities offer potentially important benefits to the UK health system.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of radiotherapy techniques for whole breast irradiation

Background

The current standard of care (SOC) for whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT) in the US is conventional tangential photon fields. Advanced WBRT techniques may provide similar tumor control and better normal tissue sparing, but it is controversial whether the medical benefits of an advanced technology are significant enough to justify its higher cost.

Objective

To analyze the cost-effectiveness of six advanced WBRT techniques compared with SOC.

Methods

We developed a Markov model to simulate health states for one cohort of women (65-year-old) with early-stage breast cancer over 15 years after WBRT. The cost effectiveness analyses of field-in-field (FIF), hybrid intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), full IMRT, standard volumetric modulated arc therapy (STD-VMAT), multiple arc VMAT (MA-VMAT), non-coplanar VMAT (NC-VMAT) compared with SOC were performed with both tumor control and radiogenic side effects considered. Transition probabilities and utilities for each health state were obtained from literature. Costs incurred by payers were adopted from literature and Medicare data. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to evaluate the impact of uncertainties on the final results.

Results

FIF has the lowest ICER value of 1,511 $/QALY. The one-way analyses show that the cost-effectiveness of advanced WBRT techniques is most sensitive to the probability of developing contralateral breast cancer. PSAs show that SOC is more cost effective than almost all advanced WBRT techniques at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 50,000 $/QALY, while FIF, hybrid IMRT and MA-VMAT are more cost-effective than SOC with a probability of 59.2%, 72.3% and 72.6% at a WTP threshold of 100,000 $/QALY, respectively.

Conclusions

FIF might be the most cost-effective option for WBRT patients at a WTP threshold of 50,000 $/QALY, while hybrid IMRT and MA-VMAT might be the most cost-effective options at a WTP threshold of 100,000 $/QALY.

Ultra-Short Fraction Schedules as Part of De-intensification Strategies for Early-Stage Breast Cancer

Adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) following breast-conserving surgery (BCS) represents a standard approach for most patients treated with breast-conserving therapy (BCT) for early-stage breast cancer. The first-generation of adjuvant RT schedules delivered daily treatment to the whole breast over 5-7 weeks. Although efficacious, this presented patients with a protracted course of treatment, reducing compliance and quality of life. While hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation (WBI) has become the standard, and part of the second-generation of RT regimens, it still requires 3-4 weeks. Concurrently, partial-breast irradiation (PBI) has also been explored as a technique to complete RT in a much shorter time period (1-3 weeks). There are now seven trials confirming the efficacy of this shorter treatment approach compared with standard WBI. In an effort to further reduce treatment duration, ultra-short WBI and PBI regimens have recently emerged as the third-generation of breast radiation schedules, allowing for the completion of treatment in 5 days or less. With respect to WBI, recent data from the FAST-Forward trial (which evaluated five fractions of WBI delivered in 1 week) demonstrated no difference in clinical outcomes at 5 years, with limited difference in toxicity, compared with hypofractionated 3-week WBI. Regarding PBI, published data on five-fraction regimens delivered in 2 weeks have also demonstrated comparable outcomes at 10 years, with reduced toxicities with long-term follow-up. This report will review additional ongoing studies evaluating even shorter courses of adjuvant RT treatment (one to five fractions), including single-fraction PBI or WBI.

TARGIT-R (Retrospective): 5-Year Follow-Up Evaluation of Intraoperative Radiation Therapy (IORT) for Breast Cancer Performed in North America

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) has been investigated for patients with low-risk, early-stage breast cancer. The The North American experience was evaluated by TARGIT-R (retrospective) to provide outcomes for patients treated in "real-world" clinical practice with breast IORT. This analysis presents a 5-year follow-up assessment.

METHODS

TARGIT-R is a multi-institutional retrospective registry of patients who underwent lumpectomy and IORT between the years 2007 and 2013. The primary outcome of the evaluation was ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR).

RESULTS

The evaluation included 667 patients with a median follow-up period of 5.1 years. Primary IORT (IORT at the time of lumpectomy) was performed for 72%, delayed IORT (after lumpectomy) for 3%, intended boost for 8%, and unintended boost (primary IORT followed by whole-breast radiation) for 17% of the patients. At 5 years, IBTR was 6.6% for all the patients, with 8% for the primary IORT cohort and 1.7% for the unintended-boost cohort. No recurrences were identified in the delayed IORT or intended-boost cohorts. Noncompliance with endocrine therapy (ET) was associated with higher IBTR risk (hazard ratio [HR], 3.67). Patients treated with primary IORT who were complaint with ET had a 5-year IBTR rate of 3.9%.

CONCLUSION

The local recurrence rates in this series differ slightly from recent results of randomized IORT trials and are notably higher than in previous published studies using whole-breast radiotherapy for similar patients with early-stage breast cancer. Understanding differences in this retrospective series and the prospective trials will be critical to optimizing patient selection and outcomes going forward.

Accelerated partial breast irradiation in the elderly: 8-year oncological outcomes and prognostic factors

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study is to evaluate long-term clinical outcomes and prognostic factors after accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) in the elderly using high-dose-rate interstitial multicatheter brachytherapy (HIBT).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Between 2005 and 2018, 109 patients underwent APBI using HIBT (34 Gy/10f/5d or 32 Gy/8f/4d). Based on a prospective database, outcomes were retrospectively analyzed (local relapse-free survival, metastatic-free survival, specific survival (SS), and overall survival (OS)). Prognostic factors were investigated. Late toxicity and cosmetic evaluation were reported.

RESULTS

With a median followup of 97 months [7-159], median age was 81.7 years [58-89]. In accordance with the GEC-ESTRO APBI classification, 72.5%, 11.9%, and 15.6% were classified as low, intermediate, and high risk, respectively. The histological type was mainly invasive ductal carcinoma (87.1%). The median tumor size was 10 mm [range 1-35]. Eight-year local relapse-free survival, SS, and OS were 96.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) [0.923; 1]), 96.7% [95% CI [0.924; 1], and 72% [95% CI [0.616; 0.837], respectively. In univariate analysis, APBI classification was not considered as prognostic factor, whereas molecular classification was prognostic factor for OS (p < 0.0001), SS (p = 0.007), and metastatic-free survival (p = 0.009) but not for local recurrence (p = 0.586). No Grade ≥3 late toxicity was observed, whereas 61 patients (88.4%) and 8 patients (11.6%) presented Grade 1 and 2 toxicities, respectively. The cosmetic outcome was excellent/good for 96.4%.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term followup confirms that HIBT is safe and effective for elderly early breast cancer. Our results suggest that selected elderly women presenting with high-risk breast cancer could be also considered for APBI.

Long-Term Results of Partial Breast Irradiation After Breast-Conserving Surgery for Early Stage Breast Cancer: A Prospective Phase II Trial in China

Background

Partial breast radiotherapy (PBI) has emerged as an option after breast-conserving surgery for early stage breast cancer patients.

Methods

A total of 55 patients with early stage breast cancer between 2009 and 2013 were enrolled in this single-institutional phase II prospective clinical trial. All patients received adjuvant PBI-IMRT after lumpectomy, with the prescription of 48 Gy in 12 fractions at 4 Gy per fraction, 5 days a week. The primary endpoint was ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR), the other endpoints were a regional nodal failure (RNF), distant metastasis (DM) rate, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS). These endpoints were used to evaluate clinical outcomes. The cosmetic effects and the late toxicity were assessed according to Harvard standard scale and CTCAE 3.0, respectively.

Results

In our cohorts, the median age was 45.60 years old (range 31-65 years) and 29.09% of these patients were post-menopause (n = 16). Most patients were T1 stage (65.45%) or N0 stage (70.91%). 80% of patients were ER-positive, 67.27% PR positive, and 61.82% HER2 negative. At the median follow-up of 9.25 years, RNF was 0% and IBTR occurred in only one patient (1.82%) to the chest wall. Except for one patient (1.82%) had DM to lung and pleura and died from disease progression, the remaining patients were alive at the end of the 10-year follow-up. The 10-year DFS and OS were 94.55 and 98.18%. One patient (1.82%) was diagnosed with endometrial cancer after PBI. Except for 9 patients who declined the cosmetic assessment, the rest of the 46 patients (83.64%) were all rated as good and well-satisfied with the appearance of the irradiated breast. No breast retraction and fibrosis were observed in any of the patients. Additionally, only 4 patients experienced grade 1 late toxicity (7.28%). None had grade 3 or higher late toxicity.

Conclusion

This is the first study to report the 10-year results of PBI after breast-conserving surgery in Chinese patients. Our study suggested that PBI had durable local control and maintained good cosmetic outcomes with minimal late toxicity at long term follow up for the early stage breast cancer patients.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of endocrine therapy alone versus partial-breast irradiation alone versus combined treatment for low-risk hormone-positive early-stage breast cancer in women aged 70 years or older

PURPOSE

We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of three strategies for the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer in women age 70 years or older: an aromatase inhibitor (AI-alone) for 5 years, a 5-fraction course of accelerated partial-breast irradiation using intensity-modulated radiation therapy (APBI-alone), or their combination.

METHODS

We constructed a patient-level Markov microsimulation from the societal perspective. Effectiveness data (local recurrence, distant metastases, survival), and toxicity data were obtained from randomized trials when possible. Costs of side effects were included. Costs were adjusted to 2019 US dollars and extracted from Medicare reimbursement data. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) were calculated using utilities extracted from the literature.

RESULTS

The strategy of AI-alone ($12,637) was cheaper than both APBI-alone ($13,799) and combination therapy ($18,012) in the base case. All approaches resulted in similar QALY outcomes (AI-alone 7.775; APBI-alone 7.768; combination 7.807). In the base case, AI-alone was the cost-effective strategy and dominated APBI-alone, while combined therapy was not cost-effective when compared to AI-alone ($171,451/QALY) or APBI-alone ($107,932/QALY). In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, AI-alone was cost-effective at $100,000/QALY in 50% of trials, APBI-alone in 28% and the combination in 22%. Scenario analysis demonstrated that APBI-alone was more effective than AI-alone when AI compliance was lower than 26% at 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a Markov microsimulation analysis, both AI-alone and APBI-alone are appropriate options for patients 70 years or older with early breast cancer with small cost differences noted. A prospective trial comparing the approaches is warranted.

Hypofractionated radiation therapy for invasive breast cancer: From moderate to extreme protocols

Adjuvant irradiation is the standard treatment after breast conservative surgery. Normofractionated regimen with an overall treatment time of 5 to 6 weeks is often considered as a limiting factor for irradiation compliance. In order to answer this issue, moderate and more recently extreme hypofractionated protocols appeared. We report here oncological outcomes and toxicity of hypofractionated breast irradiation. After defining the frame of moderate and extreme hypofractionated breast irradiations based on overall treatment time, patient selection criteria were listed. According to their levels of proof, the results of moderate and extreme hypofractionated breast irradiation were analysed. Overall treatment time for moderate hypofractionated breast irradiation ranged from 3 to 4 weeks, while for extreme hypofractionated breast irradiation, it was less than 1 week. For moderate hypofractionated breast irradiation, whole breast irradiation was currently performed with or without lymph node irradiation. Moderate hypofractionated breast irradiation has proven to be as safe and as efficient as normofractionated breast irradiation with level IA evidence. For extreme hypofractionated breast irradiation, phase III randomized trials confirmed that accelerated partial breast irradiation was non-inferior in terms of local control compared to normofractionated whole breast irradiation (with external beam radiation therapy and multicatheter brachytherapy), with similar acute and late toxicity. While the use of intraoperative breast irradiation remains under debate, new very accelerated partial breast irradiation (overall treatment time not exceeding 2 days) protocols emerged with encouraging results. Accelerated partial breast irradiation is warranted for extreme hypofractionated breast irradiation and is indicated for low-risk breast cancers. Moderate and extreme hypofractionated breast irradiation regimens are validated and can be routinely proposed according to patient selection criteria.

Accelerated partial breast irradiation-Redefining the treatment target for women with early stage breast cancer

Following breast conserving surgery, the standard of care has been to deliver adjuvant radiation therapy directed to the whole breast (WBI) over a period of 3-7 weeks. Over the past decade, increasing data have supported the concept that treatment to the whole breast may not be required in selected patients, allowing for the emergence of partial breast irradiation (PBI). Multiple randomized trials with 5-10 years of follow-up have been published documenting the safety and efficacy associated with PBI using multiple techniques. Questions that remain to be answered include (a) what is the optimal PBI technique for each clinical scenario, (b) are there additional patients that can be effectively managed with PBI approaches, and (c) are there different techniques/dose schedules that allow for further reduction in treatment duration and/or toxicities? Partial breast irradiation represents a standard approach for appropriately selected patients. PBI provides comparable clinical outcomes to WBI while allowing for a reduction in the duration treatment and the potential for reduced toxicities. Future studies may also help to better define which patients require no radiation, PBI, hypofractionated WBI or conventional WBI, based upon patient, clinical, pathologic features as well as potentially using tumor genetics.

Partial versus whole breast irradiation: Side effects, patient satisfaction and costs

PURPOSE

Since accelerated partial breast irradiation has demonstrated non-inferiority to whole breast irradiation regarding recurrence rate in patients with early stage breast cancer, our objective was to compare its impact on short-term adverse events, patient satisfaction and costs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with early stage breast cancer treated by breast-conserving surgery between 2007 and 2012 were included: 48 women who received three-dimensional conformal accelerated partial breast irradiation in a multicentre phase-II trial were paired with 48 patients prospectively treated with whole breast irradiation. Adverse events, and patients' opinions concerning cosmesis, satisfaction and pain, were gathered 1 month after treatment. Direct and indirect costs were collected from the French National Health Insurance System perspective until the end of radiotherapy.

RESULTS

When comparing its impact, skin reactions occurred in 37% of patients receiving three-dimensional conformal accelerated partial breast radiotherapy and 60% of patients receiving whole breast irradiation (P=0.07); 98% were very satisfied in the group three-dimensional conformal accelerated partial breast radiotherapy versus 46% in the group treated with whole breast irradiation (P<0.001); direct costs were significantly lower in the group treated with partial breast irradiation (mean cost: 2510€ versus 5479€/patient), due to less radiation sessions.

CONCLUSION

In patients with early-stage breast cancer, partial irradiation offered a good alternative to whole breast irradiation, as it was less expensive and satisfactory. These, and the clinical safety and tolerance results, need to be confirmed by long-term accelerated partial breast irradiation results in on-going phase III trials.

Utility of CT imaging in a novel form of high-dose-rate intraoperative breast radiation therapy

INTRODUCTION

Intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) is an alternative to whole breast radiation following breast conserving surgery. Conventional breast IORT is limited by lack of cross-sectional imaging. In response, our institution developed Precision Breast IORT (PB-IORT) which utilizes intraoperative computed tomography (CT) images for confirmation of brachytherapy applicator placement and for treatment planning. The purpose of this study was to determine the utility of CT imaging in PB-IORT in the first 103 patients treated in two prospective clinical trials.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the first 103 patients treated with PB-IORT. All patients underwent breast surgery and placement of a multi-lumen brachytherapy applicator. Patients had a CT scan followed by high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy. Endpoints were the number of patients having more than one CT during PB-IORT and the number of treatment plans having image-based modifications.

RESULTS

After initial CT scan, 27 patients (26.2%) had findings prompting surgical applicator adjustment. One patient underwent an additional scan to localize a biopsy clip and aid in excision to negative margin. Eighty-one patients (78.6%) had dosimetry modifications based on CT findings with 36 plans (35.0%) adjusted to protect the skin or chest wall and 45 plans (43.7%) to protect both the skin and chest wall.

CONCLUSIONS

Computed tomography findings prompted treatment alterations in the majority of patients treated with PB-IORT to enhance tissue conformity and to sculpt the radiation dose away from normal tissues. CT imaging is unique to PB-IORT. These findings suggest the potential clinical superiority of PB-IORT given its allowance for patient-specific alterations.

Advantages of intraoperative implant for interstitial brachytherapy for accelerated partial breast irradiation either frail patients with early-stage disease or in locally recurrent breast cancer

Purpose

To describe the intraoperative multicatheter implantation technique for accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) delivered with high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT). Secondarily, to evaluate outcomes and toxicity in a series of 83 patients treated with this technique at our institution.

Material and methods

Retrospective analysis of a series of patients treated with HDR-BT APBI after intraoperative multicatheter interstitial implant between November 2006 and June 2017 at our institution. We assessed cosmesis, toxicity, overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS).

Results

Eighty-three patients were included: 59 patients (71.1%) with primary early-stage breast cancer and 24 (28.9%) with locally recurrent breast cancer. Tumorectomy was performed in all cases, with intraoperative tumor margin assessment and sentinel node biopsy. Median age was 82 years (range, 44-92). The total prescribed dose was 32 Gy (8 treatment fractions) in 60 patients (72.3%), and 34 Gy (10 fractions) in 23 patients (27.7%). Median follow-up was 40 months (range, 1-136 months). Three-year OS and DFS in the recurrent and primary cancer groups were 87% vs. 89%, and 96 % vs. 97.8%, respectively. Five patients died from non-cancer related causes. No local relapses were observed. Rates of acute and late toxicity were low in both groups. The cosmesis was good or excellent in most of patients treated for primary disease; in patients who underwent salvage brachytherapy for local recurrence, cosmesis was good in 49 patients and fair in 6.

Conclusions

This technique, although time-consuming, achieves good local disease control with a satisfactory toxicity profile in both early-stage and local recurrent breast cancer patients. It may be especially suitable for frail patients.

Adjuvant breast radiotherapy: How to trade-off cost and effectiveness?

INTRODUCTION

A series of health economic evaluations (HEE) has analysed the efficiency of new fractionation schedules and techniques for adjuvant breast radiotherapy. This overview assembles the available evidence and evaluates to what extent HEE-results can be compared.

METHODS

Based on a systematic literature review of HEEs from 1/1/2000 to 30/10/2016, all cost comparison (CC) and cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) comparing different adjuvant breast radiotherapy approaches were analysed. Costs were extracted and converted to Euro 2016 and costs per QALY were summarized in cost-effectiveness planes.

RESULTS

Twenty-four publications are withheld, comparing different fractionation schedules and/or irradiation techniques or evaluating the value of adding radiotherapy. Normofractionation and intensity-modulated, interstitial or intraluminal techniques are important cost-drivers. Highest reimbursements are observed in the US, but may overestimate the real cost. Hypofractionation is cost-effective compared to normofractionation, the results of partial breast irradiation are less unequivocal. Intra-operative and external beam approaches seem the most cost-effective for favourable risk groups, but whole breast irradiation is superior in terms of health effect and omission of radiotherapy in terms of costs.

CONCLUSION

Hypofractionation may be considered the most relevant comparator for new strategies in adjuvant breast radiotherapy, with omission of radiotherapy as an interesting alternative in the very favourable subcategories, especially for partial breast techniques. Although comparison of CC and CEA is hampered by the variability in clinical and economic settings, HEE-based evidence can guide decision-making to tailor-made strategies, allocating the optimal treatment in terms of effectiveness as well as efficiency to the right indication.

Lifetime cost-effectiveness analysis of intraoperative radiation therapy versus external beam radiation therapy for early stage breast cancer

Background

To date no one has examined the quality of life and direct costs of care in treating early stage breast cancer with adjunct intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) versus external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) over the life of the patient. As well no one has examined the effects of radiation exposure with both therapies on the longer term sequelae. The purpose of this analysis was to examine the cost-effectiveness of IORT vs. EBRT over the life of the patient.

Methods

A Markov decision-analytic model evaluated these treatment strategies in terms of the direct costs in treating patients over their lifetime (including the downstream costs associated with radiation exposure) and the resultant quality of life of these patients. Medicare reimbursement amounts in treating patients were used for acute, steady state, recurrent cancer(s), and complications associated with radiation exposure. Quality adjusted life years (QALYs) derived from the medical literature were assessed with each of these states. Life expectancies as well were derived from the medical literature. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated for dominance and net monetary benefit [at a willingness to pay (WTP)] of $50,000/QALY. Sensitivity analysis was also performed.

Results

IORT was the dominant (least costly with greater QALYs) versus EBRT: total costs over the life of the patient = $53,179 (IORT) vs. $63,828 (EBRT) and total QALYs: 17.86 (IORT) vs. 17.06 (EBRT). At a willingness to pay of $50,000 for each additional QALY, the net monetary benefit demonstrated that IORT was the most cost effective option: $839,815 vs. $789,092. The model was most sensitive to the probabilities of recurrent cancer and death for both IORT and EBRT.

Conclusion

IORT is the more valuable (lower cost with improved QALYs) strategy for use in patients presenting with early stage ER+ breast cancer. It should be used preferentially in these patients.

A systematic review of health economic evaluation in adjuvant breast radiotherapy: Quality counted by numbers

BACKGROUND

Evolving practice in adjuvant breast radiotherapy inevitably impacts healthcare budgets. This is reflected in a rise of health economic evaluations (HEE) in this domain. The available HEE literature was analysed qualitatively and quantitatively, using available instruments.

METHODS

HEEs published between 1/1/2000 and 31/10/2016 were retrieved through a systematic search in Medline, Cochrane and Embase. A quality-assessment using CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) was translated into a quantitative score and compared with Tufts Medical Centre CEA registry and Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) results.

RESULTS

Twenty cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) and thirteen cost comparisons (CC) were analysed. In qualitative evaluation, valuation or justification of data sources, population heterogeneity and discussion on generalizability, in addition to declaration on funding, were often absent or incomplete. After quantification, the average CHEERS-scores were 74% (CI 66.9-81.1%) and 75.6% (CI 70.7-80.5%) for CEAs and CCs respectively. CEA-scores did not differ significantly from Tufts and QHES-scores.

CONCLUSION

Quantitative CHEERS evaluation is feasible and yields comparable results to validated instruments. HEE in adjuvant breast radiotherapy is of acceptable quality, however, further efforts are needed to improve comprehensive reporting of all data, indispensable for assessing relevance, reliability and generalizability of results.

Accelerated partial breast irradiation: Past, present, and future

Accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) focuses higher doses of radiation during a shorter interval to the lumpectomy cavity, in the setting of breast conserving therapy for early stage breast cancer. The utilization of APBI has increased in the past decade because of the shorter treatment schedule and a growing body of outcome data showing positive cosmetic outcomes and high local control rates in selected patients undergoing breast conserving therapy. Technological advances in various APBI modalities, including intracavitary and interstitial brachytherapy, intraoperative radiation therapy, and external beam radiation therapy, have made APBI more accessible in the community. Results of early APBI trials served as the basis for the current consensus guidelines, and multiple prospective randomized clinical trials are currently ongoing. The pending long term results of these trials will help us identify optimal candidates that can benefit from ABPI. Here we provide an overview of the clinical and cosmetic outcomes of various APBI techniques and review the current guidelines for selecting suitable breast cancer patients. We also discuss the impact of APBI on the economics of cancer care and patient reported quality of life.

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.

The INTRABEAM® Photon Radiotherapy System for the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Initial treatment for early breast cancer is usually either breast-conserving surgery (BCS) or mastectomy. After BCS, whole-breast external beam radiotherapy (WB-EBRT) is the standard of care. A potential alternative to post-operative WB-EBRT is intraoperative radiation therapy delivered by the INTRABEAM(®) Photon Radiotherapy System (Carl Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany) to the tissue adjacent to the resection cavity at the time of surgery.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of INTRABEAM for the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer during surgical removal of the tumour.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic bibliographic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library, were searched from inception to March 2014 for English-language articles. Bibliographies of articles, systematic reviews, clinical guidelines and the manufacturer's submission were also searched. The advisory group was contacted to identify additional evidence.

METHODS

Systematic reviews of clinical effectiveness, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness were conducted. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts for eligibility. Inclusion criteria were applied to full texts of retrieved papers by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. Data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer, and differences in opinion were resolved through discussion at each stage. Clinical effectiveness studies were included if they were carried out in patients with early operable breast cancer. The intervention was the INTRABEAM system, which was compared with WB-EBRT, and study designs were randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Controlled clinical trials could be considered if data from available RCTs were incomplete (e.g. absence of data on outcomes of interest). A cost-utility decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the costs, benefits and cost-effectiveness of INTRABEAM compared with WB-EBRT for early operable breast cancer.

RESULTS

One non-inferiority RCT, TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy Alone (TARGIT-A), met the inclusion criteria for the review. The review found that local recurrence was slightly higher following INTRABEAM than WB-EBRT, but the difference did not exceed the 2.5% non-inferiority margin providing INTRABEAM was given at the same time as BCS. Overall survival was similar with both treatments. Statistically significant differences in complications were found for the occurrence of wound seroma requiring more than three aspirations (more frequent in the INTRABEAM group) and for a Radiation Therapy Oncology Group toxicity score of grade 3 or 4 (less frequent in the INTRABEAM group). Cost-effectiveness base-case analysis indicates that INTRABEAM is less expensive but also less effective than WB-EBRT because it is associated with lower total costs but fewer total quality-adjusted life-years gained. However, sensitivity analyses identified four model parameters that can cause a switch in the treatment option that is considered cost-effective.

LIMITATIONS

The base-case result from the model is subject to uncertainty because the disease progression parameters are largely drawn from the single available RCT. The RCT median follow-up of 2 years 5 months may be inadequate, particularly as the number of participants with local recurrence is low. The model is particularly sensitive to this parameter.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

A significant investment in INTRABEAM equipment and staff training (clinical and non-clinical) would be required to make this technology available across the NHS. Longer-term follow-up data from the TARGIT-A trial and analysis of registry data are required as results are currently based on a small number of events and economic modelling results are uncertain.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006720.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. Note that the economic model associated with this document is protected by intellectual property rights, which are owned by the University of Southampton. Anyone wishing to modify, adapt, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, dismantle or create derivative work based on the economic model must first seek the agreement of the property owners.

Techniques for intraoperative radiation therapy for early-stage breast carcinoma

ABSTRACT 

Intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) is a method of accelerated partial breast irradiation developed to replace other longer courses of radiotherapy with a single radiation session administered at the time of breast-conserving surgery. The purpose of this review is to summarize the advantages and disadvantages of breast IORT techniques that are currently available, as well to consider potential alternative techniques for breast IORT or ultra-short course breast radiotherapy. Furthermore, we highlight the published outcomes for the IORT treatment approaches including: electron therapy, superficial photon therapy and other techniques. Potential future directions of IORT are explored including novel IORT techniques utilizing intraoperative brachytherapy with in-room imaging and rapid treatment planning.

Accelerated partial breast irradiation using intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus whole breast irradiation: 5-year survival analysis of a phase 3 randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) has been introduced as an alternative treatment method for selected patients with early stage breast cancer (BC). Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) has the theoretical advantage of a further increase in dose conformity compared with three-dimensional techniques, with more normal tissue sparing. The aim of this randomised trial is to compare the local recurrence and survival of APBI using the IMRT technique after breast-conserving surgery to conventional whole-breast irradiation (WBI) in early stage BC.

METHODS

This study was performed at the University of Florence (Florence, Italy). Women aged more than 40years affected by early BC, with a maximum pathological tumour size of 25mm, were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either WBI or APBI using IMRT. Patients in the APBI arm received a total dose of 30 Gy to the tumour bed in five daily fractions. The WBI arm received 50Gy in 25 fractions, followed by a boost on the tumour bed of 10Gy in five fractions. The primary end-point was occurrence of ipsilateral breast tumour recurrences (IBTRs); the main analysis was by intention-to-treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02104895.

FINDINGS

A total of 520 patients were randomised (260 to external WBI and 260 to APBI with IMRT) between March 2005 and June 2013. At a median follow-up of 5.0 years (Interquartile Range (IQR) 3.4-7.0), the IBTR rate was 1.5% (three cases) in the APBI group (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.1-3.0) and in the WBI group (three cases; 95% CI 0.0-2.8). No significant difference emerged between the two groups (log rank test p=0.86). We identified seven deaths in the WBI group and only one in the APBI group (p=0.057). The 5-year overall survival was 96.6% for the WBI group and 99.4% for the APBI group. The APBI group presented significantly better results considering acute (p=0.0001), late (p=0.004), and cosmetic outcome (p=0.045).

INTERPRETATION

To our knowledge, this is the first randomised study using the IMRT technique for APBI delivery. No significant difference in terms of IBTR and overall survival was observed between the two arms. APBI displayed a significantly better toxicity profile.

[State of the art and perspectives of accelerated partial breast irradiation in 2014]

In the frame of treatment de-escalation and personalization, accelerated partial breast irradiation is taking its place in the breast cancer therapeutic options. This study analyzed the results of phase III randomized trials having compared accelerated partial breast irradiation versus whole breast irradiation. Currently, among those trails, six proposed some results regarding efficacy and/or toxicity. Globally, the non-randomized studies confirmed the expected results showing a low rate of local recurrence and toxicity. The first results of the phase III randomized trials showed encouraging data in terms of local control while the toxicity varied mainly according to the accelerated partial breast irradiation technique used. However, the follow-up of the majority of these studies remains insufficient. The strict respect of accelerated partial breast irradiation indications likely represents one of the key factors of the therapeutic success. The next results could allow proposing a better definition of the accelerated partial breast irradiation selection criteria.

Shortened radiation therapy schedules for early-stage breast cancer: a review of hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation and accelerated partial breast irradiation

Breast-conserving therapy consisting of segmental mastectomy followed by whole-breast irradiation (WBI) has become widely accepted as an alternative to mastectomy as a treatment for women with early-stage breast cancer. WBI is typically delivered over the course of 5-6 weeks to the whole breast. Hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation and accelerated partial breast irradiation have developed as alternative radiation techniques for select patients with favorable early-stage breast cancer. These radiation regimens allow for greater patient convenience and the potential for decreased health care costs. We review here the scientific rationale behind delivering a shorter course of radiation therapy using these distinct treatment regimens in this setting as well as an overview of the published data and pending trials comparing these alternative treatment regimens to WBI.

Evaluating radiotherapy options in breast cancer: does intraoperative radiotherapy represent the most cost-efficacious option?

INTRODUCTION

This study analyzed the cost-efficacy of intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) compared with whole-breast irradiation (WBI) and accelerated partial-breast irradiation (APBI) for early-stage breast cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data for this analysis came from 2 phase III trials: the TARGIT (Targeted Intraoperative Radiotherapy) trial and the ELIOT (Electron Intraoperative Radiotherapy) trial. Cost analyses included a cost-minimization analysis and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio analysis including a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) analysis. Cost analyses were performed comparing IORT with WBI delivered using 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT), APBI 3D-CRT, APBI delivered with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), APBI single-lumen (SL), APBI multilumen (ML), and APBI interstitial (I).

RESULTS

Per 1000 patients treated, the cost savings with IORT were $3.6-$4.3 million, $1.6-$2.4 million, $3.6-$4.4 million, $7.5-$8.2 million, and $2.8-$3.6 million compared with WBI 3D-CRT, APBI IMRT, APBI SL, APBI ML, and APBI I, respectively, with a cost decrement of $1.6-$2.4 million compared with APBI 3D-CRT based on data from the TARGIT trial. The costs per QALY for WBI 3D-CRT, APBI IMRT, APBI SL, APBI ML, and APBI I compared with IORT were $47,990-$60,002; $17,335-$29,347; $49,019-$61,031; $108,162-$120,173; and $36,129-$48,141, respectively, based on data from the ELIOT trial. These results are consistent with APBI and WBI being cost-effective compared with IORT.

CONCLUSION

Based on cost-minimization analyses, IORT represents a potential cost savings in the management of early-stage breast cancer. However, absolute reimbursement is misleading, because when additional medical and nonmedical costs associated with IORT are factored in, WBI and APBI represent cost-effective modalities based on cost-per-QALY analyses. They remain the standard of care.