Partial breast irradiation versus whole breast radiotherapy for early-stage breast cancer: a decision analysis

Markov models for clinical decision-making in radiation oncology: A systematic review

The intrinsic stochasticity of patients' response to treatment is a major consideration for clinical decision-making in radiation therapy. Markov models are powerful tools to capture this stochasticity and render effective treatment decisions. This paper provides an overview of the Markov models for clinical decision analysis in radiation oncology. A comprehensive literature search was conducted within MEDLINE using PubMed, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Only studies published from 2000 to 2023 were considered. Selected publications were summarized in two categories: (i) studies that compare two (or more) fixed treatment policies using Monte Carlo simulation and (ii) studies that seek an optimal treatment policy through Markov Decision Processes (MDPs). Relevant to the scope of this study, 61 publications were selected for detailed review. The majority of these publications (n = 56) focused on comparative analysis of two or more fixed treatment policies using Monte Carlo simulation. Classifications based on cancer site, utility measures and the type of sensitivity analysis are presented. Five publications considered MDPs with the aim of computing an optimal treatment policy; a detailed statement of the analysis and results is provided for each work. As an extension of Markov model-based simulation analysis, MDP offers a flexible framework to identify an optimal treatment policy among a possibly large set of treatment policies. However, the applications of MDPs to oncological decision-making have been understudied, and the full capacity of this framework to render complex optimal treatment decisions warrants further consideration.

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.

Nation-Scale Adoption of Shorter Breast Radiation Therapy Schedules Can Increase Survival in Resource Constrained Economies: Results From a Markov Chain Analysis

PURPOSE

Hypofractionated whole breast irradiation and accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) offer women options for shorter courses of breast radiation therapy. The impact of these shorter schedules on the breast cancer populations of emerging economies with limited radiation therapy resources is unknown. We hypothesized that adoption of these schedules would improve throughput in the system and, by allowing more women access to life-saving treatments, improve patient survival within the system.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We designed a Markov chain model to simulate the different health states that a postlumpectomy or postmastectomy patient could enter over the course of a 20-year follow-up period. Transition rates between health states were adapted from published data on recurrence rates. We used primary data from a tertiary care hospital in Lahore, Pakistan, to populate the model with proportional use of mastectomy versus breast conservation and to estimate the proportion of patients suitable for APBI. Sensitivity analyses on the use of APBI and relative efficacy of APBI were conducted to study the impact on the population.

RESULTS

The shorter schedule resulted in more women alive and more women remaining without evidence of disease (NED) compared with the conventional schedule, with an absolute difference of about 4% and 7% at 15 years, respectively. Among women who had lumpectomies, the chance of remaining alive and with an intact breast was 62% in the hypofractionation model and 54% in the conventional fractionation model.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing throughput in the system can result in improved survival, improved chances of remaining without evidence of disease, and improved chances of remaining alive with a breast. These findings are significant and suggest that adoption of hypofractionation in emerging economies is not simply a question of efficiency and cost but one of access to care and patient survivorship.

Hypofractionated boost after whole breast irradiation in breast carcinoma: chronic toxicity results and cosmesis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the impact of hypofractionated boost after hypofractionated whole breast irradiation in breast carcinoma.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients after breast conservative surgery were treated all time with hypofractionation of 2.67 Gy/day. Whole breast dose was 40.05 Gy followed in case of risk of local relapse by a boost of 16.02 Gy or 8.01 Gy. Acute and chronic toxicity results were evaluated including cosmetic software-assisted assessment and objective evaluation of fibrosis parameters (elasticity and hydration) by means of a skin tester.

RESULTS

A total of 362 patients were evaluated. Acute toxicities comprised grade 1 dermatitis in 48.1 %, grade 2 in 44.5 % and grade 3 in 17 patients 4.7 %, respectively. After a median follow-up of 4.5 years, in 308 cases (86.6 %) there was no chronic skin or subcutaneous changes. In the first consecutive 50 patients, measures with skin tester showed no statistical differences in parameters for skin and subcutaneous fibrosis. Cosmetic results were considered excellent and good in 26 and 62 %, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Boost to tumour bed with hypofractionated doses is well tolerated and acute and chronic toxicities are mild with good cosmetic results. Objective systems are encouraging methods to assess skin quality and cosmesis.

Partial breast irradiation for early breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Breast conserving therapy for women with breast cancer consists of local excision of the tumour (achieving clear margins) followed by radiation therapy (RT). RT is given to sterilize tumour cells that may remain after surgery to decrease the risk of local tumour recurrence. Most true recurrences occur in the same quadrant as the original tumour. Whole breast RT may not protect against the development of a new primary cancer developing in other quadrants of the breast. In this Cochrane Review, we investigated the role of delivering radiation to a limited volume of the breast around the tumour bed (partial breast irradiation: PBI) sometimes with a shortened treatment duration (accelerated partial breast irradiation: APBI).

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether PBI/APBI is equivalent to or better than conventional or hypofractionated WBRT after breast conservation therapy for early-stage breast cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register (07 November 2013), CENTRAL (2014, Issue 3), MEDLINE (January 1966 to 11 April 2014), EMBASE (1980 to 11 April 2014), CINAHL (11 April 2014) and Current Contents (11 April 2014). Also we searched the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register, the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (07 November 2013) and US clinical trials registry (www.clinicaltrials.gov) (22 April 2014). We searched for grey literature: Open Grey (23 April 2014), reference lists of articles, a number of conference proceedings and published abstracts, and did not apply any language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) without confounding and evaluating conservative surgery plus PBI/APBI versus conservative surgery plus whole breast RT. We included both published and unpublished trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors (ML, DF and BH) performed data extraction and resolved any disagreements through discussion. We entered data into Review Manager for analysis. BH and ML assessed trials, graded the methodological quality using Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool and resolved any disagreements through discussion.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four RCTs that had 2253 women. Two older trials examined RT techniques which do not reflect current practice and one trial had a short follow-up. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for our key outcomes due to risk of bias. Taken together with other GRADE recommendations, the quality of evidence for our outcomes was very low to low. For the comparison of partial breast irradiation/accelerated breast irradiation (PBI/APBI) with whole breast irradiation (WBRT), local recurrence-free survival appeared worse (Hazard Ratio (HR) 1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23 to 2.45; three trials, 1140 participants, very low quality evidence). Cosmesis appeared improved with PBI/APBI in a single trial (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.72; one trial, 241 participants, very low quality evidence), but late toxicity (telangiectasia OR 4.41, 95% CI 3.21 to 6.05; very low quality evidence, 708 participants) and subcutaneous fibrosis (OR 4.27, 95% CI 3.04 to 6.01; one trial, 710 participants, very low quality evidence) appeared increased in another trial. We found no clear evidence of a difference for the comparison of PBI/APBI versus WBRT for the outcomes of: overall survival (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.18; three trials, 1140 participants, very low quality evidence), cause-specific survival (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.22; two trials, 966 participants, low evidence quality), distant metastasis-free survival (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.28; 1140 participants, low quality evidence), subsequent mastectomy rate (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.21; 258 participants, low quality evidence) and relapse-free survival (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.85; 258 participants, low quality evidence). We found no data for the outcomes of acute toxicity, new ipsilateral breast primaries, costs, quality of life or consumer preference.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The limitations of the data currently available mean that we cannot make definitive conclusions about the efficacy and safety or ways to deliver of PBI/APBI. We await completion of ongoing trials.

Has partial breast irradiation by IORT or brachytherapy been prematurely introduced into the clinic?

In contrast to most new oncology treatments, wide clinical introduction of partial breast irradiation (PBI) is not based on level A trial evidence. Despite promising phase I/II data, new reports based upon large cohorts of patients mention more recurrences and/or complications from PBI compared with whole breast irradiation (WBI), necessitating more careful selection of patients for PBI while awaiting long term results of major clinical trials. In an attempt to improve this we give preoperative PBI within a prospective trial.

Partial-breast irradiation versus whole-breast irradiation for early-stage breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis

PURPOSE

Accelerated partial-breast irradiation (PBI) is a new treatment paradigm for patients with early-stage breast cancer. Although PBI may lead to greater local recurrence rates, it may be cost-effective because of better tolerability and lower cost. We aim to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of PBI compared with whole-breast radiation therapy (WBRT) for estrogen receptor-positive postmenopausal women treated for early-stage breast cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We developed a Markov model to describe health states in the 15 years after radiotherapy for early-stage breast cancer. External beam (EB) and MammoSite (MS) PBI were considered and assumed to be equally effective, but carried different costs. Patients received tamoxifen, but not chemotherapy. Utilities, recurrence risks, and costs were adapted from the literature; the baseline utility for no disease after radiotherapy was set at 0.92. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to model uncertainty in the PBI hazard ratio, recurrence pattern, and patient utilities. Costs (in 2004 US dollars) and quality-adjusted life-years were discounted at 3%/y.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for WBRT compared with EB-PBI was $630,000/quality-adjusted life-year; WBRT strongly dominated MS-PBI. One-way sensitivity analysis found that results were sensitive to PBI hazard ratio, recurrence pattern, baseline recurrence risk, and no evidence of disease PBI utility values. Probabilistic sensitivity showed that EB-PBI was the most cost-effective technique over a wide range of assumptions and societal willingness-to-pay values.

CONCLUSIONS

EB-PBI was the most cost-effective strategy for postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer. Unless the quality of life after MS-PBI proves to be superior, it is unlikely to be cost-effective.