Cost-effectiveness analysis of single fraction of stereotactic body radiation therapy compared with single fraction of external beam radiation therapy for palliation of vertebral bone metastases

Health Utility of Pain Response Versus Nonresponse to Palliative Radiation Therapy for Symptomatic Bone Metastases: Analyses Based on Real-World Data from 26 Centers

Background: Utility values of responders and nonresponders are essential inputs in cost-effectiveness studies of radiation therapy for painful bone metastases but, to our knowledge, they have not been reported separately. Objective: We sought to determine the utility values of responders and nonresponders using data from a prospective observational study on bone metastases. Methods: The original prospective observational study was conducted at 26 centers in Japan. Of 232 enrolled patients, 181 whose pain scores at baseline were ≥2 were analyzed. Health-related quality of life (QOL) was measured using the EuroQol 5-dimensions 5-levels (EQ-5D-5L) instrument at baseline and 2- and 6-month follow-up assessments. At follow-up assessments, patients were categorized as responders or nonresponders. Pain response was assessed using the International Consensus Pain Response Endpoints. Results: Of the 181 patients analyzed, 133 (73%) and 84 (46%) were evaluable at the 2- and 6-month follow-up assessment, respectively. The EQ-5D-5L index score (utility) increased from baseline to the 2- and 6-month follow-up assessments; regarding opioid analgesic use, no clear trend was observed during the same period. The mean utility was significantly higher in responders than in nonresponders at both follow-up times. The mean daily oral morphine equivalent dose was significantly lower in responders than in nonresponders at both follow-up times. Conclusion: We determined utility values for responders and nonresponders. Pain response was associated with better QOL and less opioid use. Our utility values according to response status can be used for model input in future cost-effectiveness studies on radiation therapy for bone metastases.

Validation of the prognostic index for spine metastasis (PRISM) for stratifying survival in patients treated with spinal stereotactic body radiation

PURPOSE

The Prognostic Index for Spinal Metastasis (PRISM) is a scoring system derived from prospective data from a single institution that stratifies patients undergoing spine stereotactic radiosurgery (SSRS) for spinal metastases into subgroups by overall (OS). We sought to further demonstrate its generalizability by performing validation with a large dataset from a second high-volume institution, Mayo Clinic.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Eight hundred seventy-nine patients-424 from Mayo Clinic and 455 from MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC)-who received SSRS between 2007 and 2019 were identified. Patients were stratified by PRISM criteria, and overall survival (OS) for the PRISM groups for each cohort was compared using Kaplan-Meier estimations and univariate Cox proportional analyses. Model calibration and concordance indices (C-indices) were calculated for each cohort to assess the quality of the scoring system.

RESULTS

Patient and tumor characteristics varied significantly between both cohorts including histology, sex, performance status, and number of organs involved (all P < 0.001). Median OS was 30.3 and 22.1 months for the Mayo and MDACC cohorts, respectively. Kaplan-Meier survival curves revealed robust separation between prognostic groups within both cohorts. The Mayo cohort showed median OS of 57.1, 37.0, 23.7, and 8.8 months for Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Univariate analysis revealed hazard ratios of 3.0 (95 % confidence interval [CI], 1.9-4.9), 5.2 (95 % CI, 3.2-8.3), and 12.9 (95 % CI, 7.8-21.4) for groups 2, 3 and 4, respectively all P < 0.001). The C-indices were 0.69 and 0.66 for the unstratified and stratified scores for the Mayo cohort, and 0.70 and 0.68 for the MDACC cohort, respectively.

CONCLUSION

These data demonstrate robust validation of the PRISM score to stratify OS in patients treated with SSRS by a large external cohort, despite substantial differences among the cohorts. Overall, the PRISM scoring may help guide optimal treatment selection for patients with spine metastases.

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.

An Economic Analysis of SC24 in Canada: A Randomized Study of SBRT Compared With Conventional Palliative RT for Spinal Metastases

PURPOSE

The Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG) Symptom Control 24 protocol (SC.24) was a multicenter randomized controlled phase 2/3 trial conducted in Canada and Australia. Patients with painful spinal metastases were randomized to either 24 Gy/2 stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) or 20 Gy/5 conventional external beam radiation therapy (CRT). The study met its primary endpoint and demonstrated superior complete pain response rates at 3 months following SBRT (35%) versus CRT (14%). SBRT planning and delivery is resource intensive. Given its benefits in SC.24, we performed an economic analysis to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of SBRT compared with CRT.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The trial recruited 229 patients. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using a Markov model taking into account observed survival, treatments costs, retreatment, and quality of life over the lifetime of the patient. The EORTC-QLU-C10D was used to determine quality of life values. Transition probabilities for outcomes were from available patient data. Health system costs were from the Canadian health care perspective and were based on 2021 Canadian dollars (CAD). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was expressed as the ratio of incremental cost to quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The impact of parameter uncertainty was investigated using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

The base case for SBRT compared with CRT had an ICER of $9,040CAD per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the ICER was most sensitive to variations in the utility assigned to "No local failure" ($5,457CAD to $241,051CAD per QALY), adopting low and high estimates of utility and the cost of the SBRT (ICERs ranging from $7345-$123,361CAD per QALY). It was more robust to variations in assumptions around survival and response rate.

CONCLUSIONS

SBRT is associated with higher upfront costs than CRT. The ICER shows that, within the Canadian health care system, SBRT with 2 fractions is likely to be more cost-effective than CRT.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy versus conventional external beam radiotherapy for spinal metastases: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to compare SBRT and cEBRT for treating spinal metastases through a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched up to 6 May 2023 for RCTs comparing SBRT and cEBRT for spinal metastases. Overall and complete pain response, local progression, overall survival, quality of life and adverse events were extracted. Data were pooled using random-effects models. Results were reported as risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes, and hazard ratios (HRs) for time-to-event outcomes, along with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was evaluated using the I2 statistic.

RESULTS

Three RCTs were identified involving 642 patients. No differences were seen in overall pain response comparing SBRT and cEBRT (RR at 3 months: 1.12, 95% CI, 0.74-1.70, p = 0.59; RR at 6 months: 1.29, 95% CI, 0.97-1.72, p = 0.08). Only two of three studies presented complete pain response data. SBRT demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in complete pain response compared to cEBRT (RR at 3 months: 2.52; 95% CI, 1.58-4.01; P < 0.0001; RR at 6 months: 2.48; 95% CI, 1.23-4.99; P = 0.01). There were no significant differences in local progression and overall survival. Adverse events were similar, except for any grade radiation dermatitis, which was significantly lower in SBRT arm (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.03-0.96, P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

SBRT is a safe treatment option for spine metastases. It may provide better complete pain response compared to cEBRT. Additional trials are needed to determine the potential benefits of SBRT in specific patient subsets.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy for spine metastases: a review of 24 Gy in 2 daily fractions

PURPOSE

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) has proven to be a highly effective treatment for selected patients with spinal metastases. Randomized evidence shows improvements in complete pain response rates and local control with lower retreatment rates favoring SBRT, compared to conventional external beam radiotherapy (cEBRT). While there are several reported dose-fractionation schemes for spine SBRT, 24 Gy in 2 fractions has emerged with Level 1 evidence providing an excellent balance between minimizing treatment toxicity while respecting patient convenience and financial strain.

METHODS

We provide an overview of the 24 Gy in 2 SBRT fraction regimen for spine metastases, which was developed at the University of Toronto and tested in an international Phase 2/3 randomized controlled trial.

RESULTS

The literature summarizing global experience with 24 Gy in 2 SBRT fractions suggests 1-year local control rates ranging from 83-93.9%, and 1-year rates of vertebral compression fracture ranging from 5.4-22%. Reirradiation of spine metastases that failed prior cEBRT is also feasible with 24 Gy in 2 fractions, and 1-year local control rates range from 72-86%. Post-operative spine SBRT data are limited but do support the use of 24 Gy in 2 fractions with reported 1-year local control rates ranging from 70-84%. Typically, the rates of plexopathy, radiculopathy and myositis are under 5% in those series reporting mature follow up, with no cases of radiation myelopathy (RM) reported in the de novo setting when the spinal cord avoidance structure is limited to 17 Gy in 2 fractions. However, re-irradiation RM has been observed following 2 fraction SBRT. More recently, 2-fraction dose escalation with 28 Gy, with a higher dose constraint to the critical neural tissues, has been reported suggesting improved rates of local control. This regimen may be important in those patients with radioresistant histologies, high grade epidural disease, and/or paraspinal disease.

CONCLUSION

The dose-fractionation of 24 Gy in 2 fractions is well-supported by published literature and is an ideal starting point for centers looking to establish a spine SBRT program.

Radiation Therapy at the End of-Life: Quality of Life and Financial Toxicity Considerations

In patients with advanced cancer, radiation therapy is considered at various time points in the patient's clinical course from diagnosis to death. As some patients are living longer with metastatic cancer on novel therapeutics, radiation oncologists are increasingly using radiation therapy as an ablative therapy in appropriately selected patients. However, most patients with metastatic cancer still eventually die of their disease. For those without effective targeted therapy options or those who are not candidates for immunotherapy, the time frame from diagnosis to death is still relatively short. Given this evolving landscape, prognostication has become increasingly challenging. Thus, radiation oncologists must be diligent about defining the goals of therapy and considering all treatment options from ablative radiation to medical management and hospice care. The risks and benefits of radiation therapy vary based on an individual patient's prognosis, goals of care, and the ability of radiation to help with their cancer symptoms without undue toxicity over the course of their expected lifetime. When considering recommending a course of radiation, physicians must broaden their understanding of risks and benefits to include not only physical symptoms, but also various psychosocial burdens. These include financial burdens to the patient, to their caregiver and to the healthcare system. The burden of time spent at the end-of-life receiving radiation therapy must also be considered. Thus, the consideration of radiation therapy at the end-of-life can be complex and requires careful attention to the whole patient and their goals of care.

Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Versus Conventional Radiation Therapy in Pain Relief for Bone Metastases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

This study aimed to investigate the difference in pain relief between stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and conventional radiation therapy (cRT) for patients with bone metastases.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Clinical trials and observational studies comparing SBRT versus cRT for bone metastases were retrieved. The main endpoint was pain relief after radiation therapy; the secondary endpoints were pain score change, local progression-free survival, reirradiation rate, and toxic events. When there was a significant heterogeneity, the random-effects model was applied. Otherwise, the fixed-effects model was used. Analyses of all included studies were performed first, followed by analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) only.

RESULTS

Six RCTs, 1 prospective cohort study, and 3 retrospective observational studies were enrolled. Between 2004 and 2019, 448 patients received SBRT, and 445 patients received cRT. All prospective studies defined the lesions as oligometastatic. Pooled results based on all included studies indicated that SBRT was generally associated with a higher overall relief rate (P < .001 at 3 months; P = .015 at 6 months) and complete relief rate (P = .029 at 1 month; P < .001 at 6 months). Pooled results based on RCTs indicated that at 3 and 6 months, SBRT was associated with a higher overall relief rate (P < .001 and P = .017, respectively) and complete relief rate (P < .001 and P < .00, respectively). Subgroup analyses indicated that in more cases, the analgesic advantage of SBRT was more obvious when spinal lesions were irradiated, when the difference in the mean biological effective dose (BED) was less, or when intensity modulated radiation therapy was used to deliver SBRT.

CONCLUSIONS

Excessive elevation of BED introduces the risk of diminishing the analgesic effect of SBRT. SBRT delivered using intensity modulated radiation therapy is preferred for pain relief in spinal oligometastases. More RCTs are required to determine the most appropriate BED or dose regimen for SBRT.

Development and validation of a recursive partitioning analysis-based pretreatment decision-making tool identifying ideal candidates for spine stereotactic body radiation therapy

BACKGROUND

This study was aimed at developing and validating a decision-making tool predictive of overall survival (OS) for patients receiving stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for spinal metastases.

METHODS

Three hundred sixty-one patients at one institution were used for the training set, and 182 at a second institution were used for external validation. Treatments most commonly involved one or three fractions of spine SBRT. Exclusion criteria included proton therapy and benign histologies.

RESULTS

The final model consisted of the following variables and scores: Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS) ≥ 6 (1), time from primary diagnosis < 21 months (1), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status = 1 (1) or ECOG performance status > 1 (2), and >1 organ system involved (1). Each variable was an independent predictor of OS (p < .001), and each 1-point increase in the score was associated with a hazard ratio of 2.01 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.79-2.25; p < .0001). The concordance value was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.71-0.78). The scores were discretized into three groups-favorable (score = 0-1), intermediate (score = 2), and poor survival (score = 3-5)-with 2-year OS rates of 84% (95% CI, 79%-90%), 46% (95% CI, 36%-59%), and 21% (95% CI, 14%-32%), respectively (p < .0001 for each). In the external validation set (182 patients), the score was also predictive of OS (p < .0001). Increasing SINS<zaq;6> was predictive of decreased OS as a continuous variable (p < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

This novel score is proposed as a decision-making tool to help to optimize patient selection for spine SBRT. SINS may be an independent predictor of OS.

Bias due to statistical handling of death and reirradiation in the assessment of duration of response after palliative radiotherapy: a scoping review and analysis of clinical data

OBJECTIVES

We investigated the influence of handling death and reirradiation on the estimation of duration of response (DOR).

METHODS

First, we performed a scoping review on methods to assess DOR in palliative radiotherapy. Second, we performed three different analyses on a subgroup of patients from a previously published prospective study. The first analysis was a competing risks analysis considering relapse of pain as the event of interest and death and reirradiation as competing events (Analysis A). The second and third analyses were standard survival analyses where the event of interest was a composite outcome of relapse of pain, death, or reirradiation (Analysis B) and relapse of pain (Analysis C), respectively.

RESULTS

Death was considered as an event of interest in less than half of the papers, while reirradiation was not considered in any of the studies. Competing risks analysis was not performed in any of the studies. In the analysis of clinical data, competing risks analysis showed that relapse of pain predominated as the cause of the end of response. Median DOR was correctly estimated to be 4.1 months in Analyses A and B, but was overestimated to be 8.1 months in Analysis C.

CONCLUSIONS

Death and reirradiation should be treated as the events of interest that mark the end of response (as in Analyses A and B) to avoid overestimation of treatment efficacy and an invalid assumption of independent censoring.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

The definition of end of response remains inconclusive in the assessment of DOR. We recommend competing risks analysis (Analysis A), by which we can estimate cumulative incidence of each event type and evaluate the necessity of reirradiation.

Cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies for spinal metastases

PURPOSE

We analyze the cost-effectiveness of standard palliative external beam radiation (EBRT, 8 Gy in 1 fraction), stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT, 24 Gy in 2 fractions), and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for painful spinal metastases. Single-fraction SBRT (delivering 24 Gy) is also assessed.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A Markov state transition model was constructed. Key model parameters were derived from prospective clinical trial data. Strategies were compared using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), with effectiveness in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained. Costs included both hospital and professional costs using 2020 Medicare reimbursement.

RESULTS

The base case demonstrated that 2-fraction SBRT was not cost-effective compared to single-fraction EBRT, with an ICER of $194,145/QALY gained. RFA was a dominated treatment strategy (more costly and less effective) in this model. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that EBRT was favored in 66% of model iterations. If median survival were improved after SBRT, two-fraction SBRT became cost-effective, with ICER of $80,394, $57,062, and $47,038 for 3, 6, and 9-month improvements in survival. Because two-fraction SBRT data reported 18% of patients with indeterminant pain response at 3 months, and two-fraction SBRT is infrequently used in clinical practice, single-fraction SBRT data was also assessed. Single-fraction SBRT delivering 24 Gy was cost-effective compared to single-fraction EBRT, with an ICER of $92,833/QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

For appropriately chosen patients, single-fraction SBRT is more cost-effective than conventional EBRT or RFA. Conventional EBRT remains a cost-effective treatment for patients with poor expected survival.

The Effect of Breast Cancer Subtype on Symptom Improvement Following Palliative Radiotherapy for Bone Metastases

AIM

To assess the relationship between breast cancer subtypes and patient-reported outcomes (PRO) following palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Prospectively collected PRO for all breast cancer patients treated with palliative, bone metastasis-directed radiotherapy from 2013 to 2016 in the province of British Columbia were analysed. The PRO questionnaire scored pain severity, level of function and symptom frustration at baseline and at 3-4 weeks following palliative radiotherapy using a 12-point scale. The primary outcome was the rate of overall response (any improvement in score); the secondary outcome was the rate of complete improvement in PRO (final PRO score of 0). Multivariate logistic analysis was used to compare response rates between molecular subgroup approximations of luminal A (LumA), luminal B (LumB), HER2-enriched (HER2) and triple negative (TN), as defined by grade and immunohistochemical staining.

RESULTS

There were 376 patients who underwent 464 courses of palliative radiation for bone metastases. Subtypes included: 243 LumA, 146 LumB, 46 HER2 and 29 TN. There were 216 multifraction radiotherapy courses (median dose 20 Gy) and 248 single-fraction radiotherapy courses (median dose 8 Gy). The overall response rate was 85% and the complete response rate was 25%. In comparison with LumA breast cancers, TN breast cancers were associated with a lower rate of overall response (69% versus 86%, P = 0.021) and a lower rate of complete response (10% versus 28.8%, P = 0.045) on multivariate analyses.

CONCLUSION

Patients with TN breast cancer have lower rates of pain, function and symptom frustration improvement following palliative radiation for bone metastases.

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.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy versus conventional external beam radiotherapy in patients with painful spinal metastases: an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2/3 trial

BACKGROUND

Conventional external beam radiotherapy is the standard palliative treatment for spinal metastases; however, complete response rates for pain are as low as 10-20%. Stereotactic body radiotherapy delivers high-dose, ablative radiotherapy. We aimed to compare complete response rates for pain after stereotactic body radiotherapy or conventional external beam radiotherapy in patients with painful spinal metastasis.

METHODS

This open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2/3 trial was done at 13 hospitals in Canada and five hospitals in Australia. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years and older, and had painful (defined as ≥2 points with the Brief Pain Inventory) MRI-confirmed spinal metastasis, no more than three consecutive vertebral segments to be included in the treatment volume, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, a Spinal Instability Neoplasia Score of less than 12, and no neurologically symptomatic spinal cord or cauda equina compression. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a web-based, computer-generated allocation sequence to receive either stereotactic body radiotherapy at a dose of 24 Gy in two daily fractions or conventional external beam radiotherapy at a dose of 20 Gy in five daily fractions using standard techniques. Treatment assignment was done centrally by use of a minimisation method to achieve balance for the stratification factors of radiosensitivity, the presence or absence of mass-type tumour (extraosseous or epidural disease extension, or both) on imaging, and centre. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a complete response for pain at 3 months after radiotherapy. The primary endpoint was analysed in the intention-to-treat population and all safety and quality assurance analyses were done in the as-treated population (ie, all patients who received at least one fraction of radiotherapy). The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02512965.

FINDINGS

Between Jan 4, 2016, and Sept 27, 2019, 229 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive conventional external beam radiotherapy (n=115) or stereotactic body radiotherapy (n=114). All 229 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The median follow-up was 6·7 months (IQR 6·3-6·9). At 3 months, 40 (35%) of 114 patients in the stereotactic body radiotherapy group, and 16 (14%) of 115 patients in the conventional external beam radiotherapy group had a complete response for pain (risk ratio 1·33, 95% CI 1·14-1·55; p=0·0002). This significant difference was maintained in multivariable-adjusted analyses (odds ratio 3·47, 95% CI 1·77-6·80; p=0·0003). The most common grade 3-4 adverse event was grade 3 pain (five [4%] of 115 patients in the conventional external beam radiotherapy group vs five (5%) of 110 patients in the stereotactic body radiotherapy group). No treatment-related deaths were observed.

INTERPRETATION

Stereotactic body radiotherapy at a dose of 24 Gy in two daily fractions was superior to conventional external beam radiotherapy at a dose of 20 Gy in five daily fractions in improving the complete response rate for pain. These results suggest that use of conformal, image-guided, stereotactically dose-escalated radiotherapy is appropriate in the palliative setting for symptom control for selected patients with painful spinal metastases, and an increased awareness of the need for specialised and multidisciplinary involvement in the delivery of end-of-life care is needed.

FUNDING

Canadian Cancer Society and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Prognostic Factors Associated With Surviving Less Than 3 Months vs Greater Than 3 Years Specific to Spine Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy and Late Adverse Events

BACKGROUND

Patient selection is critical for spine stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) given potential for serious adverse effects and the associated costs.

OBJECTIVE

To identify prognostic factors associated with dying within 3 mo, or living greater than 3 yr, following spine SBRT, to better inform patient selection.

METHODS

Patients living ≤3 mo after spine SBRT and >3 yr after spine SBRT were identified, and multivariable regression analyses were performed. We report serious late toxicities observed, including vertebral compression fractures (VCF) and plexopathy.

RESULTS

A total of 605 patients (1406 spine segments) were treated from 2009 to 2018. A total of 51 patients (8.4%) lived ≤3 mo, and 79 patients (13%) survived >3 yr. Significant differences in baseline features were observed. On multivariable analysis, nonbreast/prostate primaries (odds ratio [ORs]: 28.8-104.2, P = .0004), eastern cooperative oncology group (ECOG) ≥2 (OR: 23.7, 95% CI: 3.2-177, P = .0020), polymetastatic disease (OR: 6.715, 95% CI: 1.89-23.85, P = .0032), painful lesions (OR: 3.833-8.898, P = .0118), and paraspinal disease (OR: 2.874, 95% CI: 1.118-7.393, P = .0288) were prognostic for ≤3 mo survival. The 3- and 5-yr rates of VCF were 10.4% and 14.4%, respectively, and 3- and 5-yr rates of plexopathy were 2.2% and 5.1%, respectively. A single duodenal perforation was observed, and there was no radiation myelopathy events.

CONCLUSION

Shorter survival after spine SBRT was seen in patients with less radiosensitive histologies (ie, not breast or prostate), ECOG ≥2, and polymetastatic disease. Pain and paraspinal disease were also associated with poor survival. Fractionated spine SBRT confers a low risk of late serious adverse events.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound ablation for palliation of refractory painful bone metastases

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine if magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) is cost-effective compared with medication, for refractory pain from bone metastases in the United States.

METHODS

We constructed a Markov state transition model using TreeAge Pro software (TreeAge Software, Inc., Williamstown, MA, USA) to model costs, outcomes, and the cost-effectiveness of a treatment strategy using MRgFUS for palliative treatment of painful bone metastases compared with a Medication Only strategy (Figure 1). Model transition state probabilities, costs (in 2018 US$), and effectiveness data (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) were derived from available literature, local expert opinion, and reimbursement patterns at two U.S. tertiary academic medical centers actively performing MRgFUS. Costs and QALYs, discounted at three percent per year, were accumulated each month over a 24-month time horizon. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, the MRgFUS treatment strategy costs an additional $11,863 over the 2-year time horizon to accumulate additional 0.22 QALYs, equal to a $54,160/QALY ICER, thus making MRgFUS the preferred strategy. One-way sensitivity analyses demonstrate that for the base-case analysis, the crossover point at which Medication Only would instead become the preferred strategy is $23,341 per treatment. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrate that 67 percent of model iterations supported the conclusion of the base case.

CONCLUSIONS

Our model demonstrates that MRgFUS is cost-effective compared with Medication Only for palliation of painful bone metastases for patients with medically refractory metastatic bone pain across a range of sensitivity analyses.

Spine stereotactic radiosurgery for metastases from hepatobiliary malignancies: patient selection using PRISM scoring

OBJECTIVE

Dose escalation via stereotactic radiation therapy techniques has been necessary for hepatobiliary malignancies in the primary and oligometastatic setting, but such dose escalation is challenging for spine metastases due to spinal cord proximity. Here, we investigate the role of spine stereotactic radiosurgery (SSRS) in the management of such metastases.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients treated with SSRS to spinal metastases from hepatobiliary malignancies between 2004 and 2017 at our Institution. We used the Kaplan-Meier method to calculate overall survival (OS) and local control (LC) and Cox regression analysis to identify factors associated with disease-related outcomes.

RESULTS

We identified 28 patients treated to 43 spinal metastases with SSRS for either HCC or cholangiocarcinoma. The 1-year LC and OS were 85% and 23%, respectively. The median time to death was 6.2 months, while median time to local failure was not reached. Tumor volume > 60 cc (SHR 6.65, p = 0.03) and Bilsky ≥ 1c (SHR 4.73, p = 0.05) predicted for poorer LC, while BED₁₀ > 81 Gy trended towards better local control (SHR 4.35, p = 0.08). Child-Pugh Class (HR 3.02, p = 0.003), higher PRISM Group (HR 3.49, p = 0.001), and systemic disease progression (HR 3.65, p = 0.001) were associated with worse mortality based on univariate modeling in patients treated with SSRS; on multivariate analysis, PRISM Group (HR 2.28, p = 0.03) and systemic disease progression (HR 2.67, p = 0.03) remained significant. Four patients (10%) developed compression deformity and one patient (2%) developed radiation neuritis.

CONCLUSION

SSRS provides durable local control in patients with metastatic hepatobiliary malignancies, with higher BED necessary to ensure excellent LC. PRISM scoring is a promising prognostic tool to aid SSRS patient selection.

Imaging response assessment following stereotactic body radiotherapy for solid tumour metastases of the spine: Current challenges and future directions

Patients with metastatic disease are routinely serially imaged to assess disease burden and response to systemic and local therapies, which places ever-expanding demands on our healthcare resources. Image interpretation following stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for spine metastases can be challenging; however, appropriate and accurate assessment is critical to ensure patients are managed correctly and resources are optimised. Here, we take a critical review of the merits and pitfalls of various imaging modalities, current response assessment guidelines, and explore novel imaging approaches and the potential for radiomics to add value in imaging assessment.

Time-Driven, Activity-Based Cost Analysis of Radiation Treatment Options for Spinal Metastases

PURPOSE:

Several treatment options for spinal metastases exist, including multiple radiation therapy (RT) techniques: three-dimensional (3D) conventional RT (3D-RT), intensity-modulated RT (IMRT), and spine stereotactic radiosurgery (SSRS). Although data exist regarding reimbursement differences across regimens, differences in provider care delivery costs have yet to be evaluated. We quantified institutional costs associated with RT for spinal metastases, using a time-driven activity-based costing model.

METHODS:

Comparisons were made between (1) 10-fraction 3D-RT to 30 Gy, (2) 10-fraction IMRT to 30 Gy, (3) 3-fraction SSRS (SSRS-3) to 27 Gy, and (4) single-fraction SSRS (SSRS-1) to 18 Gy. Process maps were developed from consultation through follow-up 30 days post-treatment. Process times were determined through panel interviews, and personnel costs were extracted from institutional salary data. The capacity cost rate was determined for each resource, then multiplied by activity time to calculate costs, which were summed to determine total cost.

RESULTS:

Full-cycle costs of SSRS-1 were 17% lower and 17% higher compared with IMRT and 3D-RT, respectively. Full-cycle costs for SSRS-3 were only 1% greater than 10-fraction IMRT. Technical costs for IMRT were 50% and 77% more than SSRS-3 and SSRS-1. In contrast, personnel costs were 3% and 28% higher for SSRS-1 than IMRT and 3D-RT, respectively ( P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS:

Resource utilization varies significantly among treatment options. By quantifying provider care delivery costs, this analysis supports the institutional resource efficiency of SSRS-1. Incorporating clinical outcomes with such resource and cost data will provide additional insight into the highest value modalities and may inform alternative payment models, operational workflows, and institutional resource allocation.

Health system costs for cancer medications and radiation treatment in Ontario for the 4 most common cancers: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Previous costing and resource estimates for cancer have not been complete owing to lack of comprehensive data on cancer-related medication and radiation treatment. Our objective was to calculate the mean overall costs per patient of cancer-related medications and radiation, as well as by disease subtype and stage, in the first year after diagnosis for the 4 most prevalent cancers in Ontario.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using provincial health administrative databases to identify population health system resources and costs for all patients diagnosed with breast, colorectal, lung or prostate cancer between Jan. 1, 2010, and Dec. 31, 2015 in Ontario. The primary outcome measure was the overall average cost per patient in the 365 days after diagnosis for cancer-related medications and radiation treatment, calculated with the use of 2 novel costing algorithms. We determined the cost by disease, disease subtype and stage as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

There were 168 316 Ontarians diagnosed with cancer during the study period, 50 141 with breast cancer, 38 108 with colorectal cancer, 34 809 with lung cancer and 45 258 with prostate cancer. The mean per-patient cost for cancer-related medications was $8167 (95% confidence interval [CI] $8023-$8311), $6568 (95% CI $6446-$6691), $2900 (95% CI $2816-$2984) and $1211 (95% CI $1175-$1247) for breast, colorectal, lung and prostate cancer, respectively. The corresponding mean radiation treatment costs were $18 529 (95% CI $18 415-$18 643), $15 177 (95% CI $14 899-$15 456), $10 818 (95% CI $10 669-$10 966) and $16 887 (95% CI $16 648-$17 125). In general, stage III and IV cancers were the most expensive stages for both medications and radiation across all 4 disease sites.

INTERPRETATION

Our work updates previous costing estimates to help understand costs and resources critical to health care system planning in a single-payer system. More refined costing estimates are useful as inputs to allow for more robust health economic modelling and health care system planning.

Prioritization not Rationing in Cancer Care

Conditions of scarcity impact healthcare services for cancer patients. This is the unpleasant reality for nations, local governments, hospitals, and even individual doctors. This means that medical services judged by objective standards as potentially effective by medical professionals are limited because of financial or access scarcity. With this situation of scarcity as premise, one must raise the ethical question of how to deal with scarcity while respecting fundamental principles of human dignity and human rights. This chapter focuses on the German healthcare context where dignity and rights form the basis and framework for medical ethics. Accordingly, in Germany, rationing medical services for life-threatening diseases has been traditionally and appropriately criticized and prohibited. Granting a situation of scarcity, however, some prioritization becomes increasingly necessary. Thus, there is present need for careful ethical analysis of non-emergency regulatory prioritization principles and protocols. Above all, analysis and conclusions must preserve and foster society's deepest moral commitments.

Radiotherapy Advances in Pediatric Neuro-Oncology

Radiation therapy (RT) represents an integral component in the treatment of many pediatric brain tumors. Multiple advances have emerged within pediatric radiation oncology that aim to optimize the therapeutic ratio—improving disease control while limiting RT-related toxicity. These include innovations in treatment planning with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) simulation, as well as increasingly sophisticated radiation delivery techniques. Advanced RT techniques, including photon-based RT such as intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), as well as particle beam therapy and stereotactic RT, have afforded an array of options to dramatically reduce radiation exposure of uninvolved normal tissues while treating target volumes. Along with advances in image guidance of radiation treatments, novel RT approaches are being implemented in ongoing and future prospective clinical trials. As the era of molecular risk stratification unfolds, personalization of radiation dose, target, and technique holds the promise to meaningfully improve outcomes for pediatric neuro-oncology patients.

[Radiotherapy of bone metastases in France: A descriptive monocentric retrospective study]

PURPOSE

Bone metastases cause pain and affect patients' quality of life. Radiation therapy is one of the reference analgesic treatments. The objective of this study was to compare the current practices of a French radiotherapy department for the treatment of uncomplicated bone metastases with data from the literature in order to improve and optimize the management of patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective monocentric study of patients who underwent palliative irradiation of uncomplicated bone metastases was performed.

RESULTS

Ninety-one patients had 116 treatments of uncomplicated bone metastases between January 2014 and December 2015, including 44 men (48%) and 47 women (52%) with an average age of 63years (25-88years). Primary tumours most commonly found were breast cancer (35%), lung cancer (16%) and prostate cancer (12%). The regimens used were in 29% of cases 30Gy in ten fractions (group 30Gy), in 21% of cases 20Gy in five fractions (group 20Gy), in 22% of cases 8Gy in one fraction (group 8Gy) and in 28% of cases 23.31Gy in three fractions of stereotactic body irradiation (stereotactic group). The general condition of the patient (P<0.001), pain score and analgesic (P<0.001), oligometastatic profile (P=0.003) and practitioner experience (P<0.001) were factors influencing the choice of the regimen irradiation. Age (P=0.46), sex (P=0.14), anticancer treatments (P=0.56), concomitant hospitalization (P=0.14) and the distance between the radiotherapy centre and home (P=0.87) did not influence the decision significantly. A total of three cases of spinal compression and one case of post-therapeutic fracture were observed, occurring between one and 128days and 577days after irradiation, respectively. Eight percent of all irradiated metastases were reirradiated with a delay ranging between 13 and 434days after the first irradiation. The re-irradiation rate was significantly higher after 8Gy (P=0.02). The rate of death was significantly lower in the stereotactic arm (P<0.001) and overall survival was significantly greater in the stereotactic arm (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

This study showed that patients' analysed was comparable to the population of different studies. Predictive factors for the choice of the treatment regimen were identified. Non-fractionnated therapy was underutilised while stereotactic treatment was increasingly prescribed, showing an evolution in the management of 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.

Bone Pain and Muscle Weakness in Cancer Patients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In this article, we will discuss the current understanding of bone pain and muscle weakness in cancer patients. We will describe the underlying physiology and mechanisms of cancer-induced bone pain (CIBP) and cancer-induced muscle wasting (CIMW), as well as current methods of diagnosis and treatment. We will discuss future therapies and research directions to help patients with these problems.

RECENT FINDINGS

There are several pharmacologic therapies that are currently in preclinical and clinical testing that appear to be promising adjuncts to current CIBP and CIMW therapies. Such therapies include resiniferitoxin, which is a targeted inhibitor of noceciptive nerve fibers, and selective androgen receptor modulators, which show promise in increasing lean mass. CIBP and CIMW are significant causes of morbidity in affected patients. Current management is mostly palliative; however, targeted therapies are poised to revolutionize how these problems are treated.

The use of Quality-Adjusted Life Years in cost-effectiveness analyses in palliative care: Mapping the debate through an integrative review

BACKGROUND

In cost-effectiveness analyses in healthcare, Quality-Adjusted Life Years are often used as outcome measure of effectiveness. However, there is an ongoing debate concerning the appropriateness of its use for decision-making in palliative care.

AIM

To systematically map pros and cons of using the Quality-Adjusted Life Year to inform decisions on resource allocation among palliative care interventions, as brought forward in the debate, and to discuss the Quality-Adjusted Life Year's value for palliative care.

DESIGN

The integrative review method of Whittemore and Knafl was followed. Theoretical arguments and empirical findings were mapped.

DATA SOURCES

A literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL, in which MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms were Palliative Care, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Quality of Life, and Quality-Adjusted Life Years.

FINDINGS

Three themes regarding the pros and cons were identified: (1) restrictions in life years gained, (2) conceptualization of quality of life and its measurement, including suggestions to adapt this, and (3) valuation and additivity of time, referring to changing valuation of time. The debate is recognized in empirical studies, but alternatives not yet applied.

CONCLUSION

The Quality-Adjusted Life Year might be more valuable for palliative care if specific issues are taken into account. Despite restrictions in life years gained, Quality-Adjusted Life Years can be achieved in palliative care. However, in measuring quality of life, we recommend to-in addition to the EQ-5D- make use of quality of life or capability instruments specifically for palliative care. Also, we suggest exploring the possibility of integrating valuation of time in a non-linear way in the Quality-Adjusted Life Year.

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.

Longitudinal Trends in Costs of Palliative Radiation for Metastatic Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

In recent years, palliative treatment of prostate cancer metastases has been characterized by the use of more complex radiation treatment, despite a lack of evidence demonstrating a clinical benefit of these technologies in the palliative setting. The impact of adoption of these technologies on the costs of palliative radiation treatment in patients with metastatic prostate cancer remains poorly understood in the general patient population.

METHODS

The study was a retrospective analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Medicare data of men aged 66 and older who died from metastatic prostate cancer between 2000 and 2007 and received radiation therapy for bony metastases in the last year of life. Direct costs were obtained from Medicare carrier and outpatient facility payments for all radiation treatment claims and adjusted to 2008 dollars.

RESULTS

A total of 1705 men met study inclusion criteria. Total Medicare payments for radiation therapy for bony metastases in the last year of life increased by 44.4% from an average of $2,763 in 2000 to $3,989 in 2007, with the proportion of all payments accrued within hospital-based settings increasing from 48% to 57%. Complexity of radiation therapy techniques over the same period was characterized by use of less simple (30.1% to 23.3%) and more complex (59.9% versus 66.7%) radiation therapy. From 2000-2003 to 2004-2007, the use of shorter treatment courses (≤5 fractions) decreased from 22% to 14%, and the use of single fraction treatment courses decreased by half (6.3% to 2.9%; P≤.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Between 2000 and 2007, palliative radiation therapy for bony prostate cancer metastases was characterized by the use of more advanced treatment technologies and prolonged radiation treatment courses. Further research investigating barriers to cost-effective palliation is warranted.