Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Versus 3-Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy for Preoperative Treatment of Extremity Soft Tissue Sarcomas

Radiotherapy Remains Underused in the Treatment of Soft-Tissue Sarcomas: Disparities in Practice Patterns in the United States

BACKGROUND

Practice patterns of radiation therapy (RT) use for soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) remain quite variable, despite clinical practice guidelines recommending the addition of RT to surgery for patients with high-grade STS, particularly for larger tumors. Using the National Cancer Database (NCDB), we assessed patterns of overall RT use, neoadjuvant versus adjuvant treatment, and specific RT modalities in this population.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients aged ≥18 years with stage II/III STS in 2004 through 2015 were identified from the NCDB. Patterns of care were assessed using multivariable logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Of 27,426 total patients, 11,654 (42%) were treated with surgery alone versus 15,772 (58%) with RT in addition to surgery, with no overall increase in RT use over the study period. Notable clinical predictors of receipt of RT included tumor size (>5 cm), grade III, and tumors arising in the extremities. Conversely, female sex, older age (≥70 years), Black race, noncommercial insurance coverage, farther distance to treatment, and poor performance status were negative predictors of RT use. Of those receiving RT, 27% were treated with neoadjuvant RT and 73% with adjuvant RT. The proportion of those receiving neoadjuvant RT increased over time. Relevant factors associated with neoadjuvant RT included treatment at academic centers, larger tumor size, and extremity tumors. Of those who received RT with a modality specified as either intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) or 3D conformal RT (3DCRT), 61% were treated with IMRT and 39% with 3DCRT. The proportion of patients treated with IMRT increased over time. Relevant factors associated with IMRT use included treatment at academic centers, commercial insurance coverage, and larger and nonextremity tumors.

CONCLUSIONS

Although use of neoadjuvant RT and IMRT has increased over time, a significant number of patients with STS are not receiving adjuvant or neoadjuvant RT. Our findings also note potential sociodemographic disparities and highlight the concern that not all patients with STS are being equally considered for RT.

Pre- or postoperative radiotherapy for soft tissue sarcomas

Sarcomas are rare tumours arising from mesenchymal tissue. A multimodal management in an expert centre combining surgery and radiotherapy is the current standard of care for localized soft-tissue sarcomas of the extremities, to enable limb-sparing strategies. The delivery of pre- radiotherapy or postoperative radiotherapy offers similar local control and survival rates but the toxicity profile is quite different: preoperative radiotherapy increases the risk of wound complications and postoperative radiotherapy affects long-term functional outcomes. While postoperative radiotherapy has long been the rule, especially in Europe, technical improvements with image-guided- and intensity-modulated radiotherapy associated with a better management of postoperative wounds has tended to change practices with more frequent preoperative radiotherapy. More recently the possibilities of a hypofractionated regimen or potentiation by nanoparticles to increase the therapeutic index plead in favour of a preoperative delivery of radiotherapy. The aim of this paper is to report pros and cons of pre- and post-operative radiotherapy for soft-tissue sarcomas.

Chasing Zero Harm in Radiation Oncology: Using Pre-treatment Peer Review

Purpose: The Joint Commission has encouraged the healthcare industry to become “High Reliability Organizations” by “Chasing Zero Harm” in patient care. In radiation oncology, the time point of quality checks determines whether errors are prevented or only mitigated. Thus, to “chase zero” in radiation oncology, peer review has to be implemented prior to treatment initiation. A multidisciplinary group consensus peer review (GCPR) model is used pre-treatment at our institution and has been successful in our efforts to “chase zero harm” in patient care.

Methods: With the GCPR model, policy-defined complex cases go through a treatment planning conference, which includes physicians, residents, physicists, and dosimetrists. Three major plan aspects are reviewed: target volumes, target and normal tissue dose coverage, and dose distributions. During the review, any team member can ask questions and afterwards a group consensus is taken regarding plan approval.

Results: The GCPR model has been implemented through a commitment to peer review and creative conference scheduling. Automated analysis software is used to depict color-coded results for department approved target coverage and dose constraints. About 8% of plans required re-planning while about 23% required minor changes. The mean time for review of each plan was 8 min.

Conclusions: Catching errors prior to treatment is the only way to “chase zero” in radiation oncology. Various types of errors may exist in treatment plans and our GCPR model succeeds in preventing many errors of all shapes and sizes in target definition, dose prescriptions, and treatment plans from ever reaching the patients.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Data collection of patient outcomes: one institution's experience

Patient- and provider-reported outcomes are recognized as important in evaluating quality of care, guiding health care policy, comparative effectiveness research, and decision-making in radiation oncology. Combining patient and provider outcome data with a detailed description of disease and therapy is the basis for these analyses. We report on the combination of technical solutions and clinical process changes at our institution that were used in the collection and dissemination of this data. This initiative has resulted in the collection of treatment data for 23 541 patients, 20 465 patients with provider-based adverse event records, and patient-reported outcome surveys submitted by 5622 patients. All of the data is made accessible using a self-service web-based tool.

Cost-effectiveness of prophylactic cranial irradiation with hippocampal avoidance in limited stage small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) in limited stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC) prevents brain metastases and improves survival, with the potential for neurocognitive toxicity. RTOG0933 demonstrated that hippocampal avoidance (HA) during whole brain radiotherapy preserves neurocognition. This study's objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of HA-PCI in LS-SCLC through decision analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Markov model was developed to simulate the clinical course of LS-SCLC who received HA-PCI or conventional PCI (C-PCI). A willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY was used. Incremental cost effectiveness ratio was calculated (ICER). Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the parameter thresholds and to assess the robustness of the model.

RESULTS

In the base case scenario, HA-PCI is more cost-effective than C-PCI, with an ICER of $47,107/QALY. HA-PCI was preferred over C-PCI provided that the risk of developing brain metastases was not increased by at least 14%, or if neurocognitive dysfunction rates were reduced by at least 40%. HA-PCI was the cost-effective strategy in 68% of tested iterations in probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that HA-PCI is more cost-effective than C-PCI in LS-SCLC. Our results support the use of HA-PCI in this patient population, should results from RTOG0933 be confirmed by the ongoing NRGCC003 trial.

Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy Is Not Associated with Perioperative or Survival Benefit over 3D-Conformal Radiotherapy for Rectal Cancer

INTRODUCTION

The use of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in rectal cancer has steadily increased over traditional 3D conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) due to perceived benefit of delivering higher treatment doses while minimizing exposure to surrounding tissues. However, IMRT is technically challenging and costly, and its effects on rectal cancer outcomes remain unclear.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Adults with clinical stage II and III rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with 45-54 Gy of radiation and surgery were included from the 2006-2013 National Cancer Data Base. Patients were grouped based the modality of radiation received: IMRT or 3D-CRT. Multivariable regression modeling adjusting for demographic, clinical, and treatment characteristics was used to examine the impact of IMRT vs. 3D-CRT on pathologic downstaging, resection margin positivity, sphincter loss surgery, 30-day unplanned readmission and mortality after surgery, and overall survival.

RESULTS

Among 7386 patients included, 3330 (45 %) received IMRT and 4056 (55 %) received 3D-CRT. While the mean radiation dose delivered was higher with IMRT (4735 vs. 4608 cGy, p < 0.001), it was associated with higher risks of positive margins (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.57; p < 0.001) and sphincter loss surgery (OR 1.32; p < 0.001). There were no differences between IMRT and 3D-CRT in the likelihood of pathologic downstaging (OR 0.89, p = 0.051), unplanned readmission (OR 0.79; p = 0.07), or 30-day mortality (OR 0.61; p = 0.31) after surgery. Additionally, there were no differences in overall survival at 8 years (IMRT vs. 3D-CRT: 64 vs. 64 %; adjusted hazard ratio 1.06, p = 0.47).

CONCLUSION

IMRT is associated with worse local tumor control without any long-term survival benefit for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Given the lack of significant advantage and the higher cost of IMRT, caution should be exercised when using IMRT instead of traditional 3D-CRT for rectal cancer.