Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Treatment Options for Single Brain Metastasis

Quality of Life and Role of Palliative and Supportive Care for Patients With Brain Metastases and Caregivers: A Review

Brain metastases (BM) are the most commonly diagnosed secondary brain lesions in adults, influencing these patients' symptoms and treatment courses. With improvements in oncologic treatments, patients with BM are now living longer with their advanced cancers, and issues pertaining to quality of life become more pressing. The American Society of Clinical Oncology has recommended early implementation of palliative care for cancer patients, though incorporation and implementation of palliative and other supportive services in the setting of true multidisciplinary care requires additional attention and research for patients with intracranial metastases. We review the physical, cognitive, and psychosocial challenges patients with BM and their caregivers face during their cancer course as well as the current published research on quality of life metrics relating to this patient population and the diverse roles specialty palliative care, rehabilitation services, and other healthcare providers play in a comprehensive multidisciplinary care model.

Hospitalization outcomes among brain metastasis patients receiving radiation therapy with or without stereotactic radiosurgery from the 2005-2014 Nationwide Inpatient Sample

The purpose of this study was to compare hospitalization outcomes among US inpatients with brain metastases who received stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and/or non-SRS radiation therapies without neurosurgical intervention. A cross-sectional study was conducted whereby existing data on 35,199 hospitalization records (non-SRS alone: 32,981; SRS alone: 1035; SRS + non-SRS: 1183) from 2005 to 2014 Nationwide Inpatient Sample were analyzed. Targeted maximum likelihood estimation and Super Learner algorithms were applied to estimate average treatment effects (ATE), marginal odds ratios (MOR) and causal risk ratio (CRR) for three distinct types of radiation therapy in relation to hospitalization outcomes, including length of stay (' ≥ 7 days' vs. ' < 7 days') and discharge destination ('non-routine' vs. 'routine'), controlling for patient and hospital characteristics. Recipients of SRS alone (ATE = - 0.071, CRR = 0.88, MOR = 0.75) or SRS + non-SRS (ATE = - 0.17, CRR = 0.70, MOR = 0.50) had shorter hospitalizations as compared to recipients of non-SRS alone. Recipients of SRS alone (ATE = - 0.13, CRR = 0.78, MOR = 0.59) or SRS + non-SRS (ATE = - 0.17, CRR = 0.72, MOR = 0.51) had reduced risks of non-routine discharge as compared to recipients of non-SRS alone. Similar analyses suggested recipients of SRS alone had shorter hospitalizations and similar risk of non-routine discharge when compared to recipients of SRS + non-SRS radiation therapies. SRS alone or in combination with non-SRS therapies may reduce the risks of prolonged hospitalization and non-routine discharge among hospitalized US patients with brain metastases who underwent radiation therapy without neurosurgical intervention.

Frameless Stereotactic Radiosurgery With Linear Accelerator (LINAC)-Based Technology for Brain Metastases: Outcomes Analysis in 141 Patients

Objectives Brain metastases (BM) are the most common intracranial tumors in adults. Surgery and frame-based stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) are well-described treatment options. Frameless SRS is an emerging BM treatment option offering fewer side effects. The aim of this study was to describe the therapeutic outcomes and toxicity of frameless SRS with linear accelerator (LINAC)-based technology for BM treatment in our institution. Materials and methods We performed a retrospective study including all adult patients treated with frameless SRS with LINAC-based technology for BM between October 2010 and July 2016. Patients were followed routinely with MRI scans at three-month intervals. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival, local control, overall survival, and toxicity related to the treatment. All survival times were computed with the Kaplan-Meier method. All cumulative incidences were computed using competing risk analyses. Results A total of 194 metastatic lesions in 141 patients were treated in a 69-month interval. At the time of analysis, 33 patients were still alive, with a median follow-up time of 25.1 months. The overall median survival was 8.7 months. The median progression-free survival was 5.3 months. Local recurrence as a first event was 25% and 38% at one and two years, respectively, while distant brain recurrence as a first event was 18% and 21%. Death before any brain event occurred in 31% of patients. The cumulative incidence of radiation necrosis as a first brain event was 2% at one and two years. Conclusions The treatment of BM with LINAC-based frameless SRS in our institution had an overall and progression-free survival comparable with the literature for frameless SRS and for conventional frame-based SRS while being less invasive and more comfortable for the patient. In our study, frameless SRS with LINAC technology seems to be safe for BM treatment with minimal rates of radiation necrosis.

The Role of Stereotactic Radiosurgery in the Management of Brain Metastases From a Health-Economic Perspective: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is an effective option in the management of brain metastases, offering improved overall survival to whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT). However, given the need for active surveillance and the possibility of repeated interventions for local/distant brain recurrences, the balance between clinical benefit and economic impact must be evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review of health-economic analyses of SRS for brain metastases, compared with other existing intervention options, to determine the cost-effectiveness of this treatment across different clinical scenarios.

METHODS

The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, CRD, and EconLit databases were searched for health-economic analyses, according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, using terms relevant to brain metastases and radiation-based therapies. Simple cost analysis studies were excluded. Quality analysis was based on BMJ Consolidated Health Economics Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.

RESULTS

Eleven eligible studies were identified. For lesions with limited mass effect, SRS was more cost-effective than surgical resection (6 studies). In patients with Karnofsky performance scale (KPS) >70 and good predicted survival, SRS was cost-effective compared to WBRT (7 studies); WBRT became cost-effective with poor performance status or low anticipated life span. Following SRS, routine magnetic resonance imaging surveillance saved $1326/patient compared to symptomatic imaging due to reduced surgical salvage and hospital stay (1 study).

CONCLUSION

Based on our findings, SRS is cost-effective in the management of brain metastases, particularly in high-functioning patients with longer expected survival. However, before an optimal care pathway can be proposed, emerging factors such as tumor molecular subtype, diagnosis-specific graded prognostic assessment, neuroprognostic score, tailored surveillance imaging, and patient utilities need to be studied in greater detail.

Evaluation of Prognostic Factors for Early Mortality After Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Brain Metastases: a Single Institutional Retrospective Review

BACKGROUND

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is used commonly for patients with brain metastases (BM) to improve intracranial disease control. However, survival of these patients is often dictated by their systemic disease course. The value of SRS becomes less clear in patients with anticipated short survival.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate prognostic factors, which may predict early death (within 90 d) after SRS.

METHODS

A total of 1427 patients with BM were treated with SRS at our institution (2000-2012). There were 1385 cases included in this study; 1057 patients underwent upfront SRS and 328 underwent salvage SRS. The primary endpoint of the study was all-cause mortality within 90 d after first SRS. Multivariate analyses were performed to develop prognostic indices.

RESULTS

Two hundred sixty-six patients (19%, 95% confidence interval 17%-21%) died within 90 d after SRS. Multivariate analysis of upfront SRS patients showed that Karnofsky Performance Status, primary tumor type, extracranial metastases, age at SRS, boost treatment, total tumor volume, prior surgery, and interval from primary to BM were independent prognostic factors for 90-d mortality. The first 4 factors were also independent predictors in patients treated with salvage SRS. Based on these factors, an index was defined for each group that categorized patients into 3 and 2 prognostic groups, respectively. Ninety-day mortality was 5% to 7% in the most favorable cohort and 36% to 39% in the least favorable.

CONCLUSION

Indices based on readily available patient, clinical, and treatment factors that are highly predictive of early death in patients treated with upfront or salvage SRS can be calculated and used to define well-separated prognostic groups.

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.