Costs and effectiveness of staging and treatment options in early-stage Hodgkin's disease

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 Brentuximab Vedotin With Chemotherapy in Newly Diagnosed Stage III and IV Hodgkin Lymphoma

PURPOSE

In a recent randomized, open-label trial (ECHELON-1), brentuximab vedotin (BV) combined with doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (AVD+BV) decreased the risk of progression in adults diagnosed with stage III or IV Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) compared with standard bleomycin-containing chemotherapy (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine [ABVD]). However, the cost effectiveness of incorporating BV (US$6,970 per 50-mg vial) into the first-line setting is unknown.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We constructed a Markov decision-analytic model to measure the costs and clinical outcomes for AVD+BV compared with ABVD as first-line therapy in a cohort of patients with stage III or IV HL. Transition probabilities were estimated from ECHELON-1 by fitting parametric survival distributions. Lifetime direct health care costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for AVD+BV compared with ABVD from a US payer perspective. Our model was also used to estimate BV price reductions that would achieve more favorable cost effectiveness under indication-specific pricing.

RESULTS

AVD+BV was associated with an improvement of 0.56 QALYs compared with treatment with standard ABVD. However, incorporating BV into first-line therapy led to significantly higher lifetime health care costs ($361,137 v $184,291), causing the ICER for AVD+BV to be $317,254 per QALY. If indication-specific pricing were implemented, acquisition costs for BV used in the first-line setting would need to be reduced by 56% to 73% for ICERs of $150,000 to $100,000 per QALY, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Substituting BV for bleomycin during first-line therapy for stage III or IV HL is unlikely to be cost effective under current drug pricing. Should indication-specific pricing be implemented, significant price reductions for BV used in the first-line setting would be needed to reduce ICERs to more widely acceptable values.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of routine surveillance imaging of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in first remission

PURPOSE

Surveillance imaging of asymptomatic patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in first remission remains controversial. A decision-analytic Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of follow-up strategies following first-line immunochemotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Three strategies were compared in 55-year-old patient cohorts: routine clinical follow-up without serial imaging, routine follow-up with biannual computed tomography (CT) scans for 2 years, or routine follow-up with biannual [(18)F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET/CT) for 2 years. The baseline model favored imaging-based strategies by associating asymptomatic imaging-detected relapses with improved clinical outcomes. Lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for each surveillance strategy.

RESULTS

Surveillance strategies utilizing 2 years of routine CT or PET/CT scans were associated with minimal survival benefit when compared with clinical follow-up without routine imaging (life-years gained: CT, 0.03 years; PET/CT, 0.04 years). The benefit of imaging-based follow-up remained small after quality-of-life adjustments (CT, 0.020 QALYs; PET/CT, 0.025 QALYs). Costs associated with imaging-based surveillance strategies are considerable; ICERs for imaging strategies compared with clinical follow-up were $164,960/QALY (95% CI, $116,510 to $766,930/QALY) and $168,750/QALY (95% CI, $117,440 to 853,550/QALY) for CT and PET/CT, respectively. Model conclusions were robust and remained stable on one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

Our cost-effectiveness analysis suggests surveillance imaging of asymptomatic DLBCL patients in remission offers little clinical benefit at substantial economic costs.

Treatment Selection and Outcomes in Early-Stage Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma: Analysis of the National Cancer Data Base

Purpose

The choice between combined-modality therapy (CMT) and chemotherapy alone for early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) remains controversial. Our objective was to define factors affecting treatment selection and resulting survival outcomes in the United States.

Patients and Methods

We identified 20,600 patients treated with CMT or chemotherapy between 2003 and 2011 from the National Cancer Data Base. Factors affecting treatment selection were studied in a mixed-effects logistic model. Survival outcomes were compared using a propensity score analysis to account for indication bias.

Results

Only 49.5% of patients received CMT, and this proportion steadily declined between 2003 (59.4%) and 2011 (45.2%), particularly in younger patients. Apart from classical prognostic factors (age, stage, tumor location, histology, comorbidities), treatment selection was significantly influenced by sex, black race, distance to facility, and type of insurance. Uninsured patients had the lowest odds of receiving CMT. A significant random effect related to facility-specific treatment preference was also evident. Estimated 5-year overall survival (OS) was 89.6%, and relative survival (RS) was 94.3%. After adjustment for guarantee-time and indication biases, CMT was associated with better OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.70) and RS (excess HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.54) than chemotherapy alone. This effect was without significant heterogeneity in subset analysis and was not sensitive to unobserved confounding.

Conclusion

Socioeconomic factors affect selection of curative treatments in HL. Widespread abandonment of CMT beyond circumstances sanctioned by guidelines may affect survival. Further research should focus on developing strategies that minimize toxicity and access disparities without compromising survival.

Cost-effectiveness studies in radiation therapy

The field of radiation therapy has made dramatic technical advances over the past 20 years. 3D conformal radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy and proton beam therapy have all been developed in an attempt to improve the therapeutic ratio: higher cure rates with lower toxicity. Unfortunately, although the costs of radiation therapy are certainly increasing, it is unclear whether its clinical benefit has also improved. Cost-effectiveness analyses are designed to formally evaluate the cost of a treatment relative to an associated change in quality-adjusted survival. As the cost of oncologic care is increasing, it is critically important to assess the cost-effectiveness of radiation therapy. This article will describe the issues surrounding the delivery and cost of radiation therapy, and it will summarize the work that has been done to evaluate the use of cost-effectiveness in radiation oncology.

Monitoring diagnostic accuracy and complications. A report from the Children's Oncology Group Hodgkin lymphoma study

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Cancer studies mandate quality assurance programs for clinical trials. Surgeons consistently play 2 roles early in the management of Hodgkin lymphoma in children and adolescents: obtaining a specimen for pathologic diagnosis and placing a central venous catheter to assist with therapy delivery. A surgical quality assurance program was embedded as part of the of the Hodgkin lymphoma study (AHODOOO31) to assess diagnostic accuracy and complications.

METHODS

Surgical checklists and operative and pathology reports were reviewed concurrently. Diagnostic technique, success rate, location of biopsy, combined procedures under one anesthetic, and complications are reported.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty-five cases were reviewed, with 169 having complete data. Diagnostic techniques included open biopsy (n = 148), computed tomography-guided core biopsy (n = 5), thoracoscopic/laparoscopic biopsy (n = 10) and fine-needle aspirations (n = 4). No staging laparotomies were performed. Biopsy sites included cervical (133), mediastinal (18), axillary (7), and others (11). Diagnostic accuracy was 145 of 148 (98.5%) for the open biopsy; 4 of 5, core biopsy (80%); 6 of 10 (60%), thoracoscopic/laparoscopic biopsy; and 1 of 4, fine-needle aspiration (25%). Eighteen had mediastinal disease only, 9 of whom had a thoracoscopic biopsy with a 55% diagnostic accuracy. Inadequate sample was the only reason for a lack of diagnosis. A second open operation was required in these cases for diagnosis. At biopsy, frozen section confirmed a malignancy in 68. In 38 of these 68 children, a central line was placed during the same anesthetic. The most common complication was inadequate sampling. Three wound infections were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

With an appropriate surgical approach to obtain an adequate tissue specimen, diagnostic accuracy is high and surgical complications are low in children with Hodgkin lymphoma. Diagnostic technique should ensure adequate tissue sampling especially when not using an open procedure. When possible, central line insertion should be performed under the same anesthetic. Fine-needle aspiration was not used enough to assess its role in the diagnosis of children with Hodgkin lymphoma.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of computerized tomography in the routine follow-up of patients after primary treatment for Hodgkin's disease

PURPOSE

To estimate the clinical benefits and cost effectiveness of computed tomography (CT) in the follow-up of patients with complete response (CR) after treatment for Hodgkin's disease (HD).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We developed a decision-analytic model to evaluate follow-up strategies for two hypothetical cohorts of 25-year-old patients with stage I-II or stage III-IV HD, treated with doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine-based chemotherapy with or without radiation therapy, respectively. We compared three strategies for observing asymptomatic patients after CR: routine annual CT for 10 years, annual CT for 5 years, or follow-up with non-CT modalities only. We used Markov models to calculate life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy, and lifetime costs. Baseline probabilities, transition probabilities, and utilities were derived from published studies. Cost data were derived from the Medicare fee schedule and medical literature. We performed sensitivity analyses by varying baseline estimates.

RESULTS

Annual CT follow-up is associated with minimal survival benefit. With adjustments for quality of life, we found a decrement in quality-adjusted life expectancy for early-stage patients followed with CT compared with non-CT modalities. Sensitivity analyses showed annual CT for 5 years becomes more effective than non-CT follow-up if the specificity of CT is 80% or more or if the disutility associated with a false-positive CT result is less than 0.01 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). For advanced-stage patients, annual CT for 5 years is associated with a very small quality-adjusted survival gain over non-CT follow-up with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 9,042,300 dollars/QALY.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis suggests that routine CT should not be used in the surveillance of asymptomatic patients in CR after treatment for HD.

Considerations of Cost-Effectiveness for New Radiation Oncology Technologies

PURPOSE

The additional equipment and personnel costs of supplying image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) technology have caused many to question if the marginal gains in patients' health-related quality of life are worth the additional cost. Novel IGRT technologies, including cone-beam computed tomography and helical tomotherapy, provide the opportunity to study cost and effectiveness for patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This methodologic study proposes to evaluate the cost and effectiveness of treating conventional radiotherapy versus IGRT patients prospectively among several institutions. The cost of treating patients varies among institutions depending on personnel, equipment, and overhead costs, but the nature and quality of services provided are expected to be consistent.

RESULTS

The study will track cost information at a single institution and simultaneously as the median from multiple institutions. Effectiveness measures will include both standard quality-adjusted life-year instruments completed by patients and performance status measures completed by institutional personnel. In addition, disease-specific effectiveness measures will be accommodated in the study. Each participating institution will use the same effectiveness measures to track patients with similar diseases.

CONCLUSION

The resulting cost and effectiveness data will be available to investigators at any point during the study, immediately on the completion of a trial, or when statistical acceptability is achieved. These considerations are being incorporated into a high-level information model under development.

Cost-effectiveness versus cost-utility analysis of interventions for cancer: does adjusting for health-related quality of life really matter?

OBJECTIVE

The US Public Health Service Panel on Cost-Effectiveness has recommended the use of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) as the best way to estimate outcomes in a cost-effectiveness analysis. We evaluate the importance of this recommendation by assessing whether adjusting for health-related quality of life affects the ultimate resource allocation decision implied by the cost-effectiveness ratio for interventions aimed at cancer prevention and control.

METHODS

We identified 110 interventions in 39 articles for which both cost/life-year and cost/QALY were reported. Interventions were forms of prevention, early detection, or treatment of cancer. We calculated a Spearman correlation to assess the ordinal relationship between cost/life-year and cost/QALY. In addition, we employed various decision thresholds to assess whether the use of cost/life-year would yield different resource allocation decisions than the use of cost/QALY.

RESULTS

The correlation between cost/life-year and cost/QALY is 0.96 (P <.0001). Assuming a US dollars 50000 decision threshold, adjustment for quality of life would affect the implied choice in 5% of cases. With a US dollars 400000 threshold, adjustment for quality of life would affect choice for 2% of interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

For interventions aimed at cancer, the outcome measures of cost/life-year and cost/QALY are highly correlated with one another. Although adjusting for quality of life can make an important difference in the evaluation of alternative approaches to cancer prevention and control, it often does not.