Estimating the benefit and cost of radiotherapy for lung cancer

A Population-based Model of Local Control and Survival Benefit of Radiotherapy for Lung Cancer

AIMS

To estimate the population-based locoregional control and overall survival benefits of radiotherapy for lung cancer if the whole population were treated according to evidence-based guidelines. These estimates were based on a published radiotherapy utilisation (RTU) model that has been used to estimate the demand and planning of radiotherapy services nationally and internationally.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The lung cancer RTU model was extended to incorporate an estimate of benefits of radiotherapy alone, and of radiotherapy in conjunction with concurrent chemotherapy (CRT). Benefits were defined as the proportional gains in locoregional control and overall survival from radiotherapy over no radiotherapy for radical indications, and from postoperative radiotherapy over surgery alone for adjuvant indications. A literature review (1990-2015) was conducted to identify benefit estimates of individual radiotherapy indications and summed to estimate the population-based gains for these outcomes. Model robustness was tested through univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

If evidence-based radiotherapy recommendations are followed for the whole lung cancer population, the model estimated that radiotherapy alone would result in a gain of 8.3% (95% confidence interval 7.4-9.2%) in 5 year locoregional control, 11.4% (10.8-12.0%) in 2 year overall survival and 4.0% (3.6-4.4%) in 5 year overall survival. For the use of CRT over radiotherapy alone, estimated benefits would be: locoregional control 1.7% (0.8-2.4%), 2 year overall survival 1.7% (0.5-2.8%) and 5 year overall survival 1.2% (0.7-1.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

The model provided estimates of radiotherapy benefit that could be achieved if treatment guidelines are followed for all cancer patients. These can be used as a benchmark so that the effects of a shortfall in the utilisation of radiotherapy can be better understood and addressed. The model can be adapted to other populations with known epidemiological parameters to ensure the planning of equitable radiotherapy services.

Consensus Statement on Proton Therapy in Early-Stage and Locally Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Radiation dose escalation has been shown to improve local control and survival in patients with non-small cell lung cancer in some studies, but randomized data have not supported this premise, possibly owing to adverse effects. Because of the physical characteristics of the Bragg peak, proton therapy (PT) delivers minimal exit dose distal to the target volume, resulting in better sparing of normal tissues in comparison to photon-based radiation therapy. This is particularly important for lung cancer given the proximity of the lung, heart, esophagus, major airways, large blood vessels, and spinal cord. However, PT is associated with more uncertainty because of the finite range of the proton beam and motion for thoracic cancers. PT is more costly than traditional photon therapy but may reduce side effects and toxicity-related hospitalization, which has its own associated cost. The cost of PT is decreasing over time because of reduced prices for the building, machine, maintenance, and overhead, as well as newer, shorter treatment programs. PT is improving rapidly as more research is performed particularly with the implementation of 4-dimensional computed tomography-based motion management and intensity modulated PT. Given these controversies, there is much debate in the oncology community about which patients with lung cancer benefit significantly from PT. The Particle Therapy Co-operative Group (PTCOG) Thoracic Subcommittee task group intends to address the issues of PT indications, advantages and limitations, cost-effectiveness, technology improvement, clinical trials, and future research directions. This consensus report can be used to guide clinical practice and indications for PT, insurance approval, and clinical or translational research directions.

Timing in initiating lung cancer treatment after bronchoscopy in France: Study from medico-administrative database

BACKGROUND

Time-to-treatment of cancer is becoming a serious political and social issue. A greater understanding of the timeframes involved in cancer care is needed to reduce inequalities in access to care caused by delays.

OBJECTIVE

To describe time delays in each phase of lung cancer treatment after bronchoscopy.

METHOD

Using the international classification of diseases and medical procedures codes, from national hospital discharge database we selected patients newly diagnosed for Lung cancer in 2009-2010 who had undergone treatment.

RESULTS

We included 14,596 patients. Median times from bronchoscopy to 1) neo-adjuvant chemotherapy and to surgery in patients with surgical pathway were 34d (Q25=22; Q75=47) and 44d (Q25=26; Q75=82), respectively, 2) chemotherapy and to radiotherapy in patients with non-surgical pathway, were 33d (Q25=22; Q75=49) and 88d (Q25=46; Q75=162) respectively, 3) first treatment irrespective of pathway and treatment combination was 34d (Q25=22; Q75=50). Time to first treatment was significantly higher with age and with the status of the first care center. It was longer in most northern regions and in overseas districts and shorter in southern and eastern regions of the country.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the first study based on medico-administrative database describing time to first treatment after bronchoscopy in patients suffering from lung cancer in France. It could inform decision-making on guidelines on times to access lung cancer treatment.

Estimating the population benefit of radiotherapy: using demand models to estimate achievable cancer outcomes

The measurement of population benefits is important for priority setting, economic evaluation and quality improvement. It also informs advocacy. In this article, the use of demand models to estimate the achievable benefit of cancer therapy is reviewed. Achievable benefit refers to the treatment benefit achievable under optimal conditions. The population benefit of radiotherapy has been used as an example. Demand models provide a means of estimating the optimal proportion of patients with treatment indications when guidelines are followed. They may be used to estimate achievable benefit. The choice of end point should reflect the range of benefits associated with the treatment of interest. In some cases, further model development is needed if a pre-existing demand model is used. The benefit of treatment for each indication is estimated using a systematic review process. The highest level of evidence is used to define the benefit for each indication. In cases where multiple sources of the same level and quality of evidence exist, a meta-analysis is carried out. Population-based effectiveness data sources are considered, but three major challenges to their use are: (i) generalisability of the observed outcomes, (ii) data resolution and (iii) confounding and bias. The population benefit determined from this process describes the population proportion achieving a benefit due to the use of guideline-based treatment, compared with no use of that treatment. Sensitivity analysis provides a means for modelling the effect of model uncertainties. The predominant uncertainty is most often due to uncertainty in indication proportion. Preference-sensitive treatment decisions are a common example. The described approach to estimating the achievable benefit of cancer therapy is robust to model uncertainties, rapidly adaptable and is transparent. However, estimates rely on the quality of model data sources and may be affected by model assumptions. Models should be developed for a broader range of modalities of cancer therapy and relevant end points.

International patterns of radiotherapy practice for non-small cell lung cancer

Radiotherapy is an important treatment modality for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). There are models of radiotherapy utilization that estimate the proportion of patients with NSCLC who have an evidence-based indication for radiotherapy. These estimates range from 46%-68% for radiotherapy utilization at diagnosis and 64%-75% overall. However, actual radiotherapy utilization throughout much of the world is lower than this, ranging from 28%-53%, with the largest differences between actual and estimated radiotherapy utilization seen in stage III NSCLC. Some of this discrepancy is attributable to the assumptions in the models that are based on broad factors such as stage and performance status. Characteristics of the population with underlying lung cancer that often has comorbidities or compromised respiratory function also influence the ability to deliver radiotherapy safely. Sociodemographic factors such as race and income have been found to affect access to radiotherapy in certain jurisdictions. The type of clinician or medical setting the patient presents to initially can also influence radiotherapy use in NSCLC. Potential solutions to improve appropriate radiotherapy utilization for NSCLC include restructuring models of care to ensure that all patients with lung cancer are managed within a multidisciplinary team including a radiation oncologist.

Quality-of-life concerns in lung cancer patients

Lung cancer is a leading cause of cancer deaths for both men and women across the world. In the past, studies on lung cancer have focused on traditional end points such as survival, disease-free survival or local control. More recently, investigators have begun to appreciate the importance of health-related quality-of-life outcomes, particularly in the setting of lung cancer. This article provides an overview of the importance, methodology, analysis and presentation of health-related quality of life in lung cancer trials, and also discusses some of the limitations and challenges of such studies.

A study on the influence of breathing phases in intensity-modulated radiotherapy of lung tumours using four-dimensional CT

During gated intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment for patients with inoperable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the end-expiration (EE) phase of respiratory is more stable, whereas end-inspiration (EI) spares more normal lung tissue. This study compared the relative plan quality based on dosimetric and biological indices of the planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OARs) between EI and EE in gated IMRT. 16 Stage I NSCLC patients, who were scanned by four-dimensional CT, were recruited and re-planned. An IMRT plan of a prescription dose of 60 Gy per respiratory phase was computed using the iPlan treatment planning system. The heart, spinal cord, both lungs and PTV were outlined. The tumour control probability for the PTV and normal tissue complication probability for all OARs in the EE and EI phases were nearly the same; only the normal tissue complication probability of the heart in EE was slightly lower. Conversely, the conformation number of the PTV, V20 of the left lung, V30 of both lungs, Dmax of the heart and spinal cord, V10 of the heart and D5% of the spinal cord were better in EE, whereas D(mean) of the PTV, V20 of the right lung and maximum doses of both lungs were better in EI. No differences reached statistical significance (p<0.05) except Dmax of the spinal cord (p=0.033). Overall, there was no expected clinical impact between EI and EE in the study. However, based on the practicality factor, EI is recommended for patients who can perform breath-hold; otherwise, EE is recommended.

Lung cancer patients in Queensland suffer delays in receiving radiation therapy--but not as a result of distance

AIM

To determine whether lung cancer radiation therapy waiting times in Queensland public hospitals are associated with distance of residence from the nearest treatment facility.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of radiation therapy waiting times of 1535 Queensland residents who were diagnosed with lung cancer from 2000 to 2004 and received radiation therapy as initial treatment at a public hospital. The effect of distance of residence from treatment centre on median waiting time was analysed by quantile regression controlling for sex, age, lung cancer histology, stage and therapeutic intent.

RESULTS

The median waiting time from diagnosis to start of radiation therapy was 33 days for all patients. There was no significant difference (P = 0.141) in median waiting times in relation to distance of residence from a treatment centre. However, in most patients, waiting times were significantly longer than recommended by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists. Curative patients waited longer than palliative patients, while patients with earlier stage cancer waited longer than those with more advanced disease.

CONCLUSION

Waiting times for radiation therapy among lung cancer patients in Queensland was not associated with distance from place of residence to the nearest public treatment facility. However, delays overall are excessive and are likely to worsen unless radiation treatment capabilities are enhanced to keep pace with population growth in Queensland.

Economics of treatments for non-small cell lung cancer

The purpose of this article is to review the economics of treatments for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We systematically analysed the cost effectiveness of treatments for the different stages of NSCLC, with particular emphasis on more recently approved agents. Numerous economic analyses in NSCLC have been conducted, with a variety of methods and in a number of countries. In patients with localized disease, adjuvant chemotherapy appears to have greater cost effectiveness than observation; however, there are few published data. In locally advanced disease, combined modalities (chemotherapy, surgery and/or radiotherapy) are probably cost effective, but high-quality economic analyses are lacking. In advanced NSCLC, third-generation chemotherapies used in the first-line setting can be administered with acceptable incremental cost effectiveness. In the second-line setting, new agents (docetaxel, pemetrexed and erlotinib) have acceptable cost effectiveness. The lack of cost-utility analyses for elderly patients and patients with a poor prognosis rules out firm conclusions. This review suggests that most therapies for NSCLC are cost effective when the patient has a good performance status, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio under USD 50,000 per life-year gained in the majority of cases.

An evidence-based estimation of local control and survival benefit of radiotherapy for breast cancer

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Survival benefits from radiotherapy for breast cancer described in randomised trials represent only those patients eligible for trials. We estimated the benefit of radiotherapy as an adjuvant treatment for the entire population of breast cancer patients if evidence-based treatment guidelines were followed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Evidences on 10-year local control and overall survival gain (radiotherapy vs no radiotherapy) were identified from review of literature. The data were incorporated into the optimal radiotherapy utilization tree that we previously reported for all categories of breast cancer patients and overall local control and survival benefits were estimated.

RESULTS

The gains in 10-year local control and overall survival from optimal treatment of all breast cancer patients were 11.1% (95% CI 10.8-11.2%) and 3.1% (95% CI 3.0-3.4%), respectively. The stage-based estimates in local control and survival benefit were: 8% and 0% for Ductal Carcinoma in situ (DCIS), 12% and 2% for stage I-II cancers and 13% and 20% for stage III cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

Our model was able to estimate the contribution of radiotherapy in breast cancer treatment if all patients were treated according to the recommended guidelines. These estimates could be used to benchmark population-based survival reports and to assess the cost-effectiveness of radiotherapy for breast cancer treatment.

Évaluation économique de la radiothérapie : méthodes et résultats

The cost of radiotherapy, which concerns 150,000 new patients yearly in France has been estimated 1700 euros per patients in this country, 50% lower than the European average. Economic evaluations of radiotherapy have related the cost of either curative or palliative treatment to the medical outcome. For lung, rectal, breast cancer and bone metastases of prostate cancer, radiation therapy prolongs life by an estimated 6 to 10 months. The cost effectiveness ranges from 5,000 to 25,000 euros per life year gained.

An evidence-based estimate of the appropriate rate of utilization of radiotherapy for cancer of the cervix

PURPOSE

Current estimates of the proportion of cancer patients who will require radiotherapy (RT) are based almost entirely on expert opinion. The objective of this study was to calculate the proportion of incident cases of cervical cancer that should receive RT by application of an evidence-based approach.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A systematic review of the literature was done to identify indications for RT for cervical cancer and to ascertain the level of evidence that supported each indication. A survey of Canadian gynecologic oncologists and radiation oncologists who treat cervical cancer was done to determine the level of acceptance of each indication among doctors who practice in the field. An epidemiologic approach was then used to estimate the incidence of each indication for RT in a typical North American population of patients with cervical cancer.

RESULTS

The systematic review of the literature identified 29 different indications for RT for cervical cancer. The majority of the 75 experts who responded to the mail survey stated that they "usually" or "always" recommended RT in all but one of the clinical situations that were identified as indications for RT on the basis of the systematic review. The analysis of epidemiologic data revealed that, in a typical North American population, 65.4% +/- 2.5% of cervical cancer cases will develop one or more indications for RT at some point in the course of the illness, 63.4% +/- 2.3% will develop indications for RT as part of their initial management, and 2.0% +/- 0.9% will develop indications for RT for progressive or recurrent disease. The effects of variations in case mix on the need for RT was examined by sensitivity analysis, which suggested that the maximum plausible range for the appropriate rate of utilization of RT was 54.3% to 67.9%. The proportion of cases that required RT was stage dependent: 10.6% +/- 1.2% in Stage IA, 74.9% +/- 1.3% in Stage IB, 100% in Stages II and III, and 97.2% +/- 1.1% in Stage IV.

CONCLUSIONS

This evidence-based estimate of the appropriate rate of use of RT for cervical cancer adds to the growing pool of knowledge about the need for RT that will ultimately provide a rational basis for long-term planning for RT programs and for auditing access to RT in the general population.