Cost-effectiveness analysis of intensity-modulated radiation therapy with normal and hypofractionated schemes for the treatment of localised prostate cancer

The Future Needs of External Beam Radiotherapy in Portugal Until 2040

AIMS

External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) is essential to offer an effective cancer treatment, but it needs to be accessible, well-timed, and high-quality. There is a global lack of radiotherapy infrastructure and investment that compromises the cancer outcomes. The authors aim to quantify the future needs of EBRT until 2040 to cover the future demand.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Based on the Global Cancer Observatory estimate for new cancer cases in Portugal for 2040 it was calculated the optimal number of EBRT courses. The OUP is the proportion of new cancer cases that should receive EBRT at least once. In line with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) DIrectory of RAdiotherapy Centres and European SocieTy for Radiotherapy and Oncology - Health Economics in Radiation Oncology guidelines, we estimated the number of EBRT machines / Megavoltage (MV) units needed. Also, the authors followed the IAEA staffing guidelines.

RESULTS

The calculated median increase in the optimal number of EBRT courses for the year 2040 was found to be 18% when compared to the requirements in 2020. The projected number of optimal EBRT courses for 2040 was estimated to be approximately 34.000. Consequently, a range of 18 to 30 new EBRT machines/ MV units will need to be installed to adequately address the growing demand. To meet this demand, it is anticipated that a total of 28 to 46 radiation oncologists, 22 to 36 medical physicists, and 61 to 102 radiation therapists will be required.

CONCLUSION

The deficit of EBRT machines / MV units in Portugal will require a change in the cancer related - policies and an investment to offer full access to EBRT treatments.

Quantifying societal burden of radiation-induced small bowel toxicity in patients with rectal cancer

Introduction

Advancements in rectal cancer (RC) treatment not only led to an increase in lives saved but also improved quality of life (QoL). Notwithstanding these benefits, RC treatment comes at the price of gastrointestinal morbidity in many patients. Health economic modelling poses an opportunity to explore the societal burden of such side-effects. This study aims to quantify radiation-induced late small bowel (SB) toxicity in survivors of RC for Three-Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy (3D-CRT), Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) and Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy - Image Guided Radiation Therapy (IMRT/IGRT).

Materials and methods

Materials and A model-based health economic evaluation was performed. The theoretical cohort consists of a case-mix of survivors of RC aged 25-99 years according to Belgian age-specific incidence rates. A societal perspective was adopted. The base case analysis was complemented with one-way deterministic analyses, deterministic scenario analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (1,000 iterations). Results were presented as mean lifetime incremental cost (€) and utility (QALYs) per patient.

Results

The analyses showed that the use of innovative radiotherapy (RT) improves lifetime QoL in survivors of RC by 0.11 QALYs and 0.05 QALYs by preferring IMRT/IGRT and IMRT over 3D-CRT, respectively. The use of IMRT/IGRT and IMRT results in an incremental cost-saving of €3,820 and €1,863 per patient, solely by radiation-induced SB toxicity, compared to 3D-CRT.

Discussion and conclusion

It is important to consider late toxicity effects in decisions regarding investments and reimbursement as our analysis highlighted the potential long-term cost-savings and improved QoL of novel RT techniques in patients with rectal cancer.

Moderate hypofractionated radiotherapy to the prostate bed with or without pelvic lymph nodes: a prospective trial

Background

Hypofractionated radiotherapy in the treatment of prostate cancer has been widely studied. However, in the postoperative setting it has been less explored. The objective of this prospective study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of hypofractionated radiotherapy in postoperative prostate cancer.

Materials and methods

A prospective study was designed to include patients with prostate cancer with an indication of postoperative radiotherapy as adjuvant or salvage. A hypofractionated radiotherapy scheme of 51 Gy in 17 fractions was performed with the possibility of treating the pelvis at a dose of 36 Gy in 12 fractions sequentially. Safety was evaluated based on acute and late toxicity [according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) scale and Common Terminology Criteria Adverse Events (CTCAE) v4.03], International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) over time, and quality of life.

Results

From August 2020 to June 2022, 31 patients completed treatment and were included in this report. 35.5% of patients received elective treatment of the pelvic nodal areas. Most patients reported minimal or low acute toxicity, with an acute gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) grade 3 or greater toxicity of 3.2% and 0%, respectively. The evolution in time of the IPSS remained without significant differences (p = 0.42). With the exception of a significant improvement in the domains of hormonal and sexual symptoms of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) questionnaire, the rest of the domains [EPIC, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Core quality of life questionnaire (C-30) and Prostate Cancer module (PR-25)] were maintained without significant differences over time. With a follow-up of 15.4 months, late GI and GU grade 2 toxicity was reported greater than 0% and 9.6%, respectively.

Conclusions

Hypofractionated radiotherapy in postoperative prostate cancer appears to be safe with low reports of relevant acute or late toxicity. Further follow-up is required to confirm these results.

Trial registration

The protocol was approved by the accredited Medical Ethical Committee of Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. All participants accepted and wrote informed consent.

Overcoming Barriers in Hospital-Based Health Technology Assessment (HB-HTA): International Expert Panel Consensus

The purpose of this article is to investigate the common facilitators and barriers associated with the implementation of hospital-based health technology assessment (HB-HTA) across diverse hospital settings in seven countries. Through a two-round Delphi study, insights were gathered from a panel of 15 HTA specialists from France, Hungary, Italy, Kazakhstan, Poland, Switzerland, and Ukraine. Experts initially conducted a comprehensive review of the HB-HTA implementation in their respective countries, identifying the barriers and facilitators through descriptive analysis. Subsequently, panel experts ranked these identified barriers and facilitators on a seven-point Likert scale. A median agreement score ≥ 6 and interquartile range (IQR) ≤ 1 was accepted as reaching a consensus. Out of the 12 statements categorized as external and internal barriers and facilitators, the expert panel reached consensus on six statements (two barriers and four facilitators). The external barrier, which achieved consensus, was the lack of the formal recognition of the role of HB-HTA in national or regional legislations. The internal barrier reaching consensus was the limited availability of human resources dedicated to HB-HTA. This qualitative study indicates that HB-HTA still has progress to make before being formally accepted and integrated across most countries, although by building on the facilitating factors we identified there may be an opportunity for the implementation of internationally developed strategies to strengthen HB-HTA practices.

Update on Dosing and Fractionation for Neoadjuvant Radiotherapy for Localized Soft Tissue Sarcoma

OPINION STATEMENT

Neoadjuvant radiotherapy (RT) over 5-6 weeks with daily doses of 1.8-2.0 Gy to a total dose of 50-50.4 Gy is standard of care for localized high-grade soft tissue sarcomas (STS) of the extremities and trunk wall. One exception is myxoid liposarcomas where the phase II DOREMY trial applying a preoperative dose of 36 Gy in 2 Gy fractions (3-4 weeks treatment) has achieved excellent local control rates of 100% after a median follow-up of 25 months.Hypofractionated preoperative RT has been investigated in a number of phase II single-arm studies suggesting that daily doses of 2.75-8 Gy over 1-3 weeks can achieve similar oncological outcomes to conventional neoadjuvant RT. Prospective data with direct head-to-head comparison to conventional neoadjuvant RT investigating oncological outcomes and toxicity profiles is eagerly awaited.For the entire group of retroperitoneal sarcomas, RT is not the standard of care. The randomized multi-center STRASS trial did not find a benefit in abdominal recurrence-free survival by the addition of preoperative RT. However, for the largest histological subgroup of well-differentiated and grades I and II dedifferentiated liposarcomas, the STRASS trial and the post-hoc propensity-matched STREXIT analysis have identified a possible benefit in survival by preoperative RT. These patients deserve to be informed about the pros and cons of preoperative RT while the longer follow-up data from the STRASS trial is awaited.

Economical Evaluation of Prostate Cancer Treatment Using Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy, 3-Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy and Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Prostate cancer is a common form of cancer among men worldwide. The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the economic evaluations of prostate cancer treatment strategies.

METHODS

This systematic review was conducted using multiple electronic databases up to May 2021. English-language economic evaluation studies that compared intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT), and radical prostatectomy (RP) were included. The studies were evaluated using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist. The search yielded 1151 potentially relevant publications, which were screened based on the title and abstract. After the removal of duplicates, 55 studies remained, and 9 studies were screened in full text. Finally, textual data were analyzed manually using by-content analysis method.

RESULTS

All studies were cost-effective and evaluated quality-adjusted life year as the efficacy indicator. The studies were conducted from either payers' or health systems' perspectives, and the time horizon varied from 5 to 20 years. We included only full economic evaluation studies. The use of IMRT in comparison with 3DCRT was evaluated in 6 studies, based on which IMRT increased health and reduced side effects of treatment. According to incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) results, IMRT was more cost-effective than 3DCRT. Three studies evaluated the use of RP in comparison with radiotherapy. Based on these studies, radiotherapy was more effective than RP.

CONCLUSION

IMRT was found to be more cost-effective than 3DCRT in all 6 studies compared with the threshold. Radiotherapy was found to be more effective than RP. However, long-term clinical trial studies are needed to confirm these findings and to provide more definitive conclusions.

The cost effectiveness of intensity-modulated radiation therapy and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy in the treatment of head and neck cancers

PURPOSE

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy is developed as a replacement for 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy. Considering the difference in costs and effectiveness of these interventions, the aim of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness of intensity-modulated radiation therapy and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy in the treatment of head and neck cancer in east of Iran.

METHODS

A Markov model including six states based on xerostomia and dysphagia was developed to estimate the incremental cost effectiveness ratio from the perspective of societal. Cost and quality of life data were collected from 97 respondents via a checklist and EuroQol-5Dimension questionnaire. The robustness of results was examined by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. All analysis were conducted with Treeage software.

RESULTS

The results of this study showed that the cost and quality adjusted life years for 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy were 9209.76 and 3.63 respectively. However, the cost and quality adjusted life years for intensity-modulated radiotherapy were 12562.90 and 3.17 respectively. Therefore, 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy produced 0.45 more quality adjusted life years than intensity-modulated radiotherapy and saved $3353. According to the incremental cost effectiveness ratio, 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy as compared to intensity-modulated radiotherapy saved $7367.27 per quality adjusted life years. These results confirmed by sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSION

This study concluded that in the treatment of head and neck cancer, the 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy method appears to be cost-effective when compared with intensity-modulated radiotherapy.

Comparison of treatment costs for primary localized prostate cancer in Austria and Vienna: an economic analysis

Background

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men. Several efficient treatments are available for primary prostate cancer, but an economic comparison of these modalities has not been done in Austria.

Objective and setting

The current study provides an economic comparison of radiotherapy and surgery for prostate cancer in Vienna and Austria.

Methods

We analyzed the catalog of medical services of the Austrian Federal Ministry of Social Affairs, Health, Care and Consumer Protection and present the treatment costs for the public health sector with an LKF-point value and monetary value in 2022.

Results

External beam radiotherapy, especially ultrahypofractionated, is the least costly treatment modality for low-risk prostate cancer, with costs of 2,492 € per treatment. For intermediate-risk prostate cancer, differences between moderate hypofractionation and brachytherapy are small, with costs of 4,638-5,140 €. In a high-risk setting, differences between radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy are small (7,087 € vs. 7474.06 €).

Conclusion

From a purely financial point of view, treatment of low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer in Vienna and Austria should consist of radiotherapy as long as the current catalog of services is up to date. For high-risk prostate cancer, no major difference was found.

Is ultra-hypo-fractionated radiotherapy more cost-effective relative to conventional fractionation in treatment of prostate cancer? A cost-utility analysis alongside a randomized HYPO-RT-PC trial

BACKGROUND

Economic evidence for comparing low fraction with ultra-hypo fractionated (UHF) radiation therapy in the treatment of intermediate-to-high-risk prostate cancer (PC) is lacking, especially in Europe. This study presents an economic evaluation performed alongside an ongoing clinical trial.

AIM

To investigate up to 6 years' follow-up whether conventional fractionation (CF, 78.0 Gy in 39 fractions, 5 days per week for 8 weeks) is more cost-effective than UHF (42.7 Gy in 7 fractions, 3 days per week for 2.5 weeks inclusive of 2 weekends) radiotherapy in treatment for patients with intermediate-to-high-risk PC.

METHOD

HYPO-RT-PC trial is an open-label, randomized, multicenter (10 in Sweden; 2 in Denmark) phase-3 trial. Patients from Sweden (CF 434; UHF 445) were included in this study. The trial database was linked to the National Patient Registry (NPR). Costs for inpatient/non-primary outpatient care for each episode were retrieved. For calculating Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire was mapped to the EQ-5D-3L index. Multivariable regression analyses were used to compare the difference in costs and QALYs, adjusting for age and baseline costs, and health status. The confidence interval for the difference in costs, QALYs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated by the bootstrap percentile method.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found in ICER between the two arms after 6 years of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The current study did not support that the ultra-hypo-fractionated treatment was more cost-effective than the conventional fraction treatment up to the sixth year of the trial.

Shorter Radiation Regimens and Treatment Noncompletion Among Patients With Breast and Prostate Cancer in the United States: An Analysis of Racial Disparities in Access and Quality

PURPOSE

Compared with conventional external-beam radiation therapy (cEBRT) for patients with breast cancer (BC) and prostate cancer (PC), shorter radiation regimens may be associated with lower treatment noncompletion rates. We assess disparities in receipt of shorter radiation regimens and treatment noncompletion for BC and PC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The 2004-2017 National Cancer Database was queried for adjuvant cEBRT or hypofractionated EBRT (hEBRT) for nonmetastatic BC; and definitive cEBRT, moderate hypofractionation (mEBRT), or stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for localized PC. Multivariable logistic regression identified factors associated with treatment noncompletion and receipt of shorter regimens.

FINDINGS

We identified 170,386 men with PC (median age [interquartile range], 70 [64-75] years; Black, 17.5%; White, 82.5%) and 306,846 women with BC (61 [52-69] years; Black, 12.3%; White, 87.7%). Among patients who received cEBRT for PC, Black men had higher treatment noncompletion rates compared with White (14.1% v 13.0%; odds ratio [95% CI] 1.07 [1.03 to 1.12]; P < .001). In contrast, treatment noncompletion was not disparate with SBRT (Black 1.6% v White 1.3%; 1.20 [0.72 to 2.00], P = .49) or mEBRT (Black 9.0% v White 7.1%; 1.05 [0.72 to 1.54], P = .79). From 2004 to 2017, SBRT (0.07% to 11.8%; 1.32 [1.31 to 1.33]) and mEBRT (0.35% to 9.1%; 1.27 [1.25 to 1.28]) increased (both P < .001); however, Black men were consistently less likely to receive SBRT (7.4% v White, 8.3%; 0.84 [0.79 to 0.89], P < .001). Among women with BC, there were no racial differences in treatment noncompletion; however, hEBRT was associated with lower treatment noncompletion rates (1.0% v cEBRT 2.3%; 0.39 [0.35 to 0.44], P < .001). Although hEBRT for BC increased (0.8% to 35.6%) between 2004 and 2017, Black women were less likely to receive hEBRT (10.4% v 15.3%; 0.78 [0.75 to 0.81], P < .001).

INTERPRETATION

Black patients were consistently less likely to receive hypofractionated radiation for PC or BC, despite evidence suggesting that shorter regimens may lower rates of treatment noncompletion with similar oncologic outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy and conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for intermediate- to high-risk localized prostate cancer

Background

Radiotherapy is an effective curative treatment option for intermediate- to high-risk localized prostate cancer. According to the HYPO-RT-PC trial (ISRCTN45905321), there was no significant difference in 5 years of follow-up in terms of failure-free survival, overall survival, urinary toxicity, and bowel toxicity, while erectile function decreased between ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy with conventionally fractionated radiotherapy, except that the incidence of urinary toxicity in ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy was higher at 1 year of follow-up. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy and conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for intermediate- to high-risk localized prostate cancer from the Chinese payer's perspective.

Methods

We developed a Markov model with a 15-year time horizon to compare the cost and effectiveness of ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy with those of conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for localized intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer. The outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and willingness-to-pay (WTP). Univariable and probability sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the Markov model.

Results

Based on the Markov model, conventionally fractionated radiotherapy yielded 2.32 QALYs compared with 2.14 QALYs in ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy in China. The cost of ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy was found to be decreased by about 14% folds ($4,251.04) in comparison with that of conventionally fractionated radiotherapy. The ICER of conventionally fractionated radiotherapy versus that of ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy was $23,616.89 per QALY in China. The failure-free survival with grade 2 or worse urinary toxicity and the discount rate per annum were the most sensitive parameters utilized in ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed that conventionally fractionated radiotherapy had 57.7% probability of being cost-effective under the Chinese WTP threshold.

Conclusion

From the perspective of Chinese payers, ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy was not a cost-effective strategy compared with conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for patients with localized intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer. Nevertheless, reduction of the grade 2 or worse urinary toxicity of ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy could alter the results.

Hypofractionated Radiation Versus Conventional Fractionated Radiation: A Network Analysis

Introduction: Conventional fractionation (CF) and hypofractionation (HF) are two radiotherapy methods against cancer, which are applied in medicine. Understanding the efficacy and molecular mechanism of the two methods implies more investigations. In the present study, proteomic findings about the mentioned methods relative to the controls were analyzed via network analysis. Methods: The significant differentially expressed proteins (DEPs) of prostate cancer (PCa) cell line DU145 in response to CF and HF radiation therapy versus controls were extracted from the literature. The protein-protein interaction (PPI) networks were constructed via the STRING database via Cytoscape software. The networks were analyzed by "NetworkAnalyzer" to determine hub DEPs. Results: 126 and 63 significant DEPs were identified for treated DU145 with CF and HF radiation respectively. The PPI networks were constructed by the queried DEPs plus 100 first neighbors. ALB, CD44, THBS1, EPCAM, F2, KRT19, and MCAM were highlighted as common hubs. VTM, OCLN, HSPB1, FLNA, AHSG, and SERPINC1 appeared as the discriminator hub between the studied cells. Conclusion: 70% of the hubs were common between CF and HF conditions, and they induced radio-resistance activity in the survived cells. Six central proteins which discriminate the function of the two groups of the irradiated cells were introduced. On the basis of these findings, it seems that DU145-CF cells, relative to the DU145-UF cells, are more radio-resistant.

Preoperative hypofractionated radiotherapy for soft tissue sarcomas: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Soft tissue sarcomas (STS) represent a diverse group of rare malignant tumors. Currently, five to six weeks of preoperative radiotherapy (RT) combined with surgery constitute the mainstay of therapy for localized high-grade sarcomas (G2-G3). Growing evidence suggests that shortening preoperative RT courses by hypofractionation neither increases toxicity rates nor impairs oncological outcomes. Instead, shortening RT courses may improve therapy adherence, raise cost-effectiveness, and provide more treatment opportunities for a wider range of patients. Presumed higher rates of adverse effects and worse outcomes are concerns about hypofractionated RT (HFRT) for STS. This systematic review summarizes the current evidence on preoperative HFRT for the treatment of STS and discusses toxicity and oncological outcomes compared to normofractionated RT.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of clinical trials describing outcomes for preoperative HFRT in the management of STS using PubMed, the Cochrane library, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, Embase, and Ovid Medline. We followed the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Trials on retroperitoneal sarcomas, postoperative RT, and hyperthermia were excluded. Articles published until November 30th, 2021, were included.

RESULTS

Initial search yielded 94 articles. After removal of duplicate and ineligible articles, 13 articles qualified for analysis. Eight phase II trials and five retrospective analyses were reviewed. Most trials applied 5 × 5 Gy preoperatively in patients with high-grade STS. HFRT courses did not show increased rates of adverse events compared to historical trials of normofractionated RT. Toxicity rates were mostly comparable or lower than in trials of normofractionated RT. Moreover, HFRT achieved comparable local control rates with shorter duration of therapy. Currently, more than 15 prospective studies on HFRT + / - chemotherapy are ongoing.

CONCLUSIONS

Retrospective data and phase II trials suggest preoperative HFRT to be a reasonable treatment modality for STS. Oncological outcomes and toxicity profiles were favorable. To date, our knowledge is mostly derived from phase II data. No randomized phase III trial comparing normofractionated and HFRT in STS has been published yet. Multiple ongoing phase II trials applying HFRT to investigate acute and late toxicity will hopefully bring forth valuable findings.

Impact of Race on Outcomes of High-Risk Patients With Prostate Cancer Treated With Moderately Hypofractionated Radiotherapy in an Equal Access Setting

BACKGROUND

Moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (MHRT) is an accepted treatment for localized prostate cancer; however, limited MHRT data address high-risk prostate cancer (HRPC) and/or African American patients. We report clinical outcomes and toxicity profiles for individuals with HRPC treated in an equal access system.

METHODS

We identified patients with HRPC treated with MHRT at a US Department of Veterans Affairs referral center. Exclusion criteria included < 12 months follow-up and elective nodal irradiation. MHRT included 70 Gy over 28 fractions or 60 Gy over 20 fractions. Acute and late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities were graded using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 5.0. Clinical endpoints, including biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS), distant metastases-free survival (DMFS), overall survival (OS), and prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods. Clinical outcomes, acute toxicity, and late toxicity-free survival were compared between African American and White patients with logistic regression and log-rank testing.

RESULTS

Between November 2008 and August 2018, 143 patients with HRPC were treated with MHRT and followed for a median of 38.5 months; 82 (57%) were African American and 61 were White patients. Concurrent androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was provided for 138 (97%) patients for a median duration of 24 months. No significant differences between African American and White patients were observed for 5-year OS (73% [95% CI, 58%-83%] vs 77% [95% CI, 60%-97%]; P = .55), PCSS (90% [95% CI, 79%-95%] vs 87% [95 % CI, 70%-95%]; P = .57), DMFS (91% [95% CI, 80%-96%] vs 81% [95% CI, 62%-91%]; P = .55), or BRFS (83% [95% CI, 70%-91%] vs 71% [95% CI, 53%-82%]; P = .57), respectively. Rates of acute grade 3+ GU and GI were low overall (4% and 1%, respectively). Late toxicities were similarly favorable with no significant differences by race.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals with HRPC treated with MHRT in an equal access setting demonstrated favorable clinical outcomes that did not differ by race, alongside acceptable rates of acute and late toxicities.

Cost-effectiveness of hypofractionated versus conventional radiotherapy in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer: An ancillary study of the PROstate fractionated irradiation trial - PROFIT

PURPOSE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of moderate Hypofractionated Radiotherapy (H-RT) compared to Conventional Radiotherapy (C-RT) for intermediate-risk prostate caner (PCa).

METHODS

A prospective randomized clinical trial including 222 patients from six French cancer centers was conducted as an ancillary study of the international PROstate Fractionated Irradiation Trial (PROFIT). We carried-out a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) from the payer's perspective, with a time horizon of 48 months. Patients assigned to the H-RT arm received 6000 cGy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks, or 7800 cGy in 39 fractions over 7 to 8 weeks in the C-RT arm. Patients completed quality of life (QoL) questionnaire: Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) at baseline, 24 and 48 months, which were mapped to obtain a EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D) equivalent to generate Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY). We assessed differences in QALYs and costs between the two arms with Generalized Linear Models (GLMs). Costs, estimated in euro (€) 2020, were combined with QALYs to estimate the Incremental Cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with non-parametric bootstrap.

RESULTS

Total costs per patien were lower in the H-RT arm compared to the C-RT arm €3,062 (95 % CI: 2,368 to 3,754) versus €4,285 (95 % CI: 3,355 to 5,215), (p < 0.05). QALY were marginally higher in the H-RT arm, however this difference was not significant: 0.044 (95 % CI: - 0.016 to 0.099).

CONCLUSIONS

Treating localized prostate cancer with moderate H-RT could reduce national health insurance spending. Adopting such a treatment with an updated reimbursement tariff would result in improving resource allocation in RT management.

Acute toxicity and patient-reported symptom score after conventional versus moderately hypofractionated proton therapy for prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

To confirm the feasibility of hypofractionated proton beam therapy (PBT), we compared the acute adverse event rates and International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) in prostate cancer patients treated with hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated (2.0 Gy relative biological effectiveness (RBE)/fraction) PBT.

METHODS

We reviewed 289 patients with prostate cancer, of whom 73, 100, and 116 patients were treated with 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 Gy (RBE)/fraction, respectively. The endpoints were acute genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities and the IPSS, evaluated up to 6 months after PBT initiation.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found in acute toxicity rates or the IPSS among the fractionation schedules. Diabetes mellitus, age, and androgen deprivation therapy were not identified as factors associated with the IPSS.

CONCLUSION

There were no significant differences in adverse events or quality of life among the three fractionation schedules early after PBT.

Unwarranted variation in radiation therapy fractionation

The adoption of hypofractionation across multiple tumour sites has been slow despite robust evidence. There is considerable unwarranted variation in practice, both within and between jurisdictions. This has been attributed to inconsistencies in guidelines, physician preference, lack of technology and differing financial incentives. Unwarranted variation in the use of hypofractionation has a tremendous effect on cost to both patients and the healthcare system. This places an unnecessary burden on patients and poorly utilises scarce healthcare resources. A collaborative effort from clinicians, patients, healthcare providers and policymakers is needed to reduce unwarranted variation in practice. This will improve quality of care both for patients and at broader healthcare system level.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy for the Treatment of Oligometastatic Tumors versus Standard of Care

BACKGROUND

Recent clinical trial results reported that stereotactic radiotherapy (SABR) may improve survival for patients with oligometastatic (OM) cancer. Given that these results come from a phase II trial, there remains considerable uncertainty about this finding, and about the cost-effectiveness of SABR for patients with OM cancer. In this analysis, we estimate the cost-effectiveness of SABR for oligometastatic cancer patients.

METHODS

A probabilistic time-dependent Markov model was constructed to simulate treatment of oligometastatic cancer patients over five- and ten-year time horizons. The primary data source was the phase II, Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy for the Comprehensive Treatment of Oligometastases (SABR-COMET )trial and supplemented with data from the literature. We estimated the effect of SABR and the standard of care (SoC) using quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs were measured from a provincial payer perspective (2018 Canadian dollars).

RESULTS

In the reference case analysis (five-year time horizon), SABR was associated with additional incremental costs of CAD 38,487 and an incremental QALY gain of 0.84. This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CAD 45,726 per QALY gained. Over a ten-year time horizon, the increased uncertainty in the long-term effectiveness of SABR resulted in an ICER of CAD 291,544 per QALY gained. Estimates from the probabilistic analysis indicated that at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of CAD 50,000 and CAD 100,000 per QALY gained, there is 54% and 78% probability (respectively) that SABR would be cost-effective using the five-year time horizon.

CONCLUSIONS

The adoption of SABR therapy requires a considerable upfront capital investment. Our results suggest that the cost-effectiveness of SABR is contingent on the uncertainty in the evidence base. Further clinical trials to confirm the effectiveness of SABR and research into the real-world costs associated with this treatment could reduce the uncertainty around implementation of the technology.

Cost Analysis of Selected Radiotherapeutic Modalities for Prostate Cancer Treatment-Czech Republic Case Study for the Purposes of Hospital Based HTA

This study aims to calculate the costs of prostate cancer radiotherapy in a regional hospital Department of Radiation Oncology equipped with Three-Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy (3D-CRT) and Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) Volumetric Arc Therapy (VMAT) radiation technology, using activity based costing (ABC), and to compare the costs of both methods at the level of component treatment process activities and with respect to insurance reimbursements. The costing was performed based on a sample of 273 IMRT VMAT patients and 312 3D-CRT patients in a regional hospital in the period from 2018 to 2019. The research has highlighted the necessity to place emphasis on factors that may skew the costing results. The resulting output has been supplemented by a sensitivity analysis, whereas the modeled parameter is represented by the time required for one patient fraction on a linear accelerator and the time the Radiology Assistant needs to prepare the complete radiation plan as part of radiotherapy planning. Moreover, the effects of the received grant, in the form of calculated write-offs, are also considered. The case study uses the example of radiotherapy to demonstrate the potential of ABC and suggests considering the application of this method as an effective management tool for cost and economic evaluation as part of comprehensive hospital assessment under the Hospital-Based Health Technology Assessment (HB-HTA) initiative.

Practical considerations for prostate hypofractionation in the developing world

External beam radiotherapy is an effective curative treatment option for localized prostate cancer, the most common cancer in men worldwide. However, conventionally fractionated courses of curative external beam radiotherapy are usually 8-9 weeks long, resulting in a substantial burden to patients and the health-care system. This problem is exacerbated in low-income and middle-income countries where health-care resources might be scarce and patient funds limited. Trials have shown a clinical equipoise between hypofractionated schedules of radiotherapy and conventionally fractionated treatments, with the advantage of drastically shortening treatment durations with the use of hypofractionation. The hypofractionated schedules are supported by modern consensus guidelines for implementation in clinical practice. Furthermore, several economic evaluations have shown improved cost effectiveness of hypofractionated therapy compared with conventional schedules. However, these techniques demand complex infrastructure and advanced personnel training. Thus, a number of practical considerations must be borne in mind when implementing hypofractionation in low-income and middle-income countries, but the potential gain in the treatment of this patient population is substantial.

Moderately Hypofractionated Radiotherapy with Simultaneous Integrated Boost in Prostate Cancer: A Comparative Study with Conventionally Fractionated Radiation

Background

To report 5-year clinical outcomes and toxicity in organ-confined prostate cancer (PCa) for low- and intermediate-risk patients treated with a moderately hypofractionated schedule of radiotherapy (RT) delivered with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) compared to a conventionally fractionated RT regimen.

Methods

Data of 384 patients with PCa treated between August 2006 and June 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. The treatment schedule consisted of hypofractionated RT (HYPO FR) with SIB up to 70 Gy to the prostate gland and 63 Gy to seminal vesicles delivered in 28 fractions or in conventionally fractionated RT (CONV FR) up to a total dose of 80 Gy in 40 fractions. Patient allocation to treatment was based on the time period considered. For intermediate-risk patients, androgen deprivation was given for a median duration of 6 months. The 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS) were assessed. Furthermore, we evaluated gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities. Uni- and multivariate Cox regression analyses were used to test the impact of clinical variables on both outcome and toxicity.

Results

A total of 198 patients was treated with hypofractionated RT and 186 with the conventional schedule. At a median follow-up of 5 years, no significant differences were observed in terms of GI toxicity and outcome between the two groups. Early GU toxicity was significantly increased in HYPO FR, while late GU toxicity was significantly higher in CONV FR. In HYPO FR, a biochemical relapse occurred in 12 patients (6.1%), and 9 patients (4.5%) reported a clinical relapse (4 local, 2 locoregional, and 3 systemic recurrence). In CONV FR, 15 patients (8.1%) experienced a biochemical relapse and 11 patients (5.9%) showed a clinical relapse (5 local, 4 locoregional, and 3 systemic recurrences). Early grades 1-2 GU and GI toxicities were observed in 60 (30.3%) and 37 (18.7%) patients, respectively, in the hypofractionated group and in 33 (17.7%) and 27 (14.5%) patients, respectively, in the conventionally fractionated RT group. Late GU and GI toxicities occurred in 1 (0.51%) and 8 (4.1%) patients, respectively, in HYPO FR. In CONV FR, 5 (2.7%) and 6 (3.2%) patients experienced late GU and GI toxicities, respectively. The 5-year OS, bRFS, and CSS were 98.9%, 94.1%, and 99.5%, respectively, in HYPO FR, and 94.5%, 92.1%, and 99.0%, respectively, in CONV FR.

Conclusions

Results obtained in this study showed that moderately hypofractionated RT employing SIB can be an effective approach providing valuable clinical outcomes with an acceptable toxicity profile.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy versus conventional/moderate fractionated radiation therapy with androgen deprivation therapy for unfavorable risk prostate cancer

Background

Ultrahypofractionation using stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is an increasingly utilized technique for men with prostate cancer (PC). The comparative efficacy of SBRT plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) compared to fractionated radiotherapy (EBRT) plus ADT in higher-risk prostate cancer is unknown.

Methods

Men > 40 years old with localized PC treated with external beam radiation and concomitant ADT for curative intent between 2004 and 2016 were analyzed from the National Cancer Database. Patients who lacked ADT or risk stratification data were excluded. 558 men treated with SBRT versus 40,797 men treated with conventional or moderately hypofractionated EBRT were included. Patients were stratified by unfavorable intermediate (UIR) and high (HR) risk using NCCN criteria. Kaplan Meier and Cox proportional hazards were used to compare overall survival (OS) between RT modality, adjusting for age, race, and comorbidity index.

Results

With a median follow up of 74 months, there was no difference in estimated 6-year OS between men treated with SBRT versus EBRT regardless of risk group. On multivariable analysis, there was no difference in risk of death for men treated with SBRT compared to EBRT (UIR: adjusted HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.68–1.74, p = .72; HR: adjusted HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.76–1.14, p = .51). On sensitivity analyses, when confining the cohort to men treated with NCCN-preferred dose fractionations, with no comorbidities, or < 65 years old, there remained no survival difference between treatment groups for both UIR and HR.

Conclusion

Within study limitations, we found no difference in survival between SBRT+ADT and standard of care EBRT+ADT for UIR or HR PC. These results support recent NCCN guideline updates, which include SBRT as a non-preferred option for higher risk men. Prospective validation would further strengthen the evidence basis behind these recommendations.

Toxicity reduction required for MRI-guided radiotherapy to be cost-effective in the treatment of localized prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To determine the toxicity reduction required to justify the added costs of MRI-guided radiotherapy (MR-IGRT) over CT-based image guided radiotherapy (CT-IGRT) for the treatment of localized prostate cancer.

METHODS

The costs of delivering prostate cancer radiotherapy with MR-IGRT and CT-IGRT in conventional 39 fractions and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) 5 fractions schedules were determined using literature values and cost accounting from two institutions. Gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity rates associated with CT-IGRT were summarized from 20 studies. Toxicity-related costs and utilities were obtained from literature values and cost databases. Markov modeling was used to determine the savings per patient for every 1% relative reduction in acute and chronic toxicities by MR-IGRT over 15 years. The costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) saved with toxicity reduction were juxtaposed with the cost increase of MR-IGRT to determine toxicity reduction thresholds for cost-effectiveness. One way sensitivity analyses were performed. Standard $100,000 and $50,000 per QALY ratios were used.

RESULTS

The added cost of MR-IGRT was $1,459 per course of SBRT and $10,129 per course of conventionally fractionated radiotherapy. Relative toxicity reductions of 7 and 14% are required for SBRT to be cost-effective using $100,000 and $50,000 per QALY, respectively. Conventional radiotherapy requires relative toxicity reductions of 50 and 94% to be cost-effective.

CONCLUSION

From a healthcare perspective, MR-IGRT can reasonably be expected to be cost-effective. Hypofractionated schedules, such a five fraction SBRT, are most likely to be cost-effective as they require only slight reductions in toxicity (7-14%).

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

This is the first detailed economic assessment of MR-IGRT, and it suggests that MR-IGRT can be cost-effective for prostate cancer treatment through toxicity reduction alone.

Translating the Immunobiology of SBRT to Novel Therapeutic Combinations for Advanced Prostate Cancer

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is an increasingly used radiation modality for the treatment of both localized and metastatic prostate cancer. Substantial data suggests that prostate cancer may be more sensitive to higher doses of radiation per fraction due to its low α/β ratio. This increased sensitivity raises important questions as to how SBRT should be combined with systemic therapy for clinically significant prostate cancer, including whether androgen deprivation therapy retains its beneficial effects when combined with SBRT. Furthermore, pre-clinical and clinical data suggest pronounced immunomodulatory effects of SBRT, including observed improvements in T cell priming and trafficking. These data support investigational strategies combining SBRT with immunotherapy. Here we aim to review the data for the use of SBRT in both the local and metastatic disease settings as well as ongoing translational and clinical research examining combinations with ADT, immunotherapy and other targeted agents.

Magnetic resonance image-based tomotherapy planning for prostate cancer

Purpose

To evaluate and compare the feasibilities of magnetic resonance (MR) image-based planning using synthetic computed tomography (sCT) versus CT (pCT)-based planning in helical tomotherapy for prostate cancer.

Materials and Methods

A retrospective evaluation was performed in 16 patients with prostate cancer who had been treated with helical tomotherapy. MR images were acquired using a dedicated therapy sequence; sCT images were generated using magnetic resonance for calculating attenuation (MRCAT). The three-dimensional dose distribution according to sCT was recalculated using a previously optimized plan and was compared with the doses calculated using pCT.

Results

The mean planning target volume doses calculated by sCT and pCT differed by 0.65% ± 1.11% (p = 0.03). Three-dimensional gamma analysis at a 2%/2 mm dose difference/distance to agreement yielded a pass rate of 0.976 (range, 0.658 to 0.986).

Conclusion

The dose distribution results obtained using tomotherapy from MR-only simulations were in good agreement with the dose distribution results from simulation CT, with mean dose differences of less than 1% for target volume and normal organs in patients with prostate cancer.

Comparison of Outcomes and Toxicity Between Extreme and Moderate Radiation Therapy Hypofractionation in Localized Prostate Cancer: A Propensity Score Analysis

PURPOSE

To compare clinical outcomes and toxicities of 2 radiation therapy (RT) schemes for localized prostate cancer (PCa): extreme hypofractionation (EH; fractions of 6.5-7 Gy to a total dose of 32.5-35 Gy) and the moderate hypofractionation (MH; 26 fractions of 2.7 Gy to a total dose of 70.2 Gy). A propensity score method was used to compare the EH-RT and MH-RT groups.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Our analysis included a total of 421 patients divided in 2 groups: 227 treated with MH-RT and 194 treated with EH-RT (43 and 30 months median follow-up, respectively). Propensity matching created comparable cohorts. Statistical evaluations were performed on the whole cohort, stratifying the analyses by risk strata factors identified with the propensity scores, and on a subgroup of patients matched by propensity score. Multivariate proportional hazard Cox models were used to compare the 2 groups, mainly for gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity and secondarily for clinical progression-free survival, biochemical progression-free survival, and overall survival.

RESULTS

Considering the whole population, acute genitourinary and gastrointestinal greater than grade 1 was significantly more frequent in the whole MH-RT group (P < .001 and P < .002, respectively). A borderline significantly greater late genitourinary was confirmed with the multivariate analysis (P = .07). Concerning tumor outcome, no statistically significant differences were observed. After propensity score matching, 226 patients were included in the analysis. The 2 obtained propensity score matched groups did not differ for any of the clinical and pathologic variables considered for the analysis, resulting in well-balanced cohorts. The results obtained on the whole population were confirmed in the matched groups.

CONCLUSIONS

EH-RT yields a decreased risk of acute or late toxicities compared with MH-RT, and oncologic outcomes were comparable. Our data indicate that EH-RT might be considered as a treatment modality of choice for select patients with PCa.

Intensity-modulated fractionated radiotherapy versus stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer (PACE-B): acute toxicity findings from an international, randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Localised prostate cancer is commonly treated with external-beam radiotherapy. Moderate hypofractionation has been shown to be non-inferior to conventional fractionation. Ultra-hypofractionated stereotactic body radiotherapy would allow shorter treatment courses but could increase acute toxicity compared with conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy. We report the acute toxicity findings from a randomised trial of standard-of-care conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy versus five-fraction stereotactic body radiotherapy for low-risk to intermediate-risk localised prostate cancer.

METHODS

PACE is an international, phase 3, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial. In PACE-B, eligible men aged 18 years and older, with WHO performance status 0-2, low-risk or intermediate-risk prostate adenocarcinoma (Gleason 4 + 3 excluded), and scheduled to receive radiotherapy were recruited from 37 centres in three countries (UK, Ireland, and Canada). Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) by computerised central randomisation with permuted blocks (size four and six), stratified by centre and risk group, to conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (78 Gy in 39 fractions over 7·8 weeks or 62 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks, respectively) or stereotactic body radiotherapy (36·25 Gy in five fractions over 1-2 weeks). Neither participants nor investigators were masked to allocation. Androgen deprivation was not permitted. The primary endpoint of PACE-B is freedom from biochemical or clinical failure. The coprimary outcomes for this acute toxicity substudy were worst grade 2 or more severe Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxic effects score up to 12 weeks after radiotherapy. Analysis was per protocol. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01584258. PACE-B recruitment is complete and follow-up is ongoing.

FINDINGS

Between Aug 7, 2012, and Jan 4, 2018, we randomly assigned 874 men to conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (n=441) or stereotactic body radiotherapy (n=433). 432 (98%) of 441 patients allocated to conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy and 415 (96%) of 433 patients allocated to stereotactic body radiotherapy received at least one fraction of allocated treatment. Worst acute RTOG gastrointestinal toxic effect proportions were as follows: grade 2 or more severe toxic events in 53 (12%) of 432 patients in the conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy group versus 43 (10%) of 415 patients in the stereotactic body radiotherapy group (difference -1·9 percentage points, 95% CI -6·2 to 2·4; p=0·38). Worst acute RTOG genitourinary toxicity proportions were as follows: grade 2 or worse toxicity in 118 (27%) of 432 patients in the conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy group versus 96 (23%) of 415 patients in the stereotactic body radiotherapy group (difference -4·2 percentage points, 95% CI -10·0 to 1·7; p=0·16). No treatment-related deaths occurred.

INTERPRETATION

Previous evidence (from the HYPO-RT-PC trial) suggested higher patient-reported toxicity with ultrahypofractionation. By contrast, our results suggest that substantially shortening treatment courses with stereotactic body radiotherapy does not increase either gastrointestinal or genitourinary acute toxicity.

FUNDING

Accuray and National Institute of Health Research.

Critical review and quality-assessment of cost analyses in radiotherapy: How reliable are the data?

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

Health economic evaluations (HEE) are increasingly having an impact on policymakers, although the results greatly depend on the quality of the methodology used and on transparent reporting. The two main objectives of this study were to evaluate the quality of cost analyses of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and to assess the comprehensiveness and relevance of cost criteria defined in three validated quality-assessment instruments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The selection of articles was based on a previous systematic literature review of EBRT-costing studies retrieved from January 2004 to January 2015 (Period 1) in MEDLINE, Embase, and NHS-EED databases and completed in a second time period from January 2015 to November 2018 (Period 2). Three validated instruments to assess the methodology quality with the CHEC and the QHES, and the methodology with the CHEERS checklists were used. The quality was evaluated by both quantitative and qualitative analyses. The scoring robustness was examined with the Kendall coefficient of concordance and inter-class correlation coefficients.

RESULTS

In total, twenty-three articles were selected. The main geographic areas of cost analyses were Canada (n = 5), France (n = 4), and the USA (n = 4). The most commonly studied pathologies and technologies were prostate (n = 7) and head and neck cancer (n = 5) and IMRT (n = 8) and IGRT (n = 2), respectively. The mean instrument scores demonstrated a fair degree of methodological quality, with 69.7% for the CHEC, 73.6% for the QHES, as well as for the reporting quality, with 59.4% for CHEERS for Period 1 (74.4%, 71.5%, and 66.1%, respectively, for Period 2). An additional qualitative analysis per criterion revealed that certain items, essential for understanding the costing methodology and the results (e.g., the time horizon, discount rate, sensitivity analysis) were often only partially completed. Statistical analysis confirmed that the reviewers' scoring was consistent. The instruments identified the same top three articles, albeit with a degree of variation in the ranking.

CONCLUSION

Qualitative and quantitative assessment of cost analyses in EBRT exhibits a fair level of study quality in terms of the methodology and reporting transparency. The impact of cost calculations on the final HEE result appears to be underestimated, and increased transparency of the data sources and the methodologies is needed.

Hypofractionated Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: When and for Whom?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize recent evidence concerning the use of moderately hypofractionated external beam radiotherapy, defined as 2.4-3.4 Gy per fraction, and ultrahypofractionated external beam radiotherapy (also known as stereotactic body radiotherapy [SBRT]), defined as at least 5 Gy per fraction, in men with localized prostate cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

Taken together, a number of recently completed randomized trials show that moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy confers similar biochemical control compared to conventionally fractionated radiotherapy without increasing late toxicity. These effects appear to extend across all baseline clinical risk groups. Several single-arm phase II studies, as well as a recently published large-scale randomized trial comparing SBRT with conventional fractionation, show very promising biochemical control and favorable acute and late treatment-related morbidity with the use of SBRT in predominantly low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. As it is associated with similar prostate cancer control and toxicity while improving patient convenience and reducing cost, moderate hypofractionation is a preferred alternative to conventional fractionation in a majority of men with localized prostate cancer choosing radiotherapy as their primary treatment modality. To date, studies conducted largely in low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer report encouraging oncologic outcomes and acceptable toxicity with SBRT. Mature results of phase III trials evaluating five-fraction SBRT regimens are eagerly awaited.

Moderate versus extreme hypofractionated radiotherapy: a toxicity comparative analysis in low- and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients

PURPOSE

External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) is an effective treatment option for low- and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa) and it is usually delivered in conventional fractionation or with moderate hypofractionation (hRT), with comparable results. In the last years, a new treatment approach with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) has shown promising results. The aim of the present study was to directly compare the toxicity and outcome between hRT and SBRT in low and favorable intermediate PCa patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The hRT schedules were: 71.4 Gy or 74.2 Gy in 28 fractions for low- or favorable intermediate-risk PCa, respectively, while the SBRT schedules were: 35 Gy or 37.5 Gy in five fractions, for low or favorable intermediate risk, respectively. Toxicity assessment was performed according to CTCAE v5.0 grading. The International Prostatic Symptoms Score (IPSS) was also recorded.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-nine patients were analyzed, overall 81 (54.36%) patients were low risk and 68 (45.64%) were favorable intermediate risk. Sixty-nine (46.3%) patients were treated with hypo-RT and 80 (53.7%) with SBRT. Median follow-up was 33 months (range 11-58 months). The actuarial survival rate was 98.66%. The 3-years BFS rates were 95.5% and 100% for hRT and SBRT, respectively (p = 0.051). One case (0.6%) of acute grade 3 urinary toxicity occurred in a patient with favorable intermediate risk treated with hRT. He initially suffered gross hematuria and acute urinary retention not treatable with urinary catheter, therefore a suprapubic catheter was placed and steroids were administered. No differences in acute, late or severe toxicity were detected.

CONCLUSION

Stereotactic body radiotherapy reported a good clinical outcome and safe toxicity profile. Results are comparable to hRT, but a longer follow-up is needed to assess the late effectiveness and toxicity.

Model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of external beam radiation therapy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer: a systematic review

Background

External beam radiotherapy is the recommended but expensive treatment option for localized prostate cancer. Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men worldwide. A cost-effectiveness study is needed given the excessive cost of radiotherapy treatment and the high prevalence of prostate cancer. The aim of this systematic review was to assess and identify studies that examined model based economic evaluation of external beam radiation therapy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer.

Methods

A systematic review of the published literature was conducted through MEDLINE, NHS EED (NHS Economic Evaluation Database), and Cochrane databases with a specific search strategy. The literatures were searched according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. At first 1046 citations were identified. The extracted files were imported into the Rayyan systematic review site for inclusion or exclusion based on the defined criteria. Studies included in this review were articles published between 2003 and 2017, and that conducted full-economic evaluations of the modality of external beam radiotherapy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer.

Results

There were 12 studies that satisfied the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Seven studies compared intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT), two compared IMRT with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) another two-paper assessed IMRT with proton beam therapy (PBT). One paper compared the three external-beam radio therapy options of IMRT, SBRT and PBT. Most of the studies were originated from the US and analyzed the cost data from the payer’s perspective. Most studies were supported that IMRT was cost effective when it compared with 3D-CRT. Compared with IMRT, SBRT was found to be cost-effective.

Conclusions

There are limited number of studies exist on the cost effectiveness of radiation therapy options for the treatment of localize prostate cancer across Europe. Most studies are originated from the US Medicare payer Perspective. Further research is need that investigate the cost effectiveness of these radiation therapy options from the societal perspective in Europe.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12962-019-0178-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Health utility and health-related quality of life of Japanese prostate cancer patients according to progression status measured using EQ-5D-5L and FACT-P

PURPOSE

To obtain health utility data to allow for cost-effectiveness analysis in groups stratified by disease progression along with health-related quality of life (HRQoL) information in Japanese prostate cancer (PC) patients.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional observational study, EuroQol-5 Dimension- 5 Level (EQ-5D-5L), EuroQol Visual Analog Scale (EQ-VAS), and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) measures were used to examine utility, VAS scores, and disease-specific HRQoL, respectively. Scores obtained were statistically examined for the correlation among measures and domains. Parameter estimates of statistically significant factors were assessed using generalized linear models (GLM).

RESULTS

A total of 380 patients stratified by their disease progression status were analyzed. The numbers (%) of patients in groups stratified as having localized (L), localized progression (LP), distant metastatic (DM), and DM-castration-resistant PC (CRPC) were 275 (72.4), 40 (10.5), 27 (7.1), and 38 (10.0), respectively. EQ-5D-5L mean (standard deviation, SD) scores of L, LP, DM, and DM-CRPC in study participants were 0.87 (0.15), 0.86 (0.15), 0.85 (0.18), and 0.84 (0.17), respectively. The mean (SD) scores assessed by EQ-5D-5L, EQ-VAS, and FACT-P instruments were 0.86 (0.16), 74.6 (16.8), and 110.8 (19.6), respectively. Utility scores correlated well with FACT-P scores. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status had significant influences on all instruments' scores.

CONCLUSIONS

We obtained health utility and HRQoL scores of Japanese PC patients stratified by disease progression in detail. Our results will be useful for establishing cost-effectiveness analyses in Japanese PC settings.

Long-term results of intensity-modulated radiotherapy with three dose-fractionation regimens for localized prostate cancer

We evaluated long-term outcomes of three protocols of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for localized prostate cancer. Between 2005 and 2014, 348 patients were treated with 5-field IMRT. The first 74 patients were treated with a daily fraction of 2.0 Gy to 74 Gy (low-risk prostate cancer) or 78 Gy (intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer); then 101 patients were treated with 2.1-Gy daily fractions to 73.5 or 77.7 Gy. More recently, 173 patients were treated with 2.2-Gy fractions to 72.6 or 74.8 Gy. The median age of all patients was 70 years and the median follow-up period was 82 months. The median follow-up periods were 124 months in the 2.0-Gy group, 98 months in the 2.1-Gy group, and 69 months in the 2.2-Gy group. The overall and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) failure-free survival (PSA-FFS) rates were, respectively, 89 and 68% at 10 years for the 2.0-Gy group, 91 and 84% at 8 years for the 2.1-Gy group, and 93 and 92% at 6 years for the 2.2-Gy group. The PSA-FFS rate for high-risk patients in all groups was 80% at 7 years. The cumulative incidences of Grade ≥2 late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity were, respectively, 7.2 and 12.4% at 10 years for the 2.0-Gy group, 7.4 and 14.1% at 8 years for the 2.1-Gy group, and 7.1 and 7.9% at 6 years for the 2.2-Gy group. All three fractionation schedules yielded good tumor control with acceptable toxicities.

Cost effectiveness of prostate cancer radiotherapy

The use of radiotherapy in the treatment of prostate cancer has evolved from treatments utilizing large fields with hand placed blocks to radiotherapy treatments given with a linear accelerator moving around the patient on a robotic arm. These technologic developments have allowed radiation dose escalations resulting in improvements in disease and patient reported outcomes with longer biochemical disease-free survival (DFS) as well as improved quality of life. Increased costs have accompanied these technologic improvements with some private payers questioning the increased cost of the newer treatments and in some instances refusing to pay for some treatment modalities such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or proton beam therapy (PBT). Cost-effectiveness analysis have been used in an attempt to illustrate these new treatments were cost-effective when compared to the older treatments. Cost-effectiveness analyses will need to be adapted in the current health care environment to provide an assessment of value as many payers, including medicare, move to a value-based reimbursement system.

Cost-containment in hypofractionated radiation therapy: a literature review

Recent technological advances in radiation therapy have allowed for greater accuracy in planning and treatment delivery. The development of hypofractionated radiation treatment regimens is an example, and has the potential to decrease the cost per episode of care, relative to conventional treatments. Our aim was to analyse published literature on the cost-effectiveness and budgetary implications of hypofractionated radiation therapy. As such, this article will quantify the projected health care cost savings and address the optimal means of treatment delivery, associated patient outcomes, and implications arising from an increased use of hypofractionated regimens.

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 of New Technologies in Prostate Cancer Treatment: Systematic Review of Costs and Cost Effectiveness of Robotic-assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy, Intensity-modulated Radiotherapy, and Proton Beam Therapy

CONTEXT

Some of the high costs of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), and proton beam therapy may be offset by better outcomes or less resource use during the treatment episode.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the literature to identify the key economic trade-offs implicit in a particular treatment choice for prostate cancer.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We systematically reviewed the literature according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement and protocol. We searched Medline, Embase, and Web of Science for articles published between January 2001 and July 2016, which compared the treatment costs of RARP, IMRT, or proton beam therapy to the standard treatment. We identified 37, nine, and three studies, respectively.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

RARP is costlier than radical retropubic prostatectomy for hospitals and payers. However, RARP has the potential for a moderate cost advantage for payers and society over a longer time horizon when optimal cancer and quality-of-life outcomes are achieved. IMRT is more expensive from a payer's perspective compared with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, but also more cost effective when defined by an incremental cost effectiveness ratio <$50 000 per quality-adjusted life year. Proton beam therapy is costlier than IMRT and its cost effectiveness remains unclear given the limited comparative data on outcomes. Using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach, the quality of evidence was low for RARP and IMRT, and very low for proton beam therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with new versus traditional technologies is costlier. However, given the low quality of evidence and the inconsistencies across studies, the precise difference in costs remains unclear. Attempts to estimate whether this increased cost is worth the expense are hampered by the uncertainty surrounding improvements in outcomes, such as cancer control and side effects of treatment. If the new technologies can consistently achieve better outcomes, then they may be cost effective.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We review the cost and cost effectiveness of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and proton beam therapy in prostate cancer treatment. These technologies are costlier than their traditional counterparts. It remains unclear whether their use is associated with improved cure and reduced morbidity, and whether the increased cost is worth the expense.

Long-term economic value of hypofractionated prostate radiation: Secondary analysis of a randomized trial

Purpose

Moderately hypofractionated intensity modulated radiation therapy (HIMRT) for prostate cancer shortens the treatment course while providing outcomes comparable with those of conventional intensity modulated radiation therapy (CIMRT). To determine the long-term economic value of HIMRT, including the costs of managing long-term radiation toxicities, a cost minimization analysis compared CIMRT with dose-escalated HIMRT using patient-level data from a randomized trial.

Methods and materials

Men with localized prostate cancer were randomized to CIMRT (75.6 Gy in 42 fractions over 8.4 weeks) or HIMRT (72 Gy in 30 fractions over 6 weeks). A decision tree modeled trial probabilities of maximum late bowel and urinary toxicities using patient-level data with a median follow-up of 6 years. Costs were estimated from the healthcare perspective using the 2014 national reimbursement rates for services received. Patient-level institutional costs, adjusted to 2014 dollars, verified reimbursements. A sensitivity analysis assessed model uncertainty.

Results

The cost for HIMRT and toxicity management was $22,957, saving $7,000 compared with CIMRT ($30,241). CIMRT was the common factor among the 5 most influential scenarios that contributed to total costs. Toxicity represented a small part (<10%) of the average total cost for patients with either grade 2-3 bowel toxicity or grade 2-3 urinary toxicity. However, toxicity management reached up to 26% of the total cost for patients with both high-grade bowel and urinary toxicities. There was no threshold at which CIMRT became the less costly regimen. Institutional costs confirmed the economic value of HIMRT ($6,000 in savings).

Conclusions

HIMRT is more cost-efficient than CIMRT for treating prostate cancer, even when taking into account the costs related to late radiation toxicities. HIMRT enhances the value of prostate radiation when compared with CIMRT.

Data-Based Radiation Oncology: Design of Clinical Trials in the Toxicity Biomarkers Era

The ability to stratify patients using a set of biomarkers, which predict that toxicity risk would allow for radiotherapy (RT) modulation and serve as a valuable tool for precision medicine and personalized RT. For patients presenting with tumors with a low risk of recurrence, modifying RT schedules to avoid toxicity would be clinically advantageous. Indeed, for the patient at low risk of developing radiation-associated toxicity, use of a hypofractionated protocol could be proposed leading to treatment time reduction and a cost-utility advantage. Conversely, for patients predicted to be at high risk for toxicity, either a more conformal form or a new technique of RT, or a multidisciplinary approach employing surgery could be included in the trial design to avoid or mitigate RT when the potential toxicity risk may be higher than the risk of disease recurrence. In addition, for patients at high risk of recurrence and low risk of toxicity, dose escalation, such as a greater boost dose, or irradiation field extensions could be considered to improve local control without severe toxicities, providing enhanced clinical benefit. In cases of high risk of toxicity, tumor control should be prioritized. In this review, toxicity biomarkers with sufficient evidence for clinical testing are presented. In addition, clinical trial designs and predictive models are described for different clinical situations.

[Meta-analysis of the side-effect profiles of modern radiation therapies for patients with prostate cancer]

INTRODUCTION

One of the most relevant focus of recent developments in radiotherapy technology was the adequate irradiation of prostate cancer.

AIM

The aim of this study was to analyse the safety of normo- and hypofractionated and high dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy.

METHOD

Toxicities were identified through literature review and evidence was synthetized with meta-analytical methods.

RESULTS

The use of high dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy resulted in no difference in severe genitourinary (acute p = 0.9; late p = 0.95) and moderate or severe gastrointestinal (acute: N/A; late: p = 0.08) toxicities compared to 3D conformal radiation therapy. The risk ratio of moderate acute (RR = 1.39, 95% CI: 1.09-1.78; p = 0.008) and late genitourinary toxicities (RR = 1.48, 95% CI: 1.26-1.75; p<0,00001) was higher. There was no difference in hypo- and normofractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy regarding severe genitourinary (acute: N/A; late: p = 0.73) and moderate or severe gastrointestinal (acute: p = 0.73; late: p = 0.55) toxicities, the risk of late moderate genitourinary toxicities was higher when using hypofractionation scheme (RR = 1.39, 95% CI: 1.00-1.94; p = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of normo- and hypofractionated and high dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy proved to be safe. However the higher risk of moderate genitourinary adverse events require an extensive clinical risk estimation.

A prosztatadaganatos betegek sugárterápiájának mikroköltség-számítása

Introduction: Development of radiation technology provides new opportunities for the treatment of prostate cancer, but little is known about the costs of novel technologies. Aim: The aim of this analysis was to compare the costs of conventional three-dimensional radiation therapy to normal and hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Method: The cost-analysis was performed based on the data of a Hungarian oncology center from health care provider’s perspective. Irradiation time was assessed from the data of 100 fractions delivered in 20 patients. Unit costs for each component were calculated based on actual costs retrieved from the accounting system of the oncology center. Results: Average treatment delivery times were 14.5 minutes for three-dimensional radiation therapy, 16.2 minutes for intensity-modulated radiation therapy with image-guided and 14 minutes without image-guided method. Expected mean cost of patients undergoing conventional three-dimensional radiation therapy, normal and hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy were 619 000 HUF, 933 000 HUF and 692 000 HUF, respectively. Conclusions: Although normal and hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapies have already been proven to be cost-effective, current reimbursement rates do not encourage healthcare providers to use the more effective therapy techniques. Orv. Hetil., 2016, 157(12), 461–468.