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

Economic evaluation of stereotactic radiotherapy and stereotactic radiosurgery technologies in the treatment of cancers: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

This systematic review study investigated the cost-effectiveness of stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for treatment of various types of cancers.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from 30 December 1990 to 1 January 2023. The entered studies were screened in accordance with the inclusion criteria. The inclusion criteria encompassed all types of economic evaluation studies that investigated SRT/SRS technologies in the treatment of various cancers.

RESULTS

A total of 47 articles were included in the review. The findings suggest that the use of Linear accelerator technology for the treatment of lung cancer (8 out of 12 studies) and prostate cancer (4 out of 5 studies) was a cost-effective strategy. Linear accelerator was found to be cost-effective in the treatment of liver metastases and liver cancer (2 out of 5 studies). All of the included studies that used Gamma Knife technology in brain metastases reported Gamma-Knife was a cost-effective treatment. Furthermore, in the treatment of prostate and liver cancer, proton therapy was identified as a cost-effective option than other treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms that SRT/SRS is a cost-effective procedure for the treatment of various types of cancers. Therefore, it is recommended to use SRT/SRS technology for optimal use of resources.

Rapid Review of Real-World Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Cancer Interventions in Canada

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CE Analysis) provides evidence about the incremental gains in patient outcomes costs from new treatments and interventions in cancer care. The utilization of "real-world" data allows these analyses to better reflect differences in costs and effects for actual patient populations with comorbidities and a range of ages as opposed to randomized controlled trials, which use a restricted population. This rapid review was done through PubMed and Google Scholar in July 2022. Relevant articles were summarized and data extracted to summarize changes in costs (in 2022 CAD) and effectiveness in cancer care once funded by the Canadian government payer system. We conducted statistical analyses to examine the differences between means and medians of costs, effects, and incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Twenty-two studies were selected for review. Of those, the majority performed a CE Analysis on cancer drugs. Real-world cancer drug studies had significantly higher costs and effects than non-drug therapies. Studies that utilized a model to project longer time-horizons saw significantly smaller ICER values for the treatments they examined. Further, differences in drug costs increased over time. This review highlights the importance of performing real-world CE Analysis on cancer treatments to better understand their costs and impacts on a general patient population.

A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Studies of Stereotactic Radiotherapy for Cancer Oligometastases

PURPOSE

It is crucial to economically justify the use of promising therapies such as stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) for oligometastatic disease (OMD). The goal of this systematic review was to summatively evaluate publications that analyzed the cost-effectiveness of SABR for OMD.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Using PRISMA-guided methodology, PubMed and EMBASE were searched for modeling-based cost effectiveness (CE) studies for various forms of limited metastatic disease. Only full publications that specifically compared SABR with a systemic therapy-based approach were included.

RESULTS

Of 9 studies, 4 pertained to OMD with mixed histologies, 2 to oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer, 1 to pulmonary OMD, 1 to liver OMD, and 1 to low-volume oligorecurrent castration-sensitive prostate cancer. All but one investigation illustrated that SABR was cost-effective for the studied population (or a subpopulation); of these studies, the incremental CE ratios (ICERs) for SABR (when reported) ranged from $28,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) to $55,000/QALY. Of studies that reported the probability of SABR being cost-effective at common willingness-to-pay values, the median (range) probability of achieving CE was roughly 61% (30-88%) at a $50,000/QALY threshold and 78% (31%-100%) at a $100,000/QALY threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence suggests that SABR is a cost-effective approach for OMD, which has implications for value-based oncologic practice and construction of future health policies. However, re-assessment is required in the context of modern systemic therapies (e.g. immunotherapy) as well as long-term follow-up of existing and newly reported randomized trials. Prudent patient selection remains the single most important factor influencing the CE of SABR for OMD.

Evaluation of Patient-Reported Outcome Differences by Radiotherapy Techniques for Bone Metastases in A Population-Based Healthcare System

We assessed whether advanced RT techniques were associated with differences in patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Patients with bone metastases who completed the brief pain inventory (BPI) before and after RT were identified, and RT technique was categorized as simple (e.g., parallel opposed pair) or advanced (e.g., 3D-conformal RT (3DCRT), intensity-modulated RT (IMRT), or stereotactic ablative RT (SABR)). Pain response and patient-reported interference on quality of life secondary to pain was compared. A total of 1712 patients completed the BPI. From 2017−2021, the rate of advanced RT technique increased significantly (p < 0.001; 2.4%, 2.4%, 9.7%, 5.5%, 9.3%), with most advanced techniques consisting of IMRT, and only 7% of advanced techniques were SABR. Comparing simple vs. advanced technique, neither the complete pain response (12.3% vs. 11.4%; p = 0.99) nor the partial pain response (50.0% vs. 51.8%; p = 0.42) was significantly different. There was no significant patient-reported difference in pain interfering with general activity, mood, walking ability, normal work, relationships, sleep, or enjoyment of life. Given that there is increasing utilization of advanced RT techniques, there is further need for randomized trials to assess their benefits given the increased cost and inconvenience to patients.