All that Glitters is Not Gold: Examining Cost Effectiveness Analyses in Radiation Oncology

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

Cost effectiveness analyses (CEA) provide data for health policy decisions in resource constrained environments. These are important in Radiation Oncology as infrastructure and delivery costs increase and indications expand. The purpose of this study was to systematically review methodologic quality and trends in CEAs involving radiotherapy (RT).

MATERIALS/METHODS

A systematic review was performed on cost effectiveness/utility studies involving RT, querying PubMed and Embase from inception to September 2020. Non-English, reviews, abstracts and cost-only studies were excluded. Independent reviewers screened and abstracted study demographics, economic parameters and methodological details.

RESULTS

After screening 1652 abstracts, 214 met criteria. The first publication was in 1995, and more than half (n = 113, 53%) were published after 2014. Author institutions were from North America (n = 128, 60%), Europe (n = 49, 23%) and Asia (n = 30, 14%) with most reporting in US$ (n = 143, 67%). A majority utilized a decision model (n = 164, 77%), healthcare payer perspective (n = 171, 80%) and a finite time horizon (n = 108, 50%). Publications spanned 96 unique journals, most commonly International Journal of Radiation and Oncological Biology and Physics (n = 35, 16%). Treatment intent was curative in 171 studies. Disease sites included breast (n = 34, 16%), genitourinary (n = 31, 14%), and gastrointestinal (n = 31, 14%). RT was mostly used as primary treatment (n = 144, 67%), followed by adjuvant (n = 70, 33%) and neoadjuvant (n = 10, 5%). Emerging topics included stereotactic RT (n = 45, 21%), immunotherapy (n = 6, 3%), oligometastasis (n = 4, 2%), and heavy particles (n = 23, 11%). RT was compared to other RT (n = 136, 64%), surgery (n = 43, 20%), drugs (n = 14, 7%) and observation (n = 31, 17%). Incomplete reporting was common. Missing elements included analysis perspective (n = 13, 6%), time horizon (n = 38, 18%), discounting of utilities (n = 71, 33%) or costs (n = 54, 25%), and willingness-to-pay threshold (n = 59, 28%). Furthermore, 27 studies did not perform sensitivity analyses, 36 did not evaluate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and only 60 explicitly utilized recognized reporting guidelines. Conflict of interest statements were found in 63%, with sponsor statements in 59%; 25% were industry sponsors. Outcome parameters were obtained from primary (author institution/trial data) sources in 33%, including randomized trials (RCTs) (n = 20, 9%), retrospective data (n = 20, 9%) and population data (n = 9, 4%). The remainder utilized secondary sources including RCTs (n = 71, 33%), retrospective data (n = 35, 16%) or meta-analyses (n = 11, 5%). Outcomes included quality adjusted life years (n = 158, 74%), life-years (n = 30, 14%) or toxicity (n = 26,12%). 31% utilized author generated utilities; of literature derived only 49% were matched to disease and clinical context.

CONCLUSION

While CEAs are increasingly common in RT, reporting and methodologic rigor must improve. Greater use of published guidelines will improve data quality for decision makers.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Academic Productivity in Oncology: A Journal-, Conference- and Author-level Analysis

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

The objective of this study was to determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on academic productivity in oncology as measured by conference abstracts, journal publications and individual authorship trends.

MATERIALS/METHODS

Using a reference time frame of 2018 to 2022, we obtained data on the number of abstracts and articles submitted and published from a selection of oncology conferences and journals. To assess individual authorship patterns, we randomly selected 200 articles from 2018 (i.e., the 'index paper') and tracked publications over subsequent years for the first or last authors. Linear time-trend analyses and independent two-sample t-tests were used to assess changes in academic productivity over time, and univariable and multivariable linear regression were used to analyze individual factors predictive of publication rates, including gender, continent, specialty, MD vs. non-MD, and career status (early if within 5 years of training completion vs. late for all others).

RESULTS

Data on submitted and published abstracts were available from 5 and 7 conferences, respectively. Both abstract categories demonstrated decreasing values over time but not statistically significant: conference submissions decreased from 15,308 in 2018 to 13,623 in 2022, (p = 0.11), and published abstracts decreased from 13,111 to 11,848, respectively (p = 0.16). Journal submissions were available from 6 journals and increased from 14,142 in 2018 to a peak of 20,241 in 2020 (2018 vs. 2020: p<0.001), and then declined to 15,650 in 2021. Journal publications from 10 journals showed no clear trends over time (p = 0.64). For the author-level analysis, of the 200 authors randomly selected, the majority were male (66.5%), from North America (55.5%), with an MD degree (80.9%, 131/162) and late career (86.6%, 129/149). Most common specialties included surgery (29%), radiation oncology (18.5%), epidemiology/public health (11%) and medical oncology (10%). For articles authored per year, there was no linear trend detected (p = 0.51), although mean number of publications per author peaked in 2020/2021 (papers/year for 2018-2022: 18.1, 18.1, 20.1, 21.2, 19.6). On univariable analysis, factors significantly associated with increasing publication rates were male gender, last author position on index paper, late career status, MDs, speciality of surgery or public/health epidemiology, and authors from Asia (all p<0.01). On multivariable analysis, factors remaining significantly predictive were late career status, MDs, specialty of surgeons or public health/epidemiologists, and authors from Asia (all p<0.01).

CONCLUSION

Conference submissions and publications trended downward from 2018 to 2022. Journal submissions peaked overall in 2020, but did not translate to increases in journal publication rates. Disparities in publication trends were found, based on speciality and geographic regions, including a negative impact on early-career researchers.

5-Year Renal Function Outcomes after SABR for Primary Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Report from the International Radiosurgery Oncology Consortium of the Kidney (IROCK)

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) presents uncommonly in patients with a congenital solitary kidney or prior contralateral nephrectomy. The objective of this study was to compare renal function outcomes of stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) in patients with solitary vs. bilateral kidneys.

MATERIALS/METHODS

Patients with primary RCC with ≥2 years of follow-up at 12 participating International Radiosurgery Consortium for Kidney (IROCK) institutions were included. Patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma or metastatic disease were excluded. Renal function was measured by estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). For patients where eGFR was not recorded, Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation was used to estimate eGFR based on known creatinine. Baseline characteristics and renal function outcomes were compared between solitary vs. bilateral kidneys. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors predictive of eGFR decline ≥ 15 mL/min and any eGFR increase evaluated at 1-year post-SABR.

RESULTS

One hundred and ninety patients with solitary (n = 56) or bilateral kidneys (n = 134) underwent SABR and were followed for a median of 5.0 years (IQR: 3.4-6.8). Pre-SABR eGFR (mean ± SD) was similar in patients with solitary (61.1 ± 23.2 mL/min) vs. bilateral kidneys (58.0 ± 22.3 mL/min, p = 0.324). Mean tumor size was 3.70 ± 1.40 cm in solitary and 4.35 ± 2.50 cm in bilateral kidneys (p = 0.026). After SABR, an initial compensatory increase in eGFR was observed in both cohorts (22.7% solitary and 17.7% bilateral at 1 year). This compensatory increase persisted in patients with bilateral but not a solitary kidney (10.3% vs. 0% at 3-years and 21.1% vs. 0% at 5-years, respectively). At 5-years post-SABR, eGFR decreased by -14.5 ± 7.6 in solitary and -13.3 ± 15.9 mL/min in bilateral kidneys (p = 0.665). At all timepoints assessed, there were no significant differences in eGFR decline between solitary vs. bilateral cohorts (all p > 0.05). There were also no significant differences in post-SABR end-stage renal disease (7.1% vs. 6.7%) or dialysis (3.6% vs. 3.7%) in solitary vs. bilateral, respectively. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that increasing tumor size (OR per 1 cm: 1.57; 95% CI: 1.14-2.16, p = 0.006) and baseline eGFR (OR per 10 mL/min: 1.30; 95% CI: 1.02-1.66, p = 0.034) was more likely to be associated with eGFR decline ≥ 15 mL/min. There was no significant association between solitary vs. bilateral kidney and eGFR decline (OR: 1.22; 95% CI: 0.45-3.34, p = 0.693).

CONCLUSION

There was no observed difference between renal function outcomes in patients with a solitary vs. bilateral kidneys. While larger tumor size may increase the risk of eGFR decline post-SABR, treatment of a solitary kidney does not appear to increase the risk of renal dysfunction long-term.