Is SABR Cost-Effective in Oligometastatic Cancer? An Economic Analysis of the SABR-COMET Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: The phase 2 randomized study SABR-COMET demonstrated that in patients with controlled primary tumors and 1 to 5 oligometastatic lesions, SABR was associated with improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with standard of care (SoC), but with higher costs and treatment-related toxicities. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of SABR versus SoC in this setting. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A Markov model was constructed to perform a cost-utility analysis from the Canadian health care system perspective. Utility values and transition probabilities were derived from individual-level data from the SABR-COMET trial. One-way, 2-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Costs were expressed in 2018 CAD. A separate analysis based on US payer's perspective was performed. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was used. RESULTS: In the base case scenario, SABR was cost-effective at an ICER of $37,157 per QALY gained. This finding was most sensitive to the number of metastatic lesions treated with SABR (ICER: $28,066 per QALY for 2, increasing to $64,429 per QALY for 5), difference in chemotherapy use (ICER: $27,173-$53,738 per QALY), and PFS hazard ratio (HR) between strategies (ICER: $31,548-$53,273 per QALY). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that SABR was cost-effective in 97% of all iterations. Two-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated a nonlinear relationship between the number of lesions and the PFS HR. To maintain cost-effectiveness for each additional metastasis, the HR must decrease by approximately 0.047. The US cost analysis yielded similar results, with an ICER of $54,564 (2018 USD per QALY) for SABR. CONCLUSIONS: SABR is cost-effective for patients with 1 to 5 oligometastatic lesions compared with SoC.

Palliative chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for dysphagia in advanced oesophageal cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled trial (TROG 03.01).

BACKGROUND: A short course of radiotherapy is commonly prescribed for palliative relief of malignant dysphagia in patients with incurable oesophageal cancer. We compared chemoradiotherapy with radiotherapy alone for dysphagia relief in the palliative setting. METHODS: This multicentre randomised controlled trial included patients with advanced or metastatic oesophageal cancer who were randomly assigned (1:1) through a computer-generated adaptive biased coin design to either palliative chemoradiotherapy or radiotherapy alone for treatment of malignant dysphagia at 22 hospitals in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the UK. Eligible patients had biopsy-proven oesophageal cancer that was unsuitable for curative treatment, symptomatic dysphagia, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, and adequate haematological and renal function. Patients were stratified by hospital, dysphagia score (Mellow scale 1-4), and presence of metastases. The radiotherapy dose was 35 Gy in 15 fractions over 3 weeks for patients in Australia and New Zealand and 30 Gy in ten fractions over 2 weeks for patients in Canada and the UK. Chemotherapy consisted of one cycle of intravenous cisplatin (either 80 mg/m2 on day 1 or 20 mg/m2 per day on days 1-4 of radiotherapy at clinician's discretion) and intravenous fluorouracil 800 mg/m2 per day on days 1-4 of radiotherapy in week 1. Patients were assessed weekly during treatment. The primary endpoint was dysphagia relief (defined as ≥1 point reduction on the Mellow scale at 9 weeks and maintained 4 weeks later), and key secondary endpoints were dysphagia progression-free survival (defined as a worsening of at least 1 point on the Mellow scale from baseline or best response) and overall survival. These endpoints were analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00193882. This trial is closed. FINDINGS: Between July 7, 2003, and March 21, 2012, 111 patients were randomly assigned to chemoradiotherapy and 109 patients to radiotherapy. One patient in the chemoradiotherapy group was omitted from analysis because of ineligibility. 50 (45%, 95% CI 36-55) patients in the chemoradiotherapy group and 38 (35%, 26-44) in the radiotherapy group obtained dysphagia relief (difference 10·6%, 95% CI -2 to 23; p=0·13). Median dysphagia progression-free survival was 4·1 months (95% CI 3·5-4·8) versus 3·4 months (3·1-4·3) in the chemoradiotherapy and radiotherapy groups, respectively (p=0·58), and median overall survival was 6·9 months (95% CI 5·1-8·3) versus 6·7 months (4·9-8·0), respectively (p=0·88). Of the 211 patients who commenced radiotherapy, grade 3-4 acute toxicity occurred in 38 (36%) patients in the chemoradiotherapy group and in 17 (16%) patients in the radiotherapy group (p=0·0017). Anaemia, thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, oesophagitis, diarrhoea, nausea and vomiting, and mucositis were significantly worse in patients who had chemoradiotherapy than in patients who had radiotherapy. INTERPRETATION: Palliative chemoradiotherapy showed a modest, but not statistically significant, increase in dysphagia relief compared with radiotherapy alone, with minimal improvement in dysphagia progression-free survival and overall survival with chemoradiotherapy but at a cost of increased toxicity. A short course of radiotherapy alone should be considered a safe and well tolerated treatment for malignant dysphagia in the palliative setting. FUNDING: National Health and Medical Research Council, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, Canadian Cancer Trials Group, Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group, and Cancer Australia.

Outcome of stereotactic radiotherapy for patients with uncontrolled acromegaly.

OBJECTIVE: Linear accelerator based stereotactic radiation therapy (SRT) has been used for the treatment of pituitary tumours; however, little is known concerning the use of this modality for the treatment of patients with acromegaly. We have prospectively studied the short-term outcome of SRT in 12 acromegaly patients who failed to achieve biochemical remission despite surgery and/or pharmacologic therapy. METHODS: We identified all patients who had biochemically uncontrolled acromegaly and were treated with SRT between April 2003 and December 2006. All patients were followed prospectively based on a pre-defined protocol that included Goldman visual field examination, MRI of the sella, and pituitary hormone testing at 3, 6, 12 months, and then yearly. RESULTS: A total of 12 patients with acromegaly were treated with SRT. There were 9 females and the median age of the group was 50 years. The median follow-up was 28.5 months during which time the mean tumor volume decreased by 40%, the median GH fell from 4.1 microg/L to 1.3 microg/L (p = 0.003) and the median IGF-1 dropped more than half from 545.5 microg/L to 260.5 microg/L (p = 0.002). Four patients achieved normal, while an additional 2 achieved near-normal, IGF-1 levels. One patient was able to discontinue and two were able to reduce their acromegaly medications while maintaining a normal IGF-1. A new pituitary hormonal deficit was found at 24 months in one patient who developed hypoadrenalism requiring corticosteroid replacement. CONCLUSION: Based on our early experience, we believe that SRT should be considered in treating patients with uncontrolled acromegaly.