Cost-effectiveness of intraoperative radiation therapy versus intensity-modulated radiation therapy for the treatment of early breast cancer: a disinvestment analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant radiotherapy represents a key component in curative-intent treatment for early-stage breast cancer patients. In recent years, two accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) techniques are preferred for this population in our organization: electron-based Intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) and Linac-based External Beam Radiotherapy, particularly Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Recently published long-term follow-up data evaluating these technologies have motivated a health technology reassessment of IORT compared to IMRT. METHODS: We developed a Markov model to simulate health-state transitions from a cohort of women with early-stage breast cancer, after lumpectomy and adjuvant APBI using either IORT or IMRT techniques. The cost-effectiveness from a private health provider perspective was assessed from a disinvestment point of view, using life-years (LYs) and recurrence-free life-years (RFLYs) as measure of benefits, along with their respective quality adjustments. Expected costs and benefits, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were reported. Finally, a sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness using lower IORT local recurrence and metastasis rates in IORT patients, and if equipment maintenance costs are removed. RESULTS: IORT technology was dominated by IMRT in all cases (i.e., fewer benefits with greater costs). Despite small differences were found regarding benefits, especially for LYs, costs were considerably higher for IORT. For sensitivity analyses with lower recurrence and metastasis rates for IORT, and scenario analyses without equipment maintenance costs, IORT was still dominated by IMRT. CONCLUSIONS: For this cohort of patients, IMRT was, at least, non-inferior to IORT in terms of expected benefits, with considerably lower costs. As a result, IORT disinvestment should be considered, favoring the use of IMRT in these patients.

The socioeconomic impact of cancer on patients and their relatives: Organisation of European Cancer Institutes task force consensus recommendations on conceptual framework, taxonomy, and research directions.

Loss of income and out-of-pocket expenditures are important causes of financial hardship in many patients with cancer, even in high-income countries. The far-reaching consequences extend beyond the patients themselves to their relatives, including caregivers and dependents. European research to date has been limited and is hampered by the absence of a coherent theoretical framework and by heterogeneous methods and terminology. To address these shortages, a task force initiated by the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes (OECI) produced 25 recommendations, including a comprehensive definition of socioeconomic impact from the perspective of patients and their relatives, a conceptual framework, and a consistent taxonomy linked to the framework. The OECI task force consensus statement highlights directions for future research with a view towards policy relevance. Beyond descriptive studies into the dimension of the problem, individual severity and predictors of vulnerability should be explored. It is anticipated that the consensus recommendations will facilitate and enhance future research efforts into the socioeconomic impact of cancer and cancer care, providing a crucial reference point for the development and validation of patient-reported outcome instruments aimed at measuring its broader effects.

Distribución geográfica de la incidencia de cáncer de beneficiarios de un convenio de atención oncológica en Chile

Cancer incidence reported by The Global Cancer Observatory (GLOBOCAN) is an estimate based on the registries available in each country. Their validity in regions such as Latin America is affected by the lack of reliable data and less access to healthcare among the population. Studying the geographic distribution of the incidence of malignant tumors facilitates the search for risk factors and allows prioritizing health resources. Aim: To estimate the incidence of the main malignant tumors in Chilean people with access to a private healthcare insurance at an oncological institute, and to know its geographical distribution. Material and Methods: Incident cancer cases during 2017 and 2018 were obtained from the institution's Tumor Registry. The incidence was adjusted by age and sex of the Chilean population obtained from the 2017 Census. Cancer rates were calculatedfor each of the 16 administrative regions in Chile. Results: Overall, the incidence of breast, lung, colon and thyroid cancers in the studied population was significantly higher than estimates for Chile reported by GLOBOCANfor 2020, especiallyfor thyroid cancer. There is a higher incidence of breast cancer in Greater Santiago and of lung cancer in men in the Antofagasta Region. Conclusions: The regional differences observed are explained by known risk factors. However the high incidence of lung and colon cancer in the Los Ríos Region requires further studies.

Dabrafenib plus trametinib versus nivolumab for advanced melanoma / Dabrafenib más trametinib versus nivolumab para el tratamiento del melanoma avanzado

Introduction The incidence of cutaneous melanoma has increased worldwide over the years, and an incidence of 3 cases per 100,000 men and women is estimated in Chile. Though most of the patients are diagnosed at an early stage of the disease and have a good prognosis, advanced melanoma has poor survival results. For the treatment of melanoma, the combination of dabrafenib plus trametinib has been demonstrated to improve the outcome versus dabrafenib alone, but only indirect evidence is available for its efficacy and safety compared with immunotherapy, like nivolumab. The aim of this study is to review the available evidence to report results of efficacy and safety of dabrafenib plus trametinib in comparison with nivolumab in metastatic melanoma. Methods We searched in Epistemonikos, the largest database of systematic reviews in health, which is maintained by screening multiple information sources, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, among others. We extracted data from the systematic reviews selected, reanalyzed data of primary studies, and generated a summary of the findings table using the GRADE approach. Results and conclusions We identified five systematic reviews, including seven studies overall that included one intervention of our interest, of which all were randomized trials. We only found indirect evidence comparing dabrafenib plus trametinib versus nivolumab that came from Network Meta-Analyses. We concluded that it is not possible to decide if dabrafenib plus trametinib is a better strategy for advanced melanoma treatment than nivolumab because the certainty of the evidence is very low for efficacy and safety outcomes.

Introducción La incidencia de melanoma cutáneo ha aumentado a nivel mundial con el paso de los años, estimándose en Chile una incidencia de 3 casos por 100.000 hombres y mujeres. Aunque la mayoría de los pacientes son diagnosticados en etapas tempranas de la enfermedad y tienen un buen pronóstico, el melanoma avanzado tiene malos resultados de sobrevida. Para el tratamiento del melanoma, se ha demostrado que la combinación de dabrafenib más trametinib mejora el resultado frente a dabrafenib solo, pero sólo se dispone de evidencia indirecta sobre su eficacia y seguridad en comparación con la inmunoterapia, como nivolumab. Métodos Se realizaron búsquedas en Epistemonikos, la mayor base de datos de revisiones sistemáticas en salud, que se mantiene mediante el cribado de múltiples fuentes de información, incluyendo MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, entre otras. Se extrajeron los datos de las revisiones sistemáticas seleccionadas, se reanalizaron los datos de los estudios primarios y se generó una tabla de resumen de los hallazgos utilizando el enfoque GRADE. Resultados y conclusiones Se identificaron cinco revisiones sistemáticas, incluyendo siete estudios en total que incluían una intervención de nuestro interés, de los cuales todos eran ensayos aleatorizados. Se concluyó que no es posible decidir si dabrafenib más trametinib es una mejor estrategia para el tratamiento del melanoma avanzado que nivolumab porque la certeza de las pruebas es muy baja para los resultados de eficacia y seguridad.