Cost-effectiveness of Total Neoadjuvant Therapy With Short-Course Radiotherapy for Resectable Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer.

Importance: Short-course radiotherapy and total neoadjuvant therapy (SCRT-TNT) followed by total mesorectal excision (TME) has emerged as a new treatment paradigm for patients with locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma. However, the economic implication of this treatment strategy has not been compared with that of conventional long-course chemoradiotherapy (LCCRT) followed by TME with adjuvant chemotherapy. Objective: To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of SCRT-TNT vs LCCRT in conjunction with TME for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: A decision analytical model with a 5-year time horizon was constructed for patients with biopsy-proven, newly diagnosed, primary locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma treated with SCRT-TNT or LCCRT. Markov modeling was used to model disease progression and patient survival after treatment in 3-month cycles. Data on probabilities and utilities were extracted from the literature. Costs were evaluated from the Medicare payer's perspective in 2020 US dollars. Sensitivity analyses were performed for key variables. Data were collected from October 3, 2020, to January 20, 2021, and analyzed from November 15, 2020, to April 25, 2021. Exposures: Two treatment strategies, SCRT-TNT vs LCCRT with adjuvant chemotherapy, were compared. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and net monetary benefits. Effectiveness was defined as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Both costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually. Willingness-to-pay threshold was set at $50 000/QALY. Results: During the 5-year horizon, the total cost was $41 355 and QALYs were 2.21 for SCRT-TNT; for LCCRT, the total cost was $54 827 and QALYs were 2.12, resulting in a negative incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (-$141 256.77). The net monetary benefit was $69 300 for SCRT-TNT and $51 060 for LCCRT. Sensitivity analyses using willingness to pay at $100 000/QALY and $150 000/QALY demonstrated the same conclusion. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that SCRT-TNT followed by TME incurs lower cost and improved QALYs compared with conventional LCCRT followed by TME and adjuvant chemotherapy. These data offer further rationale to support SCRT-TNT as a novel cost-saving treatment paradigm in the management of locally advanced rectal cancer.

Insurance Status is an Independent Predictor of Overall Survival in Patients With Stage III Non-small-cell Lung Cancer Treated With Curative Intent.

INTRODUCTION: Population studies suggest an impact of insurance status on oncologic outcomes. We sought to explore this in a large single-institution cohort of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 342 consecutive patients (January 2000 to December 2013) curatively treated for stage III NSCLC. Patients were categorized by insurance status as uninsured (U), Medicare/Medicaid + Veterans Affairs (M/M + VA), or Private (P). The χ2 test was utilized to compare categorical variables. The Kaplan-Meier approach and the Cox proportional hazard models were used to analyze overall survival (OS) and freedom from recurrence (FFR). RESULTS: Compared with M/M + VA patients, P insurance patients were more likely to be younger (P < .001), married (P < .001), Caucasian (P = .001), reside in higher median income zip codes (P < .001), have higher performance status (P < .001), and undergo consolidation chemotherapy (P < .001) and trimodality therapy (P < .001). Diagnosis to treatment was delayed > 30 days in U (67.3%), M/M + VA (68.1%), and P (52.6%) patients (P = .017). Compared with the M/M + VA and U cohorts, P insurance patients had improved OS (median/5-year: 30.7 months/34.2%, 19 months/17%, and 16.9 months/3.8%; P < .001) and FFR (median/5-year: 18.4 months/27.3%, 15.2 months/23.2%, and 11.4 months/4.8%; P = .012), respectively. On multivariate analysis, insurance status was an independent predictor for OS (P = .017) but not FFR. CONCLUSION: Compared with U or M/M + VA patients, P insurance patients with stage III NSCLC were more likely to be optimally diagnosed and treated, resulting in a doubling of median OS for P versus U patients. Improved access to affordable health insurance is critical to combat inequities in access to care and has potential for improvements in cancer outcomes.

Clinical outcomes of black vs. non-black patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: The black population remains underrepresented in clinical trials despite reports suggesting greater incidence and deaths from locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We determined outcomes for black and non-black patients in a well-annotated cohort treated with either definitive chemoradiation (CRT; bimodality) or CRT followed by surgery (trimodality therapy). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 355 stage III NSCLC patients treated with curative intent at the University of Maryland, Medical Center, between January 2000-December 2013 was performed. The Kaplan-Meier approach and the Cox proportional hazards models were used to analyze overall survival (OS) and freedom-from-recurrence (FFR) in black and non-black patients. The chi-square test was used to compare categorical variables. RESULTS: Black patients comprised 42% of the cohort and were more likely to be younger (p<0.0001), male (p=0.030), single (p<0.0001), reside in lower household income zipcodes (p<0.0001), have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status >0 (p<0.001), and less likely to undergo surgery (p<0.0001). With a median follow-up of 15 months for all patients and 89 months for surviving patients (range:1-186 months), median OS times for black and non-black patients were 22 and 24 months, respectively (p=0.698). FFR rates were also comparable between the two groups (p=0.468). Surgery improved OS in both cohorts. Race was not a significant predictor for OS or FFR even when adjusted for other factors. CONCLUSIONS: We found similar oncologic outcomes in black and non-black NSCLC patients when treated with curative intent in a comprehensive cancer center setting, despite epidemiologic differences in presentation and receipt of care. Future efforts to improve outcomes in black patients could focus on addressing modifiable social disparities.

Improving Outcomes for Esophageal Cancer using Proton Beam Therapy.

Radiation therapy (RT) plays an essential role in the management of esophageal cancer. Because the esophagus is a centrally located thoracic structure there is a need to balance the delivery of appropriately high dose to the target while minimizing dose to nearby critical structures. Radiation dose received by these critical structures, especially the heart and lungs, may lead to clinically significant toxicities, including pneumonitis, pericarditis, and myocardial infarction. Although technological advancements in photon RT delivery like intensity modulated RT have decreased the risk of such toxicities, a growing body of evidence indicates that further risk reductions are achieved with proton beam therapy (PBT). Herein we review the published dosimetric and clinical PBT literature for esophageal cancer, including motion management considerations, the potential for reirradiation, radiation dose escalation, and ongoing esophageal PBT clinical trials. We also consider the potential cost-effectiveness of PBT relative to photon RT.

Evaluating radiotherapy options in breast cancer: does intraoperative radiotherapy represent the most cost-efficacious option?

INTRODUCTION: This study analyzed the cost-efficacy of intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) compared with whole-breast irradiation (WBI) and accelerated partial-breast irradiation (APBI) for early-stage breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data for this analysis came from 2 phase III trials: the TARGIT (Targeted Intraoperative Radiotherapy) trial and the ELIOT (Electron Intraoperative Radiotherapy) trial. Cost analyses included a cost-minimization analysis and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio analysis including a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) analysis. Cost analyses were performed comparing IORT with WBI delivered using 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT), APBI 3D-CRT, APBI delivered with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), APBI single-lumen (SL), APBI multilumen (ML), and APBI interstitial (I). RESULTS: Per 1000 patients treated, the cost savings with IORT were $3.6-$4.3 million, $1.6-$2.4 million, $3.6-$4.4 million, $7.5-$8.2 million, and $2.8-$3.6 million compared with WBI 3D-CRT, APBI IMRT, APBI SL, APBI ML, and APBI I, respectively, with a cost decrement of $1.6-$2.4 million compared with APBI 3D-CRT based on data from the TARGIT trial. The costs per QALY for WBI 3D-CRT, APBI IMRT, APBI SL, APBI ML, and APBI I compared with IORT were $47,990-$60,002; $17,335-$29,347; $49,019-$61,031; $108,162-$120,173; and $36,129-$48,141, respectively, based on data from the ELIOT trial. These results are consistent with APBI and WBI being cost-effective compared with IORT. CONCLUSION: Based on cost-minimization analyses, IORT represents a potential cost savings in the management of early-stage breast cancer. However, absolute reimbursement is misleading, because when additional medical and nonmedical costs associated with IORT are factored in, WBI and APBI represent cost-effective modalities based on cost-per-QALY analyses. They remain the standard of care.

Cost-efficacy of acceleration partial-breast irradiation compared with whole-breast irradiation.

The purpose of this study was to analyze the cost-efficacy of multiple accelerated partial-breast irradiation (APBI) techniques compared with whole breast irradiation (WBI) delivered utilizing 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). A previously reported matched-pair analysis consisting of 199 patients receiving WBI and 199 patients receiving interstitial APBI formed the basis of this analysis. Cost analyses included a cost minimization analysis, incremental cost- effectiveness ratio (ICER) analysis, and cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) analysis. Per 1,000 patients treated, the cost savings with the utilization of APBI compared to WBI IMRT is $14.9 million, $10.9 million, $8.8 million, $5.0 million, and $9.7 million for APBI 3D-CRT, APBI IMRT, APBI single-lumen (SL), APBI multi-lumen (ML), and APBI interstitial, respectively. Per 1,000 patients treated, the cost savings with the utilization of APBI compared to WBI 3D-CRT is $6.0 million, $2.0 million, and $0.7 million for APBI 3D-CRT, APBI IMRT, and APBI interstitial, respectively. The cost per QALY for APBI SL, APBI ML, and APBI interstitial compared with APBI 3D-CRT are $12,273, $66,032, and $546, respectively. When incorporating non-medical costs and cost of recurrences the cost per QALY was $54,698 and $49,009 for APBI ML compared with APBI 3D-CRT. When compared to WBI IMRT, all APBI techniques are cost-effective based on cost minimization, ICER, and QALY analyses. When compared to WBI 3D-CRT, external beam APBI techniques represent a more cost-effective approach based on cost minimization with brachytherapy representing a cost-effective approach based on cost per QALY.