Assessment and improvement of radiation oncology trainee contouring ability utilizing consensus-based penalty metrics.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to develop and assess the feasibility of utilizing consensus-based penalty metrics for the purpose of critical structure and organ at risk (OAR) contouring quality assurance and improvement. METHODS: A Delphi study was conducted to obtain consensus on contouring penalty metrics to assess trainee-generated OAR contours. Voxel-based penalty metric equations were used to score regions of discordance between trainee and expert contour sets. The utility of these penalty metric scores for objective feedback on contouring quality was assessed by using cases prepared for weekly radiation oncology radiation oncology trainee treatment planning rounds. RESULTS: In two Delphi rounds, six radiation oncology specialists reached agreement on clinical importance/impact and organ radiosensitivity as the two primary criteria for the creation of the Critical Structure Inter-comparison of Segmentation (CriSIS) penalty functions. Linear/quadratic penalty scoring functions (for over- and under-contouring) with one of four levels of severity (none, low, moderate and high) were assigned for each of 20 OARs in order to generate a CriSIS score when new OAR contours are compared with reference/expert standards. Six cases (central nervous system, head and neck, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, gynaecological and thoracic) then were used to validate 18 OAR metrics through comparison of trainee and expert contour sets using the consensus derived CriSIS functions. For 14 OARs, there was an improvement in CriSIS score post-educational intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The use of consensus-based contouring penalty metrics to provide quantitative information for contouring improvement is feasible.

Cost-effectiveness of adding cetuximab to platinum-based chemotherapy for first-line treatment of recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer.

PURPOSE: To assess the cost effectiveness of adding cetuximab to platinum-based chemotherapy in first-line treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) from the perspective of the Canadian public healthcare system. METHODS: We developed a Markov state transition model to project the lifetime clinical and economic consequences of recurrent or metastatic HNSCC. Transition probabilities were derived from a phase III trial of cetuximab in patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC. Cost estimates were obtained from London Health Sciences Centre and the Ontario Case Costing Initiative, and expressed in 2011 CAD. A three year time horizon was used. Future costs and health benefits were discounted at 5%. RESULTS: In the base case, cetuximab plus platinum-based chemotherapy compared to platinum-based chemotherapy alone led to an increase of 0.093 QALY and an increase in cost of $36,000 per person, resulting in an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $386,000 per QALY gained. The cost effectiveness ratio was most sensitive to the cost per mg of cetuximab and the absolute risk of progression among patients receiving cetuximab. CONCLUSION: The addition of cetuximab to standard platinum-based chemotherapy in first-line treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC has an ICER that exceeds $100,000 per QALY gained. Cetuximab can only be economically attractive in this patient population if the cost of cetuximab is substantially reduced or if future research can identify predictive markers to select patients most likely to benefit from the addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy.

Systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of positron-emission tomography in staging of non--small-cell lung cancer and management of solitary pulmonary nodules.

Implementation of positron-emission tomography (PET) is variable depending on jurisdiction in part due to uncertainty about cost-effectiveness. Our objective was to perform a systematic review describing cost-effectiveness of PET in staging of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and management of solitary pulmonary nodules (SPN). Systematic literature searches were conducted using separate search strategies for multiple databases. Our validity criteria included measurement of study quality by means of the validated Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. Metrics such as mean PET costs, median average cost savings per patient, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio based on life years saved and quality-adjusted life years were calculated. Eighteen studies met our inclusion criteria with average QHES scores > 75. Studies were primarily based on the national health insurance payer perspective from 10 different countries. Cost-effectiveness was assessed primarily using decision-tree modeling and sensitivity analysis to determine the effects of changing variables on expected cost and life expectancy. After adjusting for currency exchange rates and inflation to 2010 United States dollars, the mean cost of PET was $1478. The cost-effectiveness metrics used in these studies were variable depending on sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic tests used in the models, probability of malignancy, and baseline strategy. Despite observed study heterogeneity, the consensus of these studies conclude that the additional information gained from PET imaging in the staging of NSCLC and diagnosis of SPNs is worth the cost in context of proper medical indications.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy versus surgery for medically operable Stage I non-small-cell lung cancer: a Markov model-based decision analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare the quality-adjusted life expectancy and overall survival in patients with Stage I non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with either stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) or surgery. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We constructed a Markov model to describe health states after either SBRT or lobectomy for Stage I NSCLC for a 5-year time frame. We report various treatment strategy survival outcomes stratified by age, sex, and pack-year history of smoking, and compared these with an external outcome prediction tool (Adjuvant! Online). RESULTS: Overall survival, cancer-specific survival, and other causes of death as predicted by our model correlated closely with those predicted by the external prediction tool. Overall survival at 5 years as predicted by baseline analysis of our model is in favor of surgery, with a benefit ranging from 2.2% to 3.0% for all cohorts. Mean quality-adjusted life expectancy ranged from 3.28 to 3.78 years after surgery and from 3.35 to 3.87 years for SBRT. The utility threshold for preferring SBRT over surgery was 0.90. Outcomes were sensitive to quality of life, the proportion of local and regional recurrences treated with standard vs. palliative treatments, and the surgery- and SBRT-related mortalities. CONCLUSIONS: The role of SBRT in the medically operable patient is yet to be defined. Our model indicates that SBRT may offer comparable overall survival and quality-adjusted life expectancy as compared with surgical resection. Well-powered prospective studies comparing surgery vs. SBRT in early-stage lung cancer are warranted to further investigate the relative survival, quality of life, and cost characteristics of both treatment paradigms.