Cost-Effectiveness of PET Directed Versus Combined Modality Therapy for Early-Stage Favorable Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

INTRODUCTION: The standard of care for early-stage Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL) is combined modality therapy (CMT) consisting of chemotherapy and involved site radiation therapy (ISRT). Recent treatment de-escalation trials have assessed the impact of omitting radiation with the use of positron emission tomography (PET) and have suggested a detriment in progression free survival (PFS) for patients who do not receive radiation therapy (RT) but similar overall survival. The purpose of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of PET-directed therapy versus standard of care CMT. METHODS: This study used a cost-effectiveness Markov model simulating 5 year outcomes for 1 million patients with early-stage HL treated with either PET-directed therapy consisting of 2 cycles of ABVD chemotherapy ± ISRT or CMT consisting of 2 cycles of ABVD + ISRT. Patients progressed to no evidence of disease, progression of disease (PD), or death. Patients with PD underwent salvage therapy with high dose chemotherapy and stem cell transplant (HDC-SCT). The primary outcome measured was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: We found that PET-directed therapy and CMT strategies were associated with costs of $47,362 and $41,167, respectively. The CMT strategy was equally as effective as the PET-directed therapy strategy with QALYs of 3.4. On 1-way sensitivity analyses, the model was most sensitive to CMT and HDC-SCT costs. Two-way sensitivity analyses showed the model was sensitive to the relative costs of these treatments. CONCLUSION: For patients with early-stage HL, CMT is the cost-effective strategy as compared with PET-directed therapy.

Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing Analysis of Telemedicine Services in Radiation Oncology.

PURPOSE: Health systems have increased telemedicine use during the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak to limit in-person contact. We used time-driven activity-based costing to evaluate the change in resource use associated with transitioning to telemedicine in a radiation oncology department. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Using a patient undergoing 28-fraction treatment as an example, process maps for traditional in-person and telemedicine-based workflows consisting of discrete steps were created. Physicians/physicists/dosimetrists and nurses were assumed to work remotely 3 days and 1 day per week, respectively. Mapping was informed by interviews and surveys of personnel, with cost estimates obtained from the department's financial officer. RESULTS: Transitioning to telemedicine reduced provider costs by $586 compared with traditional workflow: $47 at consultation, $280 during treatment planning, $237 during on-treatment visits, and $22 during the follow-up visit. Overall, cost savings were $347 for space/equipment and $239 for personnel. From an employee perspective, the total amount saved each year by not commuting was $36,718 for physicians (7243 minutes), $19,380 for physicists (7243 minutes), $17,286 for dosimetrists (7210 minutes), and $5599 for nurses (2249 minutes). Patients saved $170 per treatment course. CONCLUSIONS: A modified workflow incorporating telemedicine visits and work-from-home capability conferred savings to a department as well as significant time and costs to health care workers and patients alike.

Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing Comparison of Stereotactic Radiosurgery to Multiple Brain Lesions Using Single-Isocenter Versus Multiple-Isocenter Technique.

PURPOSE: Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) historically has been used to treat multiple brain lesions using a multiple-isocenter technique-frequently associated with significant complexity in treatment planning and long treatment times. Recently, given innovations in planning algorithms, patients with multiple brain lesions may now be treated with a single-isocenter technique using fewer total arcs and less time spent during image guidance (though with stricter image guided radiation therapy tolerances). This study used time-driven activity-based costing to determine the difference in cost to a provider for delivering SRS to multiple brain lesions using single-isocenter versus multiple-isocenter techniques. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Process maps, consisting of discrete steps, were created for each phase of the SRS care cycle and were based on interviews with department personnel. Actual treatment times (including image guidance) were extracted from treatment record and verify software. Additional sources of data to determine costs included salary/benefit data of personnel and average list price/maintenance costs for equipment. RESULTS: Data were collected for 22 patients who underwent single-isocenter SRS (mean lesions treated, 5.2; mean treatment time, 30.2 minutes) and 51 patients who underwent multiple-isocenter SRS (mean lesions treated, 4.4; mean treatment time, 75.2 minutes). Treatment time for multiple-isocenter SRS varied substantially with increasing number of lesions (11.8 minutes/lesion; P < .001), but to a much lesser degree in single-isocenter SRS (1.8 minutes/lesion; P = .029). The resulting cost savings from single-isocenter SRS based on number of lesions treated ranged from $296 to $3878 for 2 to 10 lesions treated. The 2-mm planning treatment volume margin used with single-isocenter SRS resulted in a mean 43% increase of total volume treated compared with a 1-mm planning treatment volume expansion. CONCLUSIONS: In a comparison of time-driven activity-based costing assessment of single-isocenter versus multiple-isocenter SRS for multiple brain lesions, single-isocenter SRS appears to save time and resources for as few as 2 lesions, with incremental benefits for additional lesions treated.

Cost Effectiveness of External Beam Radiation Therapy versus Percutaneous Image-Guided Cryoablation for Palliation of Uncomplicated Bone Metastases.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of incorporating cryoablation in the treatment regimens for uncomplicated bone metastases using radiation therapy (RT) in single-fraction RT (SFRT) or multiple-fraction RT (MFRT) regimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov model was constructed using 1-month cycles over a lifetime horizon to compare the cost effectiveness of multiple strategies, including RT followed by RT (RT-RT) for recurrent pain, RT followed by cryoablation (RT-ablation), and cryoablation followed by RT (ablation-RT). RT-RT consisted of 8 Gy in 1 fraction/8 Gy in 1 fraction (SFRT-SFRT) and 30 Gy in 10 fractions/20 Gy in 5 fractions (MFRT-MFRT). Probabilities and utilities were extracted from a search of the medical literature. Costs were calculated from a payer perspective using 2017 Medicare reimbursement in an outpatient setting. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated using strategies evaluated for willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). To account for model uncertainty, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, SFRT-ablation was cost effective relative to SFRT-SFRT at $96,387/QALY. MFRT-ablation was cost effective relative to MFRT-MFRT at $85,576/QALY. Ablation-SFRT and ablation-MFRT were not cost effective with ICERs >$100,000/QALY. In one-way sensitivity analyses, results were highly sensitive to variation in multiple model parameters, including median survival (base: 9 months), with SFRT-SFRT favored at median survival ≤8.7 months. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis examining SFRT-based regimens showed that SFRT-ablation was preferred in 36.9% of simulations at WTP of $100,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Cryoablation is a potentially cost-effective alternative to reirradiation with RT for recurrent of pain following RT; however, no strategy incorporating initial cryoablation was cost effective.

Cost-Effectiveness of Metastasis-Directed Therapy in Oligorecurrent Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Oligorecurrent prostate cancer has historically been treated with indefinite androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), although many patients and providers opt to defer this treatment at the time of recurrence given quality-of-life and/or comorbidity considerations. Recently, metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) has emerged as a potential intermediary between surveillance and immediate continuous ADT. Simultaneously, advanced systemic therapy in addition to ADT has also been shown to improve survival in metastatic hormone-sensitive disease. This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of treating oligorecurrent patients with upfront MDT before standard-of-care systemic therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A Markov-based cost-effectiveness analysis was constructed comparing 3 strategies: (1) upfront MDT → salvage abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP) + ADT → salvage docetaxel + ADT; (2) upfront AAP + ADT → salvage docetaxel + ADT; and (3) upfront docetaxel + ADT → salvage AAP + ADT. Transition probabilities and utilities were derived from the literature. Using a 10-year time horizon and willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY), net monetary benefit values were subsequently calculated for each treatment strategy. RESULTS: At 10 years, the base case revealed a total cost of $141,148, $166,807, and $136,154 with QALYs of 4.63, 4.89, and 4.00, respectively, reflecting a net monetary benefit of $322,240, $322,018, and $263,407 for upfront MDT, upfront AAP + ADT, and upfront docetaxel + ADT, respectively. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis using a Monte Carlo simulation (1,000,000 simulations), upfront MDT was the cost-effective strategy in 53.6% of simulations. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed 95% confidence intervals for cost ($75,914-$179,862, $124,431-$223,892, and $103,298-$180,617) and utility in QALYs (3.85-6.12, 3.91-5.86, and 3.02-5.22) for upfront MDT, upfront AAP + ADT, and upfront docetaxel + ADT, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: At 10 years, upfront MDT followed by salvage AAP + ADT, is comparably cost-effective compared with upfront standard-of-care systemic therapy and may be considered a viable treatment strategy, especially in patients wishing to defer systemic therapy for quality-of-life or comorbidity concerns. Additional studies are needed to determine whether MDT causes a sustained meaningful delay in disease natural history and whether any benefit exists in combining MDT with upfront advanced systemic therapy.

Opioid prescription patterns among radiation oncologists in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Radiation oncologists (ROs) play an important role in managing cancer pain; however, their opioid prescribing patterns remain poorly described. METHODS: The 2016 Medicare Physician Compare National Downloadable and the 2016 Medicare Part D Prescriber Data files were cross-linked to identify RO-written opioid prescriptions. RESULTS: Of 4,627 identified ROs, 1,360 (29.3%) wrote >10 opioid prescriptions. The average number of opioid prescriptions written was significantly (P ≤ .05) associated with the following RO characteristics: sex [13.1 ± 36.5 male vs 7.5 ± 16.9 female]; years since medical school graduation [4.5 ± 11.5 1-10 years vs 12.6 ± 26.0 11-24 years vs 13.3 ± 40.9 ≥25 years]; practice size [15.5 ± 44.6 size ≤10 vs 13.3 ± 25.9 size 11-49 vs 8.5 ± 12.7 size 50-99 vs 8.8 ± 26.9 size ≥100]; Medicare Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) participation [12.6 ± 31.8 yes vs 7.0 ± 35.4 no]; and practice location [17.4 ± 47.0 South vs 10.6 ± 29.4 Midwest vs 8.1 ± 13.9 West vs 6.9 ± 15.2 Northeast]. On multivariable regression modeling, male sex (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.22-1.35, P < .001), ≥25 years since graduation (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64-0.70, 1-10 years vs ≥25 years; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 - 1.04, 11-24 years vs ≥25 years; P < .001), practice size <10 members (RR 1.51, CI 1.44-1.59, ≤10 vs ≥100 members, RR 1.27, CI 1.20-1.34, 10-49 vs ≥100 members, RR 0.86, CI 0.80-0.92, 50-99 vs ≥100 members, P < .001), PQRS participation (RR 1.12, CI 1.04-1.19, P < .002), and Southern location (RR 0.67, CI 0.64-0.70, Midwest vs South; RR 0.39, CI 0.37-0.41, Northeast vs South; RR 0.43, CI 0.41-0.46, West vs South; P < .001) were predictive of higher opioid prescription rates. CONCLUSIONS: Factors associated with increased number of RO-written opioid prescriptions were male sex, ≥25 years since graduation, group practice <10, PQRS participation, and Southern location. Additional research is required to establish optimal opioid prescribing practices for ROs.

Cost Effectiveness of the Oncotype DX Genomic Prostate Score for Guiding Treatment Decisions in Patients With Early Stage Prostate Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of using the Oncotype DX Genomic Prostate Score (GPS), a 17-gene expression assay that can be used to inform decisions regarding active surveillance (AS) vs immediate treatment. METHODS: We developed a Markov model simulating 20-year outcomes for 65-year-old men with very low-, low-, or favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer undergoing AS vs immediate treatment using GPS vs no testing. Utilities, costs, and probabilities were extracted from the literature and National Medicare Fee Schedules to determine incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) from a payer perspective. RESULTS: In the overall cohort, the ICER of GPS-guided therapy was $31,394 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). When stratified by risk group, the ICER was $25,343 per QALY in very low-risk, $28,911 per QALY in low-risk, and $39,695 per QALY in favorable intermediate-risk patients. On sensitivity analysis, findings were robust against a willingness-to-pay of $100,000 per QALY to variations in key model parameters, including the cost of annual management of AS, probability of exiting AS to treatment, cost of treatment, and probability of biochemical failure post-treatment. However, the cost-effectiveness was sensitive to small differences in the utility of AS and the utility of no evidence of disease post-treatment states. CONCLUSION: The use of the GPS was cost-effective in guiding treatment decisions regarding AS vs immediate treatment. The cost-effectiveness was sensitive to small differences in the utilities of the AS and no evidence of disease post-treatment states, highlighting the importance of assessing patient preferences.