Yttrium-90 Ibritumomab Tiuxetan is Cost-Effective Compared to Bendamustine + Rituximab in Low-grade Lymphomas.

BACKGROUND: Yttrium-90 ibritumomab tiuxetan [(90)Y-IT] is a CD20-targeted radio-immunotherapeutic agent. It has shown an excellent therapeutic activity with high tolerability against previously untreated follicular lymphoma (FL) and marginal zone B cell lymphoma (MZL). It is an attractive therapeutic option as the treatment schedule is short and convenient. The aim of our study is to determine the cost-effectiveness of (90)Y-IT in comparison to the standard-of-care bendamustine + rituximab (BR) in the first-line treatment of low-grade FL (LG-FL) and MZL in the real world. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included all patients who were treated with standard-dose (90)Y-IT for previously untreated LG-FL and MZL at the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center (N = 51). A comparator arm with a historical cohort of previously untreated LG-FL and MZL patients who received BR was used (N = 92). RESULTS: Inverse propensity weighting was utilized to balance the 2 study arms. There were no differences in terms of overall response rate (100% vs. 98%, P = .18), complete response rate (94% vs. 95%, P = .91), or 5 years progression-free survival (76% vs. 75%, P = .63) between patients who received (90)Y-IT and BR, respectively. Within the first year, patients who received (90)Y-IT required an average of 4.5 fewer oncology clinic visits (P < .001), an average of 10 fewer days of therapeutic use (P < .001), and 40% less use of growth factors (P < .001) as compared to the BR group. The direct therapeutic cost of (90)Y-IT treatment was 54% less than that of 6 cycles of BR. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that (90) Y-IT is more cost-effective than BR and is a viable alternative in up-front management of LG-FL and MZL.

Assessment of Lymphoma and Other Hematologic Malignancies Training Needs Among Radiation Oncology Residents: a Brief Report.

The role of radiation therapy (RT) varies across hematologic malignancies (HM). Radiation oncology (RO) resident comfort with specific aspects of HM patient management is unknown. The International Lymphoma RO Group (ILROG) assessed resident HM training opportunities and interest in an HM away elective. RO residents (PGY2-5) in the Association of Residents in RO (ARRO) database (n = 572) were emailed an anonymous, web-based survey in January 2019 including binary, Likert-type scale (1 = not at all, 5 = extremely, reported as median [interquartile range]), and multiple-choice questions. Of 134 resident respondents (23%), 86 (64%) were PGY4/5 residents and 36 (27%) were in larger programs (≥ 13 residents). Residents reported having specialized HM faculty (112, 84%) and a dedicated HM rotation (95, 71%). Residents reported "moderate" preparedness to advocate for RT in multidisciplinary conferences (3 [2-3]); make HM-related clinical decisions (3 [2-4]); and critique treatment planning (3 [2-4]). They reported feeling "moderately" to "quite" prepared to contour HM cases (3.5 [3-4]) and "quite" prepared to utilize the PET-CT five-point scale (4 [3-5]). Overall, residents reported feeling "moderately" prepared to treat HM patients (3 [2-3]); 24 residents (23%) felt "quite" or "extremely" prepared. Sixty-six residents (49%) were potentially interested in an HM away elective, commonly to increase comfort with treating HM patients (65%). Therefore, HM training is an important component of RO residency, yet a minority of surveyed trainees felt quite or extremely well prepared to treat HM patients. Programs should explore alternative and additional educational opportunities to increase resident comfort with treating HM patients.

Heterogeneity in Radiotherapeutic Parameter Assumptions in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses in Prostate Cancer: A Call for Uniformity.

OBJECTIVES: Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) may provide useful data to inform management decisions depending on the robustness of a model's input parameters. We sought to determine the level of heterogeneity in health state utility values, transition probabilities, and cost estimates across published CEAs assessing primarily radiotherapeutic management strategies in prostate cancer. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of prostate cancer CEAs indexed in MEDLINE between 2000 and 2018 comparing accepted treatment modalities across all cancer stages. Search terms included "cost effectiveness prostate," "prostate cancer cost model," "cost utility prostate," and "Markov AND prostate AND (cancer OR adenocarcinoma)." Included studies were agreed upon. A Markov model was designed using the parameter estimates from the systematic review to evaluate the effect of estimate heterogeneity on strategy cost acceptability. RESULTS: Of 199 abstracts identified, 47 publications were reviewed and 37 were included; 508 model estimates were compared. Estimates varied widely across variables, including gastrointestinal toxicity risk (0%-49.5%), utility of metastatic disease (0.25-0.855), intensity-modulated radiotherapy cost ($21 193-$61 996), and recurrence after external-beam radiotherapy (1.5%-59%). Multiple studies assumed that different radiotherapy modalities delivering the same dose yielded varying cancer control rates. When using base estimates for similar parameters from included studies, the designed model resulted in 3 separate acceptability determinations. CONCLUSIONS: Significant heterogeneity exists across parameter estimates used to perform CEAs evaluating treatment for prostate cancer. Heterogeneity across model inputs yields variable conclusions with respect to the favorability and cost-effectiveness of treatment options. Decision makers are cautioned to review estimates in CEAs to ensure they are up to date and relevant to setting and population.

Establishing Cost-Effective Allocation of Proton Therapy for Patients With Mediastinal Hodgkin Lymphoma.

PURPOSE: For curative treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma, radiation therapy benefit must be weighed against toxicity. Although more costly, proton radiation therapy reduces dose to healthy tissue, potentially improving the therapeutic ratio compared with photons. We sought to determine the cost-effectiveness of proton versus photon therapy for mediastinal Hodgkin lymphoma (MHL) based on reduced heart disease. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Our model approach was 2-fold: (1) Use patient-level dosimetric information for a cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov cohort model. (2) Use population-based data to develop guidelines for policymakers to determine thresholds of proton therapy favorability for a given photon dose. The HD14 trial informed relapse risk; coronary heart disease risk was informed by the Framingham risk calculator modified by the mean heart dose (MHD) from radiation. Sensitivity analyses assessed model robustness and identified the most influential model assumptions. A 30-year-old adult with MHL was the base case using 30.6-Gy proton therapy versus photon intensity modulated radiation therapy. RESULTS: Proton therapy was not cost-effective in the base case for male ($129,000/ quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) or female patients ($196,000/QALY). A 5-Gy MHD decrease was associated with proton therapy incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$100,000/QALY in 40% of scenarios. The hazard ratio associating MHD and heart disease was the most influential clinical parameter. CONCLUSIONS: Proton therapy may be cost-effective a select minority of patients with MHL based on age, sex, and MHD reduction. We present guidance for clinicians using MHD to aid decision-making for radiation therapy modality.

Proton therapy for pediatric malignancies: Fact, figures and costs. A joint consensus statement from the pediatric subcommittee of PTCOG, PROS and EPTN.

Radiotherapy plays an important role in the management of childhood cancer, with the primary aim of achieving the highest likelihood of cure with the lowest risk of radiation-induced morbidity. Proton therapy (PT) provides an undisputable advantage by reducing the radiation 'bath' dose delivered to non-target structures/volume while optimally covering the tumor with tumoricidal dose. This treatment modality comes, however, with an additional costs compared to conventional radiotherapy that could put substantial financial pressure to the health care systems with societal implications. In this review we assess the data available to the oncology community of PT delivered to children with cancer, discuss on the urgency to develop high-quality data. Additionally, we look at the advantage of combining systemic agents with protons and look at the cost-effectiveness data published so far.

Consensus Statement on Proton Therapy in Early-Stage and Locally Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Radiation dose escalation has been shown to improve local control and survival in patients with non-small cell lung cancer in some studies, but randomized data have not supported this premise, possibly owing to adverse effects. Because of the physical characteristics of the Bragg peak, proton therapy (PT) delivers minimal exit dose distal to the target volume, resulting in better sparing of normal tissues in comparison to photon-based radiation therapy. This is particularly important for lung cancer given the proximity of the lung, heart, esophagus, major airways, large blood vessels, and spinal cord. However, PT is associated with more uncertainty because of the finite range of the proton beam and motion for thoracic cancers. PT is more costly than traditional photon therapy but may reduce side effects and toxicity-related hospitalization, which has its own associated cost. The cost of PT is decreasing over time because of reduced prices for the building, machine, maintenance, and overhead, as well as newer, shorter treatment programs. PT is improving rapidly as more research is performed particularly with the implementation of 4-dimensional computed tomography-based motion management and intensity modulated PT. Given these controversies, there is much debate in the oncology community about which patients with lung cancer benefit significantly from PT. The Particle Therapy Co-operative Group (PTCOG) Thoracic Subcommittee task group intends to address the issues of PT indications, advantages and limitations, cost-effectiveness, technology improvement, clinical trials, and future research directions. This consensus report can be used to guide clinical practice and indications for PT, insurance approval, and clinical or translational research directions.