Cost effectiveness of treatment strategies for high risk prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with high-risk prostate cancer (HRPC) have multiple accepted treatment options. Because there is no overall survival benefit of one option over another, appropriate treatment must consider patient life expectancy, quality of life, and cost. METHODS: The authors compared quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and cost effectiveness among treatment options for HRPC using a Markov model with three treatment arms: (1) external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) delivered with 20 fractions, (2) EBRT with 23 fractions followed by low-dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy boost, or (3) radical prostatectomy alone. An exploratory analysis considered a simultaneous integrated boost according to the FLAME trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01168479). RESULTS: Treatment strategies were compared using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). EBRT with LDR brachytherapy boost was a cost-effective strategy (ICER, $20,929 per QALY gained). These results were most sensitive to variations in the biochemical failure rate. However, the results still demonstrated cost effectiveness for the brachytherapy boost paradigm, regardless of any tested parameter ranges. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that EBRT with LDR brachytherapy was favored in 52% of 100,000 Monte Carlo iterations. In an exploratory analysis, EBRT with a simultaneous integrated boost was also a cost-effective strategy, resulting in an ICER of $62,607 per QALY gained; however, it was not cost effective compared with EBRT plus LDR brachytherapy boost. CONCLUSIONS: EBRT with LDR brachytherapy boost may be a cost-effective treatment strategy compared with EBRT alone and radical prostatectomy for HRPC, demonstrating high-value care. The current analysis suggests that a reduction in biochemical failure alone can result in cost-effective care, despite no change in overall survival.

Respect, justice and learning are limited when patients are deidentified data subjects.

Introduction: Critical for advancing a Learning Health System (LHS) in the U.S., a regulatory safe harbor for deidentified data reduces barriers to learning from care at scale while minimizing privacy risks. We examine deidentified data policy as a mechanism for synthesizing the ethical obligations underlying clinical care and human subjects research for an LHS which conceptually and practically integrates care and research, blurring the roles of patient and subject. Methods: First, we discuss respect for persons vis-a-vis the systemic secondary use of data and tissue collected in the fiduciary context of clinical care. We argue that, without traditional informed consent or duty to benefit the individual, deidentification may allow secondary use to supersede the primary purpose of care. Next, we consider the effectiveness of deidentification for minimizing harms via privacy protection and maximizing benefits via promoting learning and translational care. We find that deidentification is unable to fully protect privacy given the vastness of health data and current technology, yet it imposes limitations to learning and barriers for efficient translation. After that, we evaluate the impact of deidentification on distributive justice within an LHS ethical framework in which patients are obligated to contribute to learning and the system has a duty to translate knowledge into better care. Such a system may permit exacerbation of health disparities as it accelerates learning without mechanisms to ensure that individuals' contributions and benefits are fair and balanced. Results: We find that, despite its established advantages, system-wide use of deidentification may be suboptimal for signaling respect, protecting privacy or promoting learning, and satisfying requirements of justice for patients and subjects. Conclusions: Finally, we highlight ethical, socioeconomic, technological and legal challenges and next steps, including a critical appreciation for novel approaches to realize an LHS that maximizes efficient, effective learning and just translation without the compromises of deidentification.

Costs of Definitive Chemoradiation, Surgery, and Adjuvant Radiation Versus De-Escalated Adjuvant Radiation per MC1273 in HPV+ Cancer of the Oropharynx.

PURPOSE: De-escalated treatment for human papillomavirus (HPV)+ oropharynx squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) has shown promising initial results. Health-care policy is increasingly focusing on high-value care. This analysis compares the cost of care for HPV+ OPSCC treated with definitive chemoradiation (CRT), surgery and adjuvant radiation (RT), and surgery and de-escalated CRT on MC1273. METHODS AND MATERIALS: MC1273 is a prospective, phase 2 study evaluating adjuvant CRT to 30 to 36 Gy plus docetaxel for HPV+ OPSCC after surgery for high-risk patients. Matched standard-of-care control groups were retrospectively identified for patients treated with definitive CRT or adjuvant RT. Standardized costs were evaluated before radiation, during treatment (during RT), and at short-term (6 month) and long-term (7-24 month) follow-up periods. RESULTS: A total of 56 definitive CRT, 101 adjuvant RT, and 66 MC1273 patients were included. The CRT arm had more T3-4 disease (63% vs 17-21%) and higher N2c-N3 disease (52% vs 20-24%) vs both other groups. The total treatment costs in the CRT, adjuvant RT, and MC1273 groups were $47,763 (standard deviation [SD], $19,060], $57,845 (SD, $17,480), and $46,007 (SD, $9019), respectively, and the chemotherapy and/or RT costs were $39,936 (SD, $18,480), $26,603 (SD, $12,542), and $17,864 (SD, $3288), respectively. The per-patient, per-month, average short-term follow-up costs were $3860 (SD, $10,525), $1072 (SD, $996), and $972 (SD, $833), respectively, and the long-term costs were $978 (SD, $2294), $485 (SD, $1156), and $653 (SD, $1107), respectively. After adjustment for age, T-stage, and N-stage, treatment costs remained lower for CRT and MC1273 versus adjuvant RT ($45,450 and $47,114 vs $58,590, respectively; P < .001), whereas the total per-patient, per-month follow-up costs were lower in the MC1273 study group and adjuvant RT versus CRT ($853 and $866 vs $2030, respectively; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: MC1273 resulted in 10% and 20% reductions in global costs compared with standard-of-care adjuvant RT and definitive CRT treatments. Substantial cost savings may be an added benefit to the already noted low toxicity and maintained quality of life of treatment per MC1273.

Physician Practice Variability in the Use of Extended-Fraction Radiation Therapy for Bone Metastases: Are We Choosing Wisely?

PURPOSE: Routine use of extended-fraction (> 10 fractions) radiation therapy (RT) for palliation of bone metastases is recognized as a low-value intervention by the American Society for Radiation Oncology. We examined contemporary practice patterns of, and physician characteristics associated with extended-fraction RT use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using Medicare fee-for-service data. We included patients who underwent 2- or 3-dimensional external-beam RT for bone metastases between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018. Physicians treating > 10 patients over the study period were analyzed for their individual practice. Hierarchic logistic regression modeling was used to identify patient- and physician-level factors associated with extended-fraction RT use. RESULTS: A total of 12,221 patients (median age, 75.6 years; 40.9% women, 87.6% white) were included. The rate of extended-fraction RT was 23.4%. A total of 1,432 physicians treated any patient. Among the 382 physicians treating > 10 patients, 127 (33.2%) used extended-fraction RT > 30% (consensus threshold). Physician factors associated with decreased odds of extended-fraction RT were years since medical school graduation (≤ 10 years and 11-20 years v ≥ 31 years: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.32 [95% CI, 0.20 to 0.51] and 0.64 [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.93]) and practicing in the Northeast or Midwest versus the South (aOR, 0.36 [95% CI, 0.22 to 0.58] and 0.48 [95% CI, 0.31 to 0.74]). Physicians treating > 20 patients (v 11-14 patients) over the study period had increased odds of delivering extended-fraction RT (aOR, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.10 to 2.12]). CONCLUSION: In this study, almost one fourth of patients received extended-fraction RT, and one third of physicians had an extended-fraction RT use rate of > 30%. Personalized feedback of performance data, clinical pathways and peer review, and updated reimbursement models are potential mechanisms to address this low-value care.

Proton beam therapy utilization in adults with primary brain tumors in the United States.

The utilization of proton beam therapy (PBT) as the primary treatment of adults with primary brain tumors (APBT) was evaluated through query of the National Cancer Database (NCDB) between the years 2004 and 2015. International Classification of Diseases for Oncology code for each patient was stratified into six histology categories; high-grade gliomas, medulloblastomas, ependymomas, other gliomas, other malignant tumors, or other benign intracranial tumors. Demographics of the treatment population were also analyzed. A total of 1,296 patients received PBT during the 11-year interval for treatment of their primary brain tumor. High-grade glioma, medulloblastoma, ependymoma, other glioma, other malignant, and other benign intracranial histologies made up 39%, 20%, 13%, 12%, 13%, and 2% of the cohort, respectively. The number of patients treated per year increased from 34 to 300 in years 2004 to 2015. Histologies treated with PBT varied over the 11-year interval with high-grade gliomas comprising 75% and 45% at years 2004 and 2015, respectively. The majority of the patient population was 18-29 years of age (59%), Caucasian race (73%), had median reported income of over $63,000 (46%), were privately insured (68%), and were treated at an academic institution (70%). This study characterizes trends of malignant and benign APBT histologies treated with PBT. Our data from 2004 through 2015 illustrates a marked increase in the utilization of PBT in the treatment of APBT and shows variability in the tumor histology treated over this time.

Impact of Patient Stage and Disease Characteristics on the proposed Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Model (RO-APM).

PURPOSE: The proposed Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Model (RO-APM) released on July 10, 2019, represents a dramatic shift from fee-for-service (FFS) reimbursement in radiation therapy (RT). This study compares historical revenue at Mayo Clinic to the RO-APM and quantifies the effect that disease characteristics may have on reimbursement. METHODS AND MATERIALS: FFS Medicare reimbursements were determined for patients undergoing RT at Mayo Clinic from 2015 to 2016. Disease categories and payment episodes were defined as per the RO-APM. Average RT episode reimbursements were reported for each disease site, except for lymphoma and metastases, and stratified by stage and disease subcategory. Comparisons with RO-APM reimbursements were made via descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 2098 patients were identified, of whom 1866 (89%) were categorized per the RO-APM; 840 (45%) of those were aged >65 years. Breast (33%), head and neck (HN) (14%), and prostate (11%) cancer were most common. RO-APM base rate reimbursements and sensitivity analysis range were lower than historical reimbursement for bladder (-40%), cervical (-34%), lung (-28%), uterine (-26%), colorectal (-24%), upper gastrointestinal (-24%), HN (-23%), pancreatic (-20%), prostate (-16%), central nervous system (-13%), and anal (-10%) and higher for liver (+24%) and breast (+36%). Historical reimbursement varied with stage (stage III vs stage I) for breast (+57%, P < .01), uterine (+53%, P = .01), lung (+50%, P < .01), HN (+24%, P = .01), and prostate (+13%, P = .01). Overall, for patients older than 65 years of age, the RO-APM resulted in a -9% reduction in total RT reimbursement compared with historical FFS (-2%, -15%, and -27% for high, mid, and low adjusted RO-APM rates). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that the RO-APM will result in significant reductions in reimbursement at our center, particularly for cancers more common in underserved populations. Practices that care for socioeconomically disadvantaged populations may face significant reductions in revenue, which could further reduce access for this vulnerable population.

Identifying the Most Costly Patients in Radiation Oncology and Predicting the Top Spenders.

PURPOSE: Quality payment programs aim to adjust payments on the basis of quality and cost; however, few quality metrics exist in radiation oncology. This study evaluates and predicts the top spenders (TS) after radiation therapy (RT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patient characteristics, cancer details, treatments, toxicity, and survival data were collected for patients treated with RT at Mayo Clinic from 2007 to 2016. Standardized costs were obtained and adjusted for inflation. TSs were identified as those with greater than 93rd percentile costs (≥ $120,812). Prediction models were developed to predict TSs using training and validation sets using information available at consultation, after RT, and at last follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 15,131 patients were included and 1,065 TSs identified. Mean cost overall was $55,290 (median, $39,996) for all patients. Prediction models 1, 2, and 3 had concordance statistics of 0.83 to 0.83, 0.85 to 0.85, and 0.87 to 0.88, respectively in training and validation, indicating excellent prediction of TSs. Factors that were most predictive of TSs included stage N/A and stage 4 (v stage 0; odds ratio [OR], 18.23 and 8.44, respectively; P < .001); hematologic, upper GI, skin and lung cancers (v breast; OR, 11.45, 7.69, 3.81, and 2.43, respectively; P < .01); immunotherapy, surgery, and chemotherapy use (OR, 4.36, 2.51, and 1.61, respectively; P < .01); hospitalizations within 90 days of RT (OR, 2.26; P < .01); or death during the episode (OR, 1.56; P < .01). CONCLUSION: This is the first study of its kind to predict with high accuracy the highest spenders in radiation oncology. These patients may benefit from pre-emptive management to mitigate costs, or may require exclusion or adjustment from quality payment programs.

Photon and Proton Radiation Therapy Utilization in a Population of More Than 100 Million Commercially Insured Patients.

PURPOSE: To characterize the changes in the use of radiation therapy (RT), specifically proton beam radiation therapy (PBRT), among adult and pediatric patients over a 11-year period in a very large population of insured patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of the OptumLabs Data Warehouse claims database of more than 100 million insured US enrollees. Descriptive analyses were undertaken to evaluate the characteristics of patients receiving RT from 2002 to 2012. RESULTS: There were 474,533 patients treated with RT from 2002 to 2012. The percentage of patients treated with 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy, 2-dimensional RT/brachytherapy, intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), and PBRT was 34.5%, 63.4%, 2.1%, 0.0%, and 0.1% and 40.4%, 36.0%, 21.9%, 1.1%, and 0.6% in 2002 and 2012, respectively. The greatest increase in utilization was of IMRT for prostate cancer, growing from 3.5% to 64.0%. For non-prostate cancer adults, IMRT use grew from 1.7% to 16.4%. For children, PBRT utilization increased from 0.3% to 9.7%. For prostate cancer patients, PBRT increased from 0.0% to 2.6%. For all patients, advanced technology (SBRT and PBRT) use was very low at <2%, versus 22% for IMRT. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest and most geographically diverse description of RT utilization. Proton beam RT utilization remains very low and has had little impact on overall RT utilization compared with IMRT. The largest shift has occurred in IMRT for prostate cancer. Our findings indicate that overall utilization of proton therapy has been low and that its use has likely had little impact on national expenditures on cancer care in the current environment.

Assessment of patient-reported measures of bowel function before and after pelvic radiotherapy: an ancillary study of the North Central Cancer Treatment Group study N00CA.

PURPOSE: The Bowel Function Questionnaire (BFQ) has been used in clinical trials to assess symptoms during and after pelvic radiotherapy (RT). This study evaluated the importance of symptoms in the BFQ from a patient perspective. METHODS: Patients reported presence or absence of symptoms and rated importance of symptoms at baseline, 4 weeks after completion of pelvic RT, and 12 and 24 months after RT. The BFQ measured overall quality of life (QOL) and symptoms of nocturnal bowel movements, incontinence, clustering, need for protective clothing, inability to differentiate stool from gas, liquid bowel movements, urgency, cramping, and bleeding. Bowel movement frequency also was recorded. A content validity questionnaire (CVQ) was used to rate symptoms as "not very important," "moderately unimportant," "neutral," "moderately important," or "very important." RESULTS: Most of the 125 participating patients rated all symptoms as moderately or very important. Generally, patients gave similar ratings for symptom importance at all study points, and ratings were independent of whether the patient experienced the symptom. Measures of greatest importance (moderately or very important) at baseline were ability to control bowel movements (94 %), not having to wear protective clothing (90 %), and not having rectal bleeding (94 %). With the exception of need for protective clothing, the presence of a symptom at 4 weeks was associated with significantly worse QOL (P < .01 for all). CONCLUSIONS: The BFQ has excellent content validity. Patients rated most symptoms as moderately or very important, indicating the BFQ is an appropriate tool for symptom assessment during and after pelvic RT.

Radiotherapy plus chemotherapy with or without surgical resection for stage III non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Results from phase II studies in patients with stage IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer with ipsilateral mediastinal nodal metastases (N2) have shown the feasibility of resection after concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy with promising rates of survival. We therefore did this phase III trial to compare concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy followed by resection with standard concurrent chemotherapy and definitive radiotherapy without resection. METHODS: Patients with stage T1-3pN2M0 non-small-cell lung cancer were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to concurrent induction chemotherapy (two cycles of cisplatin [50 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, 29, and 36] and etoposide [50 mg/m(2) on days 1-5 and 29-33]) plus radiotherapy (45 Gy) in multiple academic and community hospitals. If no progression, patients in group 1 underwent resection and those in group 2 continued radiotherapy uninterrupted up to 61 Gy. Two additional cycles of cisplatin and etoposide were given in both groups. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00002550. FINDINGS: 202 patients (median age 59 years, range 31-77) were assigned to group 1 and 194 (61 years, 32-78) to group 2. Median OS was 23.6 months (IQR 9.0-not reached) in group 1 versus 22.2 months (9.4-52.7) in group 2 (hazard ratio [HR] 0.87 [0.70-1.10]; p=0.24). Number of patients alive at 5 years was 37 (point estimate 27%) in group 1 and 24 (point estimate 20%) in group 2 (odds ratio 0.63 [0.36-1.10]; p=0.10). With N0 status at thoracotomy, the median OS was 34.4 months (IQR 15.7-not reached; 19 [point estimate 41%] patients alive at 5 years). Progression-free survival (PFS) was better in group 1 than in group 2, median 12.8 months (5.3-42.2) vs 10.5 months (4.8-20.6), HR 0.77 [0.62-0.96]; p=0.017); the number of patients without disease progression at 5 years was 32 (point estimate 22%) versus 13 (point estimate 11%), respectively. Neutropenia and oesophagitis were the main grade 3 or 4 toxicities associated with chemotherapy plus radiotherapy in group 1 (77 [38%] and 20 [10%], respectively) and group 2 (80 [41%] and 44 [23%], respectively). In group 1, 16 (8%) deaths were treatment related versus four (2%) in group 2. In an exploratory analysis, OS was improved for patients who underwent lobectomy, but not pneumonectomy, versus chemotherapy plus radiotherapy. INTERPRETATION: Chemotherapy plus radiotherapy with or without resection (preferably lobectomy) are options for patients with stage IIIA(N2) non-small-cell lung cancer. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute, Canadian Cancer Society, and National Cancer Institute of Canada.