Is SABR Cost-Effective in Oligometastatic Cancer? An Economic Analysis of the SABR-COMET Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: The phase 2 randomized study SABR-COMET demonstrated that in patients with controlled primary tumors and 1 to 5 oligometastatic lesions, SABR was associated with improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with standard of care (SoC), but with higher costs and treatment-related toxicities. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of SABR versus SoC in this setting. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A Markov model was constructed to perform a cost-utility analysis from the Canadian health care system perspective. Utility values and transition probabilities were derived from individual-level data from the SABR-COMET trial. One-way, 2-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Costs were expressed in 2018 CAD. A separate analysis based on US payer's perspective was performed. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was used. RESULTS: In the base case scenario, SABR was cost-effective at an ICER of $37,157 per QALY gained. This finding was most sensitive to the number of metastatic lesions treated with SABR (ICER: $28,066 per QALY for 2, increasing to $64,429 per QALY for 5), difference in chemotherapy use (ICER: $27,173-$53,738 per QALY), and PFS hazard ratio (HR) between strategies (ICER: $31,548-$53,273 per QALY). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that SABR was cost-effective in 97% of all iterations. Two-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated a nonlinear relationship between the number of lesions and the PFS HR. To maintain cost-effectiveness for each additional metastasis, the HR must decrease by approximately 0.047. The US cost analysis yielded similar results, with an ICER of $54,564 (2018 USD per QALY) for SABR. CONCLUSIONS: SABR is cost-effective for patients with 1 to 5 oligometastatic lesions compared with SoC.

Provincial development of a patient-reported outcome initiative to guide patient care, quality improvement, and research.

The BC Cancer Agency Radiotherapy (RT) program started the Prospective Outcomes and Support Initiative (POSI) at all six centres to utilize patient-reported outcomes for immediate clinical care, quality improvement, and research. Patient-reported outcomes were collected at time of computed tomography simulation via tablet and 2 to 4 weeks post-RT via either tablet or over the phone by a registered nurse. From 2013 to 2016, patients were approached on 20,150 attempts by POSI for patients treated with RT for bone metastases (52%), brain metastases (11%), lung cancer (17%), gynecological cancer (16%), head and neck cancer (2%), and other pilots (2%). The accrual rate for all encounters was 85% (n = 17,101), with the accrual rate varying between the lowest and the highest accruing centre from 78% to 89% ( P < .001) and varying by tumour site ( P < .001). Using the POSI database, we have performed research and quality improvement initiatives that have changed practice.

Impact of Travel Distance and Urban-Rural Status on the Multidisciplinary Management of Rectal Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Optimal treatment of rectal cancer (RC) requires multidisciplinary care. We examined whether distance to treatment center or community size impacts access to multimodality care and population-based outcomes in RC. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with stage II/III RC from 1999 to 2009 and treated at 1 of 6 regional cancer centers in British Columbia were reviewed. Distance to treatment center was determined for each patient. Communities were classified as rural, small, medium, and large population centers. Logistic and Cox regression models assessed associations of distance and community size with treatment received as well as cancer-specific (CSS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Of 3,158 patients, 93.6% underwent surgery, 86.3% received radiotherapy, and 51.3% were treated with adjuvant chemotherapy (AC). Median time from diagnosis to oncologic consultation was longer for those >100 km from a treatment center or residing in medium/rural communities. Logistic regression demonstrated no correlation between distance or community size and receipt of treatment modality. Univariate analysis showed similar CSS (P = .18, .88) and OS (P = .36, .47) based on community size and distance, respectively. In multivariate analysis, distance >100 km had inferior CSS (Hazard Ratio [HR] 1.39, 95% CI: 1.03-1.88; P = .031). There was no consistent trend between decreasing community size and outcomes; however, living in a small center was associated with improved OS (HR 0.58, 95% CI: 0.38-0.88; P = .011) and CSS (HR 0.42, 95% CI: 0.25-0.70; P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based study, there were no urban-rural differences in access to multidisciplinary care, but increased distance may be associated with worse cancer-specific outcomes.

Prospective comparison of two cognitive screening tests: diagnostic accuracy and correlation with community integration and quality of life.

Cognitive screening tests are frequently used in brain tumor clinics. The Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) is the most commonly used, and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is an alternative. This study compares the diagnostic accuracy of both screening tests. Fifty-eight patients with brain tumors were prospectively accrued and administered the MMSE and MoCA, 67% of who completed a comprehensive neuropsychological evaluation as a gold standard comparison. Quality of life and community integration were measured with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Brain (FACT-Br) and Community Integration Questionnaire (CIQ), respectively. At the pre-defined cut-off scores, the MoCA had superior sensitivity (61.9% vs. 19.0%, P < 0.005) and the MMSE had superior specificity (94.4% vs. 55.6%, P < 0.017). The areas under the ROC curve for the MMSE (0.615, standard error = 0.091) and MoCA (0.606, standard error = 0.092) were poor, indicating that at no single cut-off score is either test both sensitive and specific. Neither the MMSE (ρ = 0.12; P < 0.444) nor MoCA (ρ = 0.24; P < 0.108) were significantly correlated with the FACT-Br. The MoCA was modestly correlated with the CIQ (ρ = 0.35; P < 0.017), but the MMSE was not (ρ = 0.14; P < 0.359). The MMSE has extremely poor sensitivity. Using this test in clinical practice, research, and clinical trials will result in failing to detect cognitive impairment in a substantial percentage of patients. The MoCA has superior sensitivity, and is better correlated with self reported measures of community integration, and therefore should be preferentially chosen in practice and clinical trials.