An Economic Analysis of SC24 in Canada: A Randomized Study of SBRT Compared With Conventional Palliative RT for Spinal Metastases.

PURPOSE: The Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG) Symptom Control 24 protocol (SC.24) was a multicenter randomized controlled phase 2/3 trial conducted in Canada and Australia. Patients with painful spinal metastases were randomized to either 24 Gy/2 stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) or 20 Gy/5 conventional external beam radiation therapy (CRT). The study met its primary endpoint and demonstrated superior complete pain response rates at 3 months following SBRT (35%) versus CRT (14%). SBRT planning and delivery is resource intensive. Given its benefits in SC.24, we performed an economic analysis to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of SBRT compared with CRT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The trial recruited 229 patients. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using a Markov model taking into account observed survival, treatments costs, retreatment, and quality of life over the lifetime of the patient. The EORTC-QLU-C10D was used to determine quality of life values. Transition probabilities for outcomes were from available patient data. Health system costs were from the Canadian health care perspective and were based on 2021 Canadian dollars (CAD). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was expressed as the ratio of incremental cost to quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The impact of parameter uncertainty was investigated using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The base case for SBRT compared with CRT had an ICER of $9,040CAD per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the ICER was most sensitive to variations in the utility assigned to "No local failure" ($5,457CAD to $241,051CAD per QALY), adopting low and high estimates of utility and the cost of the SBRT (ICERs ranging from $7345-$123,361CAD per QALY). It was more robust to variations in assumptions around survival and response rate. CONCLUSIONS: SBRT is associated with higher upfront costs than CRT. The ICER shows that, within the Canadian health care system, SBRT with 2 fractions is likely to be more cost-effective than CRT.

Population description and clinical response assessment for spinal metastases: part 2 of the SPIne response assessment in Neuro-Oncology (SPINO) group report.

Background: Approximately 40% of metastatic cancer patients will develop spinal metastases. The current report provides recommendations for standardization of metrics used for spinal oncology patient population description and outcome assessment beyond local control endpoints on behalf of the SPIne response assessment in Neuro-Oncology (SPINO) group. Methods: The SPINO group survey was conducted in order to determine the preferences for utilization of clinician-based and patient-reported outcome measures for description of patients with spinal metastases. Subsequently, ClinicalTrials.gov registry was searched for spinal oncology clinical trials, and measures for patient description and outcome reporting were identified for each trial. These two searches were used to identify currently used descriptors and instruments. A literature search was performed focusing on the measures identified in the survey and clinical trial search in order to assess their validity in the metastatic spinal tumor patient population. References for this manuscript were identified through PubMed and Medline searches. Results: Published literature, expert survey, and ongoing clinical trials were used to synthesize recommendations for instruments for reporting of spinal stability, epidural tumor extension, neurological and functional status, and symptom severity. Conclusions: Accurate description of patient population and therapy effects requires a combination of clinician-based and patient-reported outcome measures. The current report provides international consensus recommendations for the systematic reporting of patient- and clinician-reported measures required to develop trials applicable to surgery for spinal metastases and postoperative spine stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT).

SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials.

High quality protocols facilitate proper conduct, reporting, and external review of clinical trials. However, the completeness of trial protocols is often inadequate. To help improve the content and quality of protocols, an international group of stakeholders developed the SPIRIT 2013 Statement (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials). The SPIRIT Statement provides guidance in the form of a checklist of recommended items to include in a clinical trial protocol. This SPIRIT 2013 Explanation and Elaboration paper provides important information to promote full understanding of the checklist recommendations. For each checklist item, we provide a rationale and detailed description; a model example from an actual protocol; and relevant references supporting its importance. We strongly recommend that this explanatory paper be used in conjunction with the SPIRIT Statement. A website of resources is also available (www.spirit-statement.org). The SPIRIT 2013 Explanation and Elaboration paper, together with the Statement, should help with the drafting of trial protocols. Complete documentation of key trial elements can facilitate transparency and protocol review for the benefit of all stakeholders.