Trimodal therapy vs. radical cystectomy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer: A Canadian cost-effectiveness analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Trimodal therapy (TMT) is a suitable alternative to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and radical cystectomy (RC) for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). In this study, we conducted a cost-effectiveness evaluation of RC±NAC vs. TMT for MIBC in the universal and publicly funded Canadian healthcare system. METHODS: We developed a Markov model with Monte-Carlo microsimulations. Rates and probabilities of transitioning within different health states (e.g., cure, locoregional recurrence, distant metastasis, death) were input in the model after a scoped literature review. Two main scenarios were considered: 1) academic center; and 2) populational-level. Results were reported in life-years gained (LYG), quality-adjusted life years (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). A sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 20 000 patients were simulated. For the academic center model, TMT was associated with increased effectiveness (both in LYG and QALY) at a higher cost compared to RC±NAC at five and 10 years. This resulted in an ICER of $19 746/QALY per patient undergoing the TMT strategy at 10 years of followup. For the populational-level model, RC±NAC was associated with higher effectiveness at 10 years, with an ICER of $3319/QALY per patient. This study was limited by heterogeneity within the studies used to build the model. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, TMT performed in academic centers was cost-effective compared to RC±NAC, with higher effectiveness at a higher cost. On the other hand, RC±NAC was considered cost-effective compared to TMT at the populational-level. Further studies are needed to confirm these results.

Refining assessment of response to radiation-based therapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer: Is post-treatment tumor bed biopsy always necessary?

INTRODUCTION: Radiation-based therapy (RT) has emerged as a suitable alternative to radical cystectomy (RC) and pelvic lymph node dissection for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) patients. Routine biopsy after RT to rule out residual disease remains inconsistent across guidelines. Our objective was to review the significance of a bladder biopsy in terms of assessment of response post-RT and its potential impact on survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective study on patients with MIBC (cT2-4aN0-2M0) treated with curative intent RT. A total of 169 patients with primary urothelial carcinoma were analyzed. Patients' demographic, clinical and pathological variables, imaging, cystoscopy, urine cytology, and biopsy reports after RT were collected and compiled. Whenever urine cytology was positive or cystoscopy showed any malignant-appearing lesion, the first assessment post-RT was considered suspicious for residual disease. A descriptive population analysis was reported. Cox regression multivariable analysis was performed to identify independent variables associated with survival outcomes. RESULTS: Median age was 75 years (interquartile range 66-82) and clinical staging was cT2 in 152 (90%) patients. Cytology and cystoscopy were normal in 140 (83%) after RT. Of patients with a control biopsy, residual MIBC was present in 3 (5%) and non-MIBC in another 6 (11%). On the contrary, a for-cause biopsy due to a suspicious assessment post-RT did not yield residual cancer in 45% of patients. Multivariable analysis showed that age (hazard ratio [HR] 1.04, P< 0.001), lymphovascular invasion (HR 1.68, P = 0.03) and a suspicious assessment after RT (HR 3.21; P< 0.001) were significantly associated with worse OS. This study was limited by its retrospective design. CONCLUSIONS: A routine biopsy after RT may be warranted to assess treatment response. This might be particularly important for patients who may benefit from early surgical intervention for residual MIBC. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm our findings.

The relationship of study and authorship characteristics on trial sponsorship and self-reported conflicts of interest among neuro-oncology clinical trials.

PROPOSE: To examine the association between trial sponsorship sources, self-reported conflicts of interest (COI), and study and author characteristics in central nervous system (CNS) oncology clinical trials (CT). METHODS: MEDLINE search was performed for original CT on "Central Nervous System Neoplasms"[Mesh]. The investigators assessed for relationships between funding source (industry, academic or cooperative, none, not described), COI (presented, none, or not reported), CT, and author characteristics. RESULTS: From 2010 to 2015, 319 CT were considered eligible. The majority of the studies involved primary gliomas (55.2%) and were Phase II CT (59.2%). Drug therapy was investigated in 83.0% of the CT. The remaining studies investigated surgery or radiotherapy. A minority of papers were published in journals with impact factor (IF) higher than > 10 (16%) or in regions other than North America and Europe (20.4%). Overall, 83.1% of studies disclosed funding sources: 32.6% from industry alone, 33.9% from an academic or cooperative group, and 10.7% from a mixed funding model. COI data was reported by 85.9% of trials, of which 56.2% reported no COI and 43.8% reported a related COI. Significant predictors for sponsorship (industry and/or academia) on univariate analysis were study design, type of intervention, journal impact factor, study conclusion, transparency of COI and presence of COI. On multivariate analysis, type of intervention, (P < 0.001), journal impact factor (IF) (P = 0.003), presence of COI (P < 0.001) and study conclusion (P = 0.003) remained significant predictors of sponsorship. For predicting COI, significant variables on univariate analysis were disease type, type of intervention, journal IF, funding source, and intervention arm being related to sponsor. On multivariate analysis, disease type (P = 0.003), journal IF (P < 0.001), type of intervention (P = 0.001), and funding source (P = 0.008) remained significant. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of CNS CT reported some external funding sources and non-related COI. We identified that drug trials, higher IF, presence of COI, and a neutral or negative study conclusion are associated with external funding. Likewise drug trials, higher IF, and glioma trials are associated with presence of COI.

Funding source, conflict of interest and positive conclusions in neuro-oncology clinical trials.

We aimed to test any association between authors' conclusions and self-reported COI or funding sources in central nervous system (CNS) studies. A review was performed for CNS malignancy clinical trials published in the last 5 years. Two investigators independently classified study conclusions according to authors' endorsement of the experimental therapy. Statistical models were used to test for associations between positive conclusions and trials characteristics. From February 2010 to February 2015, 1256 articles were retrieved; 319 were considered eligible trials. Positive conclusions were reported in 56.8% of trials with industry-only, 55.6% with academia-only, 44.1% with academia and industry, 77.8% with none, and 76.4% with not described funding source (p = 0.011). Positive conclusions were reported in 60.4% of trials with unrelated COI, 60% with related COI, and 60% with no COI reported (p = 0.997). Factors that were significantly associated with the presence of positive conclusion included trials design (phase 1) [OR 11.64 (95 CI 4.66-29.09), p < 0.001], geographic location (outside North America or Europe) [OR 1.96 (95 CI 1.05-3.79), P = 0.025], primary outcomes (non-overall or progression free survival) [OR 3.74 (95 CI 2.27-6.18), p < 0.001], and failure to disclose funding source [OR 2.45 (95 CI 1.22-5.22), p = 0.011]. In a multivariable regression model, all these factors remained significantly associated with trial's positive conclusion. Funding source and self-reported COI did not appear to influence the CNS trials conclusion. Funding source information and COI disclosure were under-reported in 14.1 and 17.2% of the CNS trials. Continued efforts are needed to increase rates of both COI and funding source reporting.

Secondary analysis of RTOG 9508, a phase 3 randomized trial of whole-brain radiation therapy versus WBRT plus stereotactic radiosurgery in patients with 1-3 brain metastases; poststratified by the graded prognostic assessment (GPA).

PURPOSE: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 9508 showed a survival advantage for patients with 1 but not 2 or 3 brain metastasis (BM) treated with whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) versus WBRT alone. An improved prognostic index, the graded prognostic assessment (GPA) has been developed. Our hypothesis was that if the data from RTOG 9508 were poststratified by the GPA, the conclusions may vary. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In this analysis, 252 of the 331 patients were evaluable by GPA. Of those, 211 had lung cancer. Breast cancer patients were excluded because the components of the breast GPA are not in the RTOG database. Multiple Cox regression was used to compare survival between treatment groups, adjusting for GPA. Treatment comparisons within subgroups were performed with the log-rank test. A free online tool (brainmetgpa.com) simplified GPA use. RESULTS: The fundamental conclusions of the primary analysis were confirmed in that there was no survival benefit overall for patients with 1 to 3 metastases; however, there was a benefit for the subset of patients with GPA 3.5 to 4.0 (median survival time [MST] for WBRT + SRS vs WBRT alone was 21.0 versus 10.3 months, P=.05) regardless of the number of metastases. Among patients with GPA 3.5 to 4.0 treated with WBRT and SRS, the MST for patients with 1 versus 2 to 3 metastases was 21 and 14.1 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This secondary analysis of predominantly lung cancer patients, consistent with the original analysis, shows no survival advantage for the group overall when treated with WBRT and SRS; however, in patients with high GPA (3.5-4), there is a survival advantage regardless of whether they have 1, 2, or 3 BM. This benefit did not extend to patients with lower GPA. Prospective validation of this survival benefit for patients with multiple BM and high GPA when treated with WBRT and SRS is warranted.

Local correlation between monte-carlo dose and radiation-induced fibrosis in lung cancer patients.

PURPOSE: To present a new method of evaluating the correlation between radiotherapy (RT)-induced fibrosis and the local dose delivered to non-small-cell lung cancer patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Treatment plans were generated using the CadPlan treatment planning system (pencil beam, no heterogeneity corrections), and RT delivery was based on these plans. Retrospective Monte-Carlo dose calculations were performed, and the Monte-Carlo distributions of dose to real tissue were calculated using the planning computed tomography (CT) images and the number of monitor units actually delivered. After registration of the follow-up CT images with the planning CT images, different grades of radiologic fibrosis were automatically segmented on the follow-up CT images. Subsequently, patient-specific fibrosis probabilities were studied as a function of the local dose and a function of time after RT completion. RESULTS: A strong patient-specific variation in the fibrosis volumes was found during the follow-up period. For both lungs, the threshold dose for which the probability of fibrosis became significant coincided with the threshold dose at which significant volumes of the lung were exposed. At later stages, only fibrosis localized in the high-dose regions persisted for both lungs. Overall, the Monte-Carlo dose distributions correlated much better with the probability of RT-induced fibrosis than did the CadPlan dose distributions. CONCLUSION: The presented method allows for an accurate, systematic, patient-specific and post-RT time-dependent numeric study of the relationship between RT-induced fibrosis and the local dose.

An assessment of PTV margin definitions for patients undergoing conformal 3D external beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer based on an analysis of 10,327 pretreatment daily ultrasound localizations.

INTRODUCTION: We have assessed the planning target volume (PTV) margins required for adequate treatment of the prostate in the absence of daily localization imaging based on the statistical analysis of a large data set obtained from 5 years of use of a two-dimensional ultrasound pretreatment localization device. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Data from 387 prostate patients were analyzed retrospectively. Every patient in the study received daily pretreatment localization resulting in a total of 10,327 localizations, each comprising an isocenter displacement in three directions: anteroposterior, right-left lateral, and superior-inferior. The mean displacement for each direction for each patient was computed from daily treatment records, and a mean of the means was used in the analysis. RESULTS: The mean displacements required to shift the target to the required position were 6.1 mm posterior (4.4 mm SD), 2.1 mm superior (4.5 mm SD), and 0.5 mm right (3.6 mm SD). The 6.1-mm shift posterior is indicative of a systematic uncertainty. Differences in planning conditions between the computed tomography simulation and the treatment room may account for this discrepancy. CONCLUSION: Our study has revealed systematic intertreatment uncertainties that would have required a nonuniform PTV margin ranging in dimensions between 2.7 mm anterior, 14.9 mm posterior, 7.7 mm right, 6.7 mm left, 11 mm superior, and 7 mm inferior to encompass the prostate for 95% of our sample if the ultrasound localization system were not used. In the absence of systematic uncertainties, a uniform PTV margin of 9 mm would suffice.