Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Ultra-Hypofractionated Whole Breast Radiation Therapy Alone Versus Hormone Therapy Alone or Combined Treatment for Low-Risk ER-Positive Early Stage Breast Cancer in Women Aged 65 Years and Older.

PURPOSE: The optimal management of early-stage, low-risk, hormone-positive breast cancer in older women remains controversial. Recent trials have shown that 5-fraction ultrahypofractionated whole-breast irradiation (U-WBI) has similar outcomes to longer courses, reducing the cost and inconvenience of treatment. We performed a cost-utility analysis to compare U-WBI to hormone therapy alone or their combination. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We simulated 3 different treatment approaches for women age 65 years or older with pT1-2N0 ER-positive invasive ductal carcinoma treated with lumpectomy with negative margins using a Markov microsimulation model. The strategies were U-WBI performed with a 3-dimensional conformal technique over 5 fractions without a boost ("radiation therapy [RT] alone"), adjuvant hormone therapy (anastrozole for 5 years) without RT ("aromatase-inhibitor [AI] alone"), or the combination of the 2. The combination strategy was calibrated to match trial results, and the relative effectiveness of the RT alone and AI alone strategies were inferred from previous randomized trials. The primary endpoint was the cost-effectiveness of the 3 strategies over a lifetime horizon as measured by the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), with a value of $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year deemed "cost-effective." RESULTS: The model results compared with the prespecified target outcomes. On average, RT alone was the least expensive strategy ($14,775), with AI alone slightly more ($14,998), and combination therapy the costliest ($19,802). RT alone dominated AI alone (the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] -$5089). Combination therapy, compared with RT alone, was slightly more expensive than our definition of cost-effective (ICER $113,468) but was cost-effective compared with AI alone (ICER $54,451). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated RT alone to be cost-effective in 50% of trials, with combination therapy in 36% and AI alone in 14%. CONCLUSIONS: U-WBI alone appears the more cost-effective de-escalation strategy for these low-risk patients, compared with AI alone. Combining U-WBI and AI appears more costly but may be preferred by some patients.

The economic impact of circulating tumor-tissue modified HPV DNA for the post-treatment surveillance of HPV-driven oropharyngeal cancer: A simulation.

PURPOSE: Following treatment of HPV-driven oropharynx cancer, surveillance nasopharyngoscopy and imaging are often performed but are expensive and frequently ineffective. A novel plasma circulating tumor-tissue modified viral HPV DNA (TTMV-HPV-DNA) assay accurately detects recurrences. We modeled the cost of the new assay. METHODS: We designed and validated a partitioned survival model which replicated the results of the RTOG 1016 study and calculated cumulative surveillance costs from the payer's perspective. Two strategies were considered: a standard of routine endoscopy with imaging as needed and an alternative strategy which omitted scopes and imaging but obtained serial TTMV-HPV-DNA samples. No difference in effectiveness (QALY or LY) was assumed in the base case. A 5-year horizon was used, costs were reported in 2020 U.S. dollars discounted by 3%. Seven scenarios tested model assumptions and practice variation. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: In the base case, at the list TTMV-HPV-DNA price, the cumulative cost of surveillance was $11,674 for the standard strategy and $20,756 for the TTMV-HPV-DNA strategy (+$9082 over 5 years). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated the cost difference ranged from $4917-$12,047. The TTMV-HPV-DNA strategy was most likely to be either cost saving or cost-effective if future data demonstrate small improvements in quality or quantity of life (approximately 33 quality-adjusted life-days), if the assay reduces utilization of imaging, and if the periodicity of TTMV-HPV-DNA draws could be reduced from that on clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: This data informs providers seeking to design more accurate, accessible, and economical post-treatment surveillance strategies.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of No Adjuvant Therapy Versus Partial Breast Irradiation Alone Versus Combined Treatment for Treatment of Low-Risk DCIS: A Microsimulation.

PURPOSE: Adjuvant therapy in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ who undergo partial mastectomy remains controversial, particularly for low-risk patients (60 years or older, estrogen-positive, tumor extent < 2.5 cm, grade 1 or 2, and margins ≥ 3 mm). We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing three strategies: no adjuvant treatment after surgery, a five-fraction course of accelerated partial breast irradiation using intensity-modulated radiation therapy (accelerated partial breast irradiation [APBI]-alone), or APBI plus an aromatase inhibitor for 5 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Outcomes including local recurrence, distant metastases, and survival as well as toxicity data were modeled by a patient-level Markov microsimulation model, which were validated against trial data. Costs of treatment and possible adverse events were included from the societal perspective over a lifetime horizon, adjusted to 2019 US dollars and extracted from Medicare reimbursement data. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated based on utilities extracted from the literature. RESULTS: No adjuvant therapy was the least costly approach ($5,744), followed by APBI-alone ($11,070); combined therapy was costliest ($16,052). Adjuvant therapy resulted in slightly higher QALYs (no adjuvant, 11.320; APBI-alone, 11.343; and combination, 11.381). In the base case, no treatment was the cost-effective strategy, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $239,109/QALY for APBI-alone and $171,718/QALY for combined therapy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for combined therapy compared with APBI-alone was $131,949. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses found that no therapy was cost effective (defined as $100,000/QALY of lower) in 63% of trials, APBI-alone in 19%, and the combination in 18%. CONCLUSION: No adjuvant therapy represents the most cost-effective approach for postmenopausal women 60 years or older who receive partial mastectomy for low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of endocrine therapy alone versus partial-breast irradiation alone versus combined treatment for low-risk hormone-positive early-stage breast cancer in women aged 70 years or older.

PURPOSE: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of three strategies for the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer in women age 70 years or older: an aromatase inhibitor (AI-alone) for 5 years, a 5-fraction course of accelerated partial-breast irradiation using intensity-modulated radiation therapy (APBI-alone), or their combination. METHODS: We constructed a patient-level Markov microsimulation from the societal perspective. Effectiveness data (local recurrence, distant metastases, survival), and toxicity data were obtained from randomized trials when possible. Costs of side effects were included. Costs were adjusted to 2019 US dollars and extracted from Medicare reimbursement data. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) were calculated using utilities extracted from the literature. RESULTS: The strategy of AI-alone ($12,637) was cheaper than both APBI-alone ($13,799) and combination therapy ($18,012) in the base case. All approaches resulted in similar QALY outcomes (AI-alone 7.775; APBI-alone 7.768; combination 7.807). In the base case, AI-alone was the cost-effective strategy and dominated APBI-alone, while combined therapy was not cost-effective when compared to AI-alone ($171,451/QALY) or APBI-alone ($107,932/QALY). In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, AI-alone was cost-effective at $100,000/QALY in 50% of trials, APBI-alone in 28% and the combination in 22%. Scenario analysis demonstrated that APBI-alone was more effective than AI-alone when AI compliance was lower than 26% at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a Markov microsimulation analysis, both AI-alone and APBI-alone are appropriate options for patients 70 years or older with early breast cancer with small cost differences noted. A prospective trial comparing the approaches is warranted.

Radiation Therapy Without Hormone Therapy for Women Age 70 or Above with Low-Risk Early Breast Cancer: A Microsimulation.

PURPOSE: Hormone therapy without radiation therapy is considered appropriate for women age 70 or above with low-risk, hormone-positive breast cancer after partial mastectomy. However, some patients may prefer radiation without hormone therapy, for which there is minimal modern data. We modeled the comparative efficacy of aromatase inhibition alone without radiation versus radiation alone without hormone therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We constructed a patient-level Markov model and compared 5 years of anastrozole to a 15-fraction course of radiation without boost or anastrozole. The relative effectiveness between treatments was based on the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-21 trial, which was further adjusted such that the endocrine-alone arm matched the Cancer and Leukemia Group B 9343 and PRIME II trials. Common or severe side effects were considered. Eight survival metrics were assessed and validated against clinical trial data. The cost-efficacy of each strategy was considered using the quality-adjusted life year and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: The model's predicted outcomes matched those demonstrated by modern trials. Aromatase inhibitors were superior in preventing contralateral cancers, with a small impact on the risk of distant metastatic disease. Radiation was superior in preventing ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence with a small impact on regional failure. No clinically significant differences were seen in the other 4 oncologic endpoints. Differences in quality-adjusted life years were small, but radiation therapy was $3809 more expensive over the average lifetime. The ICER suggested anastrozole was cost-effective in 62% of probabilistic simulations. However, the ICER was unstable owing to a denominator that approached zero. CONCLUSIONS: Women age 70 or above with low-risk early breast cancer who are reluctant or unable to pursue adjuvant aromatase inhibition can safely pursue adjuvant radiation alone with limited differences in outcome and a modest increase in costs.

Clinical Factors Associated With Cost in Head and Neck Cancer: Implications for a Bundled Payment Model.

PURPOSE: To determine which factors influence cost in head and neck cancer (HNC) to inform the development of a bundled payment model (BPM). METHODS: Patients with stages 0 to IVB (by American Joint Commission on Cancer, 7th edition) HNC of various sites and histology treated definitively at a single tertiary care center during 2013 were included. Clinical variables and direct cost data were obtained, and their associations were investigated using χ2, t, Wilcoxon rank sum, and analysis of variance testing. Results were used to develop a BPM. RESULTS: One hundred fifty patients were included; 87% were white, 74% were men, 48% had oropharyngeal cancer, and 58% had stage IVA disease. Treatment consisted of surgery alone (17%), radiation alone (11%), surgery plus radiation (14%), chemoradiation (45%), and surgery plus chemoradiation (13%). On multivariable analysis, both increasing group stage and number of treatment modalities used were significantly associated with higher cost. Given that stage often dictates treatment, we developed three cost tiers that were based on overall treatment modality. Tier A, the least costly, consisted of single-modality therapy with either surgery alone or radiation alone (median cost divided by the median overall cost of treatment, 0.54; 25th to 75th percentile range, 0.29 to 1.02), followed by tier B, which consisted of bimodality therapy with either chemoradiation or surgery plus radiation (1.03; range, 0.81 to 1.35), followed by tier C, which consisted of trimodality therapy with surgery plus chemoradiation (1.43; range, 1.10 to 1.96). CONCLUSION: The number of treatment modalities required is the primary driver of cost in HNC. These data can simplify development of a comprehensive HNC BPM.

Cost and Cost-Effectiveness of Image Guided Partial Breast Irradiation in Comparison to Hypofractionated Whole Breast Irradiation.

PURPOSE: Hypofractionated whole breast irradiation (HWBI) and accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) represent two adjuvant radiation therapy options after breast-conserving surgery. We performed a cost and cost-effectiveness analysis of an external beam image guided APBI technique compared with HWBI. METHODS AND MATERIALS: HWBI was defined as 40 Gy in 15 fractions to the whole breast with or without a 10-Gy/5-fraction boost. APBI was 30 Gy in 5 fractions per Livi et al and was evaluated as both intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and stereotactic body radiation therapy. The decision analytical model measured effectiveness in quality-adjusted life years. Micro-costing was conducted to estimate the true cost of the different treatment regimens, and incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was performed. RESULTS: Based on micro-costing, the cost of HWBI was $4551 with boost and $3666 without boost, compared with $2966 for APBI. Including indirect costs, HWBI with boost cost $6160, HWBI without boost cost $4940, and APBI cost $3569. Cost savings for APBI compared with HWBI with and without boost was $1585 and $700 based on direct costs and $2591 and $1371 including indirect costs. APBI was also more effective, at 0.2300 quality-adjusted life years compared with 0.2289 for HWBI with or without boost. Thus, APBI was both less costly and more effective. Basing cost on Medicare reimbursement (IMRT) leads to APBI again dominating HWBI, but basing cost for APBI on reimbursement billed as stereotactic body radiation therapy leads to HWBI being far more cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Image guided partial breast irradiation is less costly to deliver and has slightly improved efficacy compared with HWBI, with or without a boost. IMRT APBI should be considered a standard-of-care option in appropriately selected patients based on efficacy and value.

Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab for recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer☆.

OBJECTIVE: Nivolumab is the first drug to demonstrate a survival benefit for platinum-refractory recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer. We performed a cost-utility analysis to assess the economic value of nivolumab as compared to alternative standard agents in this context. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using data from the CheckMate 141 trial, we constructed a Markov simulation model from the US payer's perspective to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab compared to physician choice of either cetuximab, methotrexate or docetaxel. Alternative strategies considered included: single-agent cetuximab, methotrexate or docetaxel, or first testing for PD-L1 to select for nivolumab. Costs were extracted from Medicare and utilities from the literature and CheckMate. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was used to evaluate parameter uncertainty. $100,000/QALY was the primary threshold for cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: When comparing nivolumab to the standard arm of CheckMate, nivolumab demonstrated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $140,672/QALY. When comparing standard therapies, methotrexate was the most cost-effective with similar results for docetaxel. Nivolumab was cost-effective compared to single-agent cetuximab (ICER $89,786/QALY). Treatment selection by PD-L1 immunohistochemistry did not markedly improve the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab. Factors likely to positively impact the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab include better baseline quality-of-life, poor tolerability of standard treatments and/or a lower cost of nivolumab. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab is preferred to single-agent cetuximab but requires a willingness-to-pay of at least $150,000/QALY to be considered cost-effective when compared to docetaxel or methotrexate. Selection by PD-L1 does not markedly improve the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab. This informs patient selection and clinical care-path development.