Cost Minimization Analysis of Hypofractionated Radiotherapy.

Early-stage breast cancer patients comprise a large proportion of patients treated with radiotherapy in Canada. Proponents have suggested that five-fraction hypofractionated radiotherapy for these patients would result in significant cost savings. An assessment of this argument is thus warranted. The FAST-Forward and UK FAST clinical trials each demonstrated that their respective hypofractionated regimens provided equivalent outcomes compared with standard regimens. Thus, a cost-minimization analysis was performed to quantify the potential savings associated with these regimens, which were designated as FAST-Forward 1 (26 Gy/5 fractions/1 week) and FAST-Forward 2 (27 Gy/5 fractions/1 week), and UK FAST 1 (28.5 Gy/5 fractions/5 weeks) and UK FAST 2 (30 Gy/5 fractions/5 weeks). A standard regimen of 42.5 Gy/16 fractions/5 weeks was also included. A comprehensive model of radiotherapy costs for a Canadian cancer centre was created. Time, labour costs, and capital costs were calculated for each regimen and applied using established measures. The total costs per patient for the FAST-Forward trials were $851.77 for FAST-Forward 1 and $874.77 for FAST-Forward 2, providing a total savings of $487.99 and $464.99, respectively. Similarly, the total costs per patient for the FAST trials were $979.75 for UK FAST 1 and $1017.70 for UK FAST 2, providing savings of $360.01 and $322.06, respectively. Following the FAST-Forward 1 regimen results in the greatest reduction of infrastructure and human resources costs at 36.42% compared with the standard. Sensitivity analysis shows a maximum per-patient costs savings ranging from $474.60 to $508.53 for the FAST-Forward 1 trial, which translates to an annual savings of $174,700/year locally and $2.06 million/year province-wide, based on a moderate-to-large size department workload. Compared with a standard radiotherapy regimen, all FAST-Forward and UK FAST hypofractionated regimens provide cost savings for the treatment of early-stage breast cancer. The cost savings associated with each of these equivalent regimens can be directly calculated; activities in this model can easily be adjusted to account for cost variations, allowing other centres to calculate cost impacts specific to their own centres.

Assessment of precision irradiation in early non-small cell lung cancer and interstitial lung disease (ASPIRE-ILD): study protocol for a phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) has become an established treatment option for medically-inoperable early-stage (Stage I-IIA) non-small cell lung cancer (ES-NSCLC). SABR is able to obtain high rates of local control with low rates of symptomatic toxicity in this patient population. However, in a subset of patients with fibrotic interstitial lung disease (ILD), elevated rates of SABR-related toxicity and mortality have been described. The Assessment of Precision Irradiation in Early Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and Interstitial Lung Disease (ASPIRE-ILD) study will conduct a thorough prospective evaluation of the clinical outcomes, toxicity, changes in diagnostic test parameters and patient-related outcomes following SABR for ES-NSCLC for patients with fibrotic ILD. METHODS: ASPIRE-ILD is a single-arm Phase II prospective study. The accrual target is 39 adult patients with T1-2N0M0 non-small cell lung cancer with co-existing ILD who are not candidates for surgical excision. Pathological confirmation of diagnosis is strongly recommended but not strictly required. Enrolled patients will be stratified by ILD-related mortality risk. The starting SABR dose will be 50 Gy in 5 fractions every other day (biologically effective dose: 100 Gy10 or 217 Gy3), but the radiation dose can be de-escalated up to two times to 50 Gy in 10 fractions daily (75 Gy10 or 133 Gy3) and 45 Gy in 15 fractions daily (58 Gy10 or 90 Gy3). Dose de-escalation will occur if 2 or more of the first 7 patients in a cohort experiences grade 5 toxicity within 6 months of treatment. Similarly, dose de-escalation can also occur if 2 or more of the first 7 patients with a specific subtype of ILD experiences grade 5 toxicity within 6 months of treatment. The primary endpoint is overall survival. Secondary endpoints include toxicity (CTC-AE 4.0), progression-free survival, local control, patient-reported outcomes (cough severity and quality of life), rates of ILD exacerbation and changes in pulmonary function tests/high-resolution computed tomography findings post-SABR. DISCUSSION: ASPIRE-ILD will be the first prospective study specifically designed to comprehensively evaluate the effectiveness and safety of SABR for ES-NSCLC in patients with co-existing ILD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03485378. Date of registration: April 2, 2018.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy versus surgery for medically operable Stage I non-small-cell lung cancer: a Markov model-based decision analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare the quality-adjusted life expectancy and overall survival in patients with Stage I non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with either stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) or surgery. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We constructed a Markov model to describe health states after either SBRT or lobectomy for Stage I NSCLC for a 5-year time frame. We report various treatment strategy survival outcomes stratified by age, sex, and pack-year history of smoking, and compared these with an external outcome prediction tool (Adjuvant! Online). RESULTS: Overall survival, cancer-specific survival, and other causes of death as predicted by our model correlated closely with those predicted by the external prediction tool. Overall survival at 5 years as predicted by baseline analysis of our model is in favor of surgery, with a benefit ranging from 2.2% to 3.0% for all cohorts. Mean quality-adjusted life expectancy ranged from 3.28 to 3.78 years after surgery and from 3.35 to 3.87 years for SBRT. The utility threshold for preferring SBRT over surgery was 0.90. Outcomes were sensitive to quality of life, the proportion of local and regional recurrences treated with standard vs. palliative treatments, and the surgery- and SBRT-related mortalities. CONCLUSIONS: The role of SBRT in the medically operable patient is yet to be defined. Our model indicates that SBRT may offer comparable overall survival and quality-adjusted life expectancy as compared with surgical resection. Well-powered prospective studies comparing surgery vs. SBRT in early-stage lung cancer are warranted to further investigate the relative survival, quality of life, and cost characteristics of both treatment paradigms.