Radiotherapy Deserts: The Impact of Race, Poverty, and the Rural-Urban Continuum on Density of Providers and the Use of Radiation Therapy in the US.

PURPOSE: Prior efforts to characterize disparities in radiation therapy access and receipt have not comprehensively investigated interplay between race, socioeconomic status, and geography relative to oncologic outcomes. This study sought to define these complex relationships at the US county level for prostate cancer (PC) and invasive breast (BC) cancer to build a tool that facilitates identification of "radiotherapy deserts"-regions with mismatch between radiation therapy resources and oncologic need. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An ecologic study model was constructed using national databases to evaluate 3,141 US counties. Radiation therapy resources and use densities were operationalized as physicians to persons at risk (PPR) and use to persons at risk (UPR): the number of attending radiation oncologists and Medicare beneficiaries per 100,000 persons at risk, respectively. Oncologic need was defined by "hot zone" counties with ≥2 standard deviations (SDs) above mean incidence and death rates. Univariable and multivariable logistic regressions examined links between PPR and UPR densities, epidemiologic variables, and hot zones for oncologic outcomes. Statistics are reported at a significance level of P < .05. RESULTS: The mean (SD) PPR and UPR densities were 2.1 (5.9) and 192.6 (557.6) for PC and 1.9 (5.3) and 174.4 (501.0) for BC, respectively. Counties with high PPR and UPR densities were predominately metropolitan (odds ratio [OR], 2.9-4.4), generally with a higher percentage of Black non-Hispanic constituents (OR, 1.5-2.3). Incidence and death rate hot zones were largely nonmetropolitan (OR, 0.3-0.6), generally with a higher percentage of Black non-Hispanic constituents (OR, 3.2-6.3). Lower PPR density was associated with death rate hot zones for both types of cancer (OR, 0.8-0.9); UPR density was generally not linked to oncologic outcomes on multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The study found that mismatch between oncologic need with PPR and UPR disproportionately affects nonmetropolitan communities with a higher percentage of Black non-Hispanic constituents. An interactive web platform (bit.ly/densitymaps) was developed to visualize "radiotherapy deserts" and drive targeted investigation of underlying barriers to care in areas of highest need, with the goal of reducing health inequities in this context.

Treatment patterns and economic burden among newly diagnosed cervical and endometrial cancer patients.

Aim: This study evaluated treatment patterns, healthcare resource use and healthcare costs among newly diagnosed US patients with cervical or endometrial cancer. Materials & methods: The authors identified patients diagnosed between 2015 and 2018, described them by line of therapy (LOT), then summarized all-cause per patient per month healthcare resource use and healthcare costs per LOT. Results: Among 1004 patients with cervical cancer and 2006 patients with endometrial cancer, 65.2 and 71.4%, respectively, received at least LOT1. Common treatment modalities in LOT1 were surgery (cervical, 58.0%; endometrial, 92.6%), radiation therapy (cervical, 49.8%; 24.7%) and systemic therapy (cervical, 53.3%; endometrial, 26.1%). Mean per patient per month costs per LOT were pre-treatment (cervical, US$17,210; endometrial, US$14,601), LOT1 (cervical, US$10,929; endometrial, US$6859), LOT2 (cervical, US$15,183; endometrial, US$10,649) and LOT3+ (cervical, US$19,681; endometrial, US$9206). Conclusion: Overall, newly diagnosed patients with cervical or endometrial cancer received guideline-recommended treatment. Outpatient visits mainly drove healthcare costs across LOTs.

Changes in treatment pattern and costs in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

INTRODUCTION: While essential for cost-effectiveness analyses, there are no current resource use and cost data available for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT). The study aims to assess current resource use and costs in HCC and for SIRT compared to historical survey data. AREAS COVERED: To address this data gap, resource use was elicited via surveys and interviews with medical professionals experienced with HCC and SIRT in the United Kingdom. Unit costs were from publicly available databases. Resource use and costs were estimated and compared to prior surveys. EXPERT OPINION: From eleven responses, pre-progression costs for SIRT and systemic therapy were £256.77 and £292.27/month, respectively. One-off progression and post-progression costs were £209.98 and £522.84/month. Monthly costs were 54%-79% lower than in previous surveys, due to reduction in hospitalizations and funded social care. Furthermore, substantial differences in resource use associated with SIRT between clinical practice and clinical trials were found. In conclusion, increased availability and familiarity with systemic treatments has led to important changes in HCC care and SIRT administration. The uncertainty from the use of expert opinion and the limited number of hospitals with SIRT experience can be addressed with future research using large databases, registries.

The Cost of Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer in Thailand: an Empirical Study for Economic Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate cost of illness of locally advanced cervical cancer patients from societal perspective in three scenarios including completely cured without severe late side effects (S1), completely cured with late grade 3-4 gastrointestinal side effects (S2.1) or genitourinary side effects (S2.2), and disease recurrence and death (S3). METHODS:  The incidence-based approach was conducted. The cost was calculated for 5-year time horizon starting for the treatment initiation. Direct medical costs were extracted from hospital database. Cost of using two-dimensional technique and three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy were calculated separately. Direct non-medical costs and indirect costs in terms of productivity loss were based on actual expenses from the interview of 194 locally advanced cervical cancer patients from two tertiary hospitals in Bangkok, during June to December 2019. All costs were converted to US dollar in 2019 values. RESULTS: For 5 years, cost of illness per patient for using two-dimensional technique and three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy were US $8,391 and US $10,418 for S1, US $18,018 and US $20,045 for S2.1, US $17,908 and US $19,936 for S2.2, and US $61,076 and US $63,103 for S3, respectively. The economic burden for newly diagnosed locally advanced cervical cancer patients in Thailand in 2018 was approximately US $129 million and US $131 million for using two-dimensional technique and three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy, respectively. Cost from S3 accounted for 70% of all total cost. Premature death was the most important cost driver of cost of illness accounted for 64 % of the total cost estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Cost of illness of locally advanced cervical cancer patients produced significant economic burden from societal perspective. Disease recurrence and early death from cancer was the most influential cause of this burden.

Practical considerations for prostate hypofractionation in the developing world.

External beam radiotherapy is an effective curative treatment option for localized prostate cancer, the most common cancer in men worldwide. However, conventionally fractionated courses of curative external beam radiotherapy are usually 8-9 weeks long, resulting in a substantial burden to patients and the health-care system. This problem is exacerbated in low-income and middle-income countries where health-care resources might be scarce and patient funds limited. Trials have shown a clinical equipoise between hypofractionated schedules of radiotherapy and conventionally fractionated treatments, with the advantage of drastically shortening treatment durations with the use of hypofractionation. The hypofractionated schedules are supported by modern consensus guidelines for implementation in clinical practice. Furthermore, several economic evaluations have shown improved cost effectiveness of hypofractionated therapy compared with conventional schedules. However, these techniques demand complex infrastructure and advanced personnel training. Thus, a number of practical considerations must be borne in mind when implementing hypofractionation in low-income and middle-income countries, but the potential gain in the treatment of this patient population is substantial.

The Use of Crowdfunding to Support Radiation Therapy Cancer Treatments.

BACKGROUND/AIM: The purpose of this study was to assess patients' use of a crowdfunding platform to raise funds for radiation treatment and to better understand the direct and indirect costs associated with treatments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The GoFundMe crowdfunding database was queried for four unique categories related to radiation treatment campaigns. Covariates identified included clinical and demographic variables, and associations between amount raised and these predictors were analyzed using a generalized linear model. RESULTS: While 56% percent of campaigns cited direct costs associated with treatment, 73.4% of campaigns cited indirect costs related to treatment. Indirect expenses related to travel (31.7%) as well as living expenses (29.2%) were cited most often across all four treatment categories. CONCLUSION: This study enhances understanding regarding patients use of crowdfunding for radiation treatment. Increased focus should be placed on discussing the indirect costs of care with patients and their families.

The Association between Income Status and Treatment Selection for Prostate Cancer in a Universal Health Care System: A Population-Based Analysis.

PURPOSE: Treatment selection for localized prostate cancer is guided by risk stratification and patient preferences. While socioeconomic status (SES) disparities exist for access to care, less is known about the effect of SES on treatment decision-making. We sought to evaluate whether income status was associated with the treatment selected (radical prostatectomy [RP] vs radiation therapy [RT]) for nonmetastatic prostate cancer in a universal health care system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All men from Manitoba, Canada who were diagnosed with nonmetastatic prostate cancer between 2005 and 2016 and subsequently treated with RP or RT were identified using a provincial cancer database. SES was defined as neighborhood income by postal code and divided into income quintiles (Q1-Q5, with Q1 the lowest quintile and Q5 the highest). Multivariable logistic regression nested models were used to compare whether SES was associated with treatment type received. RESULTS: We identified 3,966 individuals who were diagnosed with nonmetastatic prostate cancer and were treated with RP (2,354) or RT (1,612). After adjusting for demographic and clinicopathological characteristics, as income quintile increased, men were incrementally more likely to undergo RP than RT (range Q2 vs Q1: adjusted OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.01-1.93; Q5 vs Q1: adjusted OR 2.30, 95% CI 1.70-3.12). CONCLUSIONS: As income levels increased there was a stepwise incremental increase in the odds of receiving RP over RT for localized prostate cancer. These results may inform initiatives to better understand the values, priorities and barriers that patients experience when making treatment decisions in a universal health care system.

Cost-effectiveness of Prostate Radiation Therapy for Men With Newly Diagnosed Low-Burden Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

Importance: Prostate radiation therapy (PRT) is a treatment option in men with low-volume metastatic prostate cancer based on the results of the Systemic Therapy in Advancing or Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Evaluation of Drug Efficacy Arm H (STAMPEDE-H) trial. However, the cost-effectiveness of this treatment remains unaddressed. Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of PRT when added to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for men with low-volume metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation used microsimulation modeling to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding PRT to ADT. A simulated cohort of 10 000 individuals with low-volume mHSPC was created. Data from men with low-volume mHSPC were extracted and analyzed from January 18, 2019, through July 4, 2020. Transition probabilities were extracted from the STAMPEDE-H study. Health states included stable disease, progression, second progression, and death. Individual grade 2 or higher genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxic events associated with PRT were tracked. Univariable deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses explored uncertainty with regard to the model assumptions. Health state utility estimates were based on the published literature. Exposures: The combination of PRT and ADT using regimens of 20 fractions and 6 weekly fractions. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included net quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs in US dollars, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. A strategy was classified as dominant if it was associated with higher QALYs at lower costs than the alternative and dominated if it was associated with fewer QALYs at higher costs than the alternative. Results: For the base case scenario of men 68 years of age with low-volume mHSPC, the modeled outcomes were similar to the target clinical data for overall survival, failure-free survival, and rates of PRT-related toxic effects. The addition of PRT was a dominant strategy compared with ADT alone, with a gain of 0.16 QALYs (95% CI, 0.15-0.17 QALYs) and a reduction in net costs by $19 472 (95% CI, $23 096-$37 362) at 37 months of follow-up and a gain of 0.81 QALYs (95% CI, 0.73-0.89 QALYs) and savings of $30 229 (95% CI, $23 096-$37 362) with lifetime follow-up. Conclusions and Relevance: In the economic evaluation, PRT was a dominant treatment strategy compared with ADT alone. These findings suggest that addition of PRT to ADT is a cost-effective treatment for men with low-volume mHSPC.

The challenge of sustainability in healthcare systems: cost of radiotherapy in the last month of life in an Italian cancer center.

PURPOSE: Cost evaluation is becoming mandatory to support healthcare sustainability and optimize the decision-making process. This topic is a challenge, especially for complex and rapidly evolving treatment modalities such as radiotherapy (RT). The aim of the present study was to investigate the cost of RT in the last month of life of patients in an Italian cancer center. METHODS: This was a retrospective study on a cancer population (N= 160) who underwent RT or only an RT planning simulation in an end of life (EOL) setting. The cost of RT procedures performed on patients was collected according to treatment status, care setting, and RT technique used. Costs were valued according to the sum of reimbursements relating to all procedures performed and assessed from the perspective of the National Health System. RESULTS: The total cost of RT in the last month of life was €244,774, with an average cost per patient of €1530. Around 7.7% and 30.3% of the total cost was associated with patients who never started RT or who discontinued RT, respectively, while the remaining 62.0% referred to patients who completed treatment. Costs associated with outpatient and inpatient settings represented 54.3% and 38.6% of the total cost, respectively. The higher average cost per patient for the never-started and discontinued groups was correlated with patients who had a poor ECOG Performance Status. CONCLUSION: Improved prognostic accuracy and a better integration between radiotherapy and palliative care units could be a key to a better use of resources and to a reduction in the cost of EOL RT.

Active Surveillance for Men with Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Optimal treatment of intermediate risk prostate cancer remains unclear. National Comprehensive Cancer Network® guidelines recommend active surveillance, prostatectomy or radiotherapy. Recent trials demonstrated no difference in prostate cancer specific mortality for men undergoing active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer compared to prostatectomy or radiotherapy. The use of active surveillance for intermediate risk prostate cancer is less clear. In this study we characterize U.S. national trends for demographic, clinical and socioeconomic factors associated with active surveillance for men with intermediate risk prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study examined 176,122 men diagnosed with intermediate risk prostate cancer from 2010 to 2016 in the National Cancer Database. Temporal trends in demographic, clinical and socioeconomic factors among men with intermediate risk prostate cancer and association with the use of active surveillance were characterized. The analysis was performed in April 2020. RESULTS: In total, 176,122 men were identified with intermediate risk prostate cancer from 2010 to 2016. Of these men 57.3% underwent prostatectomy, 36.4% underwent radiotherapy and 3.2% underwent active surveillance. Active surveillance nearly tripled from 1.6% in 2010 to 4.6% in 2016 (p <0.001). On multivariate analysis use of active surveillance was associated with older age, diagnosis in recent years, lower Gleason score and tumor stage, type of insurance, treatment at an academic center and proximity to facility, and attaining higher education (p <0.05). Race and comorbidities were not associated with active surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight increasing active surveillance use for men with intermediate risk prostate cancer demonstrating clinical and socioeconomic disparities. Prospective data and improved risk stratification are needed to guide optimal treatment for men with intermediate risk prostate cancer.

Cost-utility analysis of four common surgical treatment pathways for breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to evaluate the cost-utility of four common surgical treatment pathways for breast cancer: mastectomy, breast-conserving therapy (BCT), implant breast reconstruction (BR) and autologous-BR. METHODS: Patient-level healthcare consumption data and results of a large quality of life (QoL) study from five Dutch hospitals were combined. The cost-effectiveness was assessed in terms of incremental costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) over a 10-year follow-up period. Costs were assessed from a healthcare provider perspective. RESULTS: BCT resulted in comparable QoL with lower costs compared to implant-BR and autologous-BR and showed better QoL with higher costs than mastectomy (€17,246/QALY). QoL outcomes and costs of especially autologous-BR were affected by the relatively high occurrence of complications. If reconstruction following mastectomy was performed, implant-BR was more cost-effective than autologous-BR. CONCLUSION: The occurrence of complications had a substantial effect on costs and QoL outcomes of different surgical pathways for breast cancer. When this was taken into account, BCT was most the cost-effective treatment. Even with higher costs and a higher risk of complications, implant-BR and autologous-BR remained cost-effective over mastectomy. This pleas for adapting surgical pathways to individual patient preferences in the trade-off between the risks of complications and expected outcomes.

Comparative cost analysis between definitive radiotherapy and transoral surgery for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma: A SEER-Medicare analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Primary radiotherapy (RT) and transoral surgery (TOS) are effective local therapy treatments for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC), but their cost profiles differ. We compared the one-year costs of these competing treatments using a large claims-based database. METHODS: Eligible individuals were patients in the SEER-Medicare registry diagnosed with OPSCC between 2000 and 2011. Patients were categorized as receiving either primary RT +/- chemotherapy, or TOS +/- adjuvant RT or chemoradiotherapy (CRT), and all treatment costs from 1 month prior to diagnosis to 1 year after diagnosis were calculated. Univariable and multivariable linear regression models were used to determine predictors of payer expenditure. Patient-borne pharmacy costs were also analyzed. RESULTS: The cohort included 3497 patients (73% RT, 27% TOS), of whom 73% were locally advanced. The mean total 13 month costs for RT alone, CRT, TOS alone, TOS + RT and TOS + CRT were $39,083, $63,537, $25,468, $36,592, and $99,919, respectively, for early-stage patients. For locally advanced individuals, the mean costs were $45,049, $68,099, $40,626, $53,729, and $71,397, respectively. On multivariable analysis, the adjusted increase in total costs versus RT alone were $21,844, -$5431, $7984, and $28,581 for CRT, TOS alone, TOS + RT, and TOS + CRT, respectively. The difference between CRT and TOS + RT became non-significant for TOS patients undergoing transoral surgery plus neck dissection. Cisplatin was associated with significant less cost than cetuximab and taxane-based chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: In this population of elderly patients, transoral surgery was generally associated with less expensive treatment, with the addition of chemotherapy serving as the main driver of increased cost.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Biological Signature DCISionRT Use for DCIS Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Currently it remains difficult to identify patients most likely to benefit from radiotherapy (RT) for ductal carcinoma-in-situ (DCIS), thus leading to wide variation in practice patterns. The genomic risk assessment tool DCISionRT (PreludeDX) has been validated to prognosticate recurrence risk and predict RT benefit. We aimed to study the cost-effectiveness analysis comparing DCIS treatments based on DCISionRT testing to traditional clinicopathologic risk factors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A Markov state transition model was constructed to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing breast-conserving surgery with or without RT using DCISionRT testing vs. traditional clinicopathologic risk factors. Clinical parameters were obtained from clinical trial data and cross-validation studies. Cost data were based on 2019 Medicare reimbursement. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained comparing DCIS treatments using DCISionRT testing to traditional clinicopathologic risk factors and evaluated with a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$100,000 per QALY gained. To account for uncertainty, 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Base case analysis showed that DCIS management using DCISionRT testing was a cost-effective strategy, resulting in an ICER of $74,331 per QALY gained compared to clinicopathology-based treatment. Model results were sensitive to a variation of the proportion of genomic-high, low-risk patients receiving RT in DCISionRT testing strategy, and changes in DCISionRT testing cost. CONCLUSION: DCISionRT testing could potentially be a cost-effective strategy compared to traditional decision making for DCIS treatments, optimizing RT benefit based on an accurate recurrence risk assessment.

Selective internal radiation therapies for unresectable early-, intermediate- or advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma: systematic review, network meta-analysis and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma is the most common type of primary liver cancer. Treatment choice is dependent on underlying liver dysfunction and cancer stage. Treatment options include conventional transarterial therapies for patients with intermediate-stage disease and systemic therapy [e.g. sorafenib (Nexavar®; Bayer plc, Leverkusen, Germany)] for patients with advanced-stage disease. Selective internal radiation therapies deliver radiation to liver tumours via microspheres that are injected into the hepatic artery. There are three selective internal radiation therapies: TheraSphere™ [BTG Ltd, London, UK (now Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA)], SIR-Spheres® (Sirtex Medical Ltd, Woburn, MA, USA) and QuiremSpheres® (Quirem Medical BV, Deventer, the Netherlands). OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of selective internal radiation therapies for treating patients with unresectable early-, intermediate- or advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: A search was undertaken to identify clinical effectiveness literature relating to selective internal radiation therapies and relevant comparators for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Studies were critically appraised and summarised. The network of evidence was mapped to estimate the relative effectiveness of the different selective internal radiation therapies and comparator treatments. An economic analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Twenty studies were included in the clinical effectiveness review. Two large randomised controlled trials rated as having a low risk of bias [SARAH: Vilgrain V, Pereira H, Assenat E, Guiu B, Ilonca AD, Pageaux GP, et al. Efficacy and safety of selective internal radiotherapy with yttrium-90 resin microspheres compared with sorafenib in locally advanced and inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma (SARAH): an open-label randomised controlled Phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2017;18:1624-36; and SIRveNIB: Chow PKH, Gandhi M, Tan SB, Khin MW, Khasbazar A, Ong J, et al. SIRveNIB: selective internal radiation therapy versus sorafenib in Asia-Pacific patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2018;36:1913-21] found no significant difference in overall survival or progression-free survival between SIR-Spheres and sorafenib (systemic therapy) in an advanced population, despite greater tumour response in the SIR-Spheres arm of both trials. There were some concerns regarding generalisability of the SARAH and SIRveNIB trials to UK practice. All other studies of SIR-Spheres, TheraSphere or QuiremSpheres were either rated as being at a high risk of bias or caused some concerns regarding bias. A network meta-analysis was conducted in adults with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma who had Child-Pugh class A liver cirrhosis and were ineligible for conventional transarterial therapies. The analysis included the SARAH and SIRveNIB trials as well as a trial comparing lenvatinib (Kisplyx®; Eisai Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) (systemic therapy) with sorafenib. There were no meaningful differences in overall survival between any of the treatments. The base-case economic analysis suggested that TheraSphere may be cost-saving relative to both SIR-Spheres and QuiremSpheres. However, incremental cost differences between TheraSphere and SIR-Spheres were small. In a fully incremental analysis, which included confidential Patient Access Scheme discounts, lenvatinib was the most cost-effective treatment and dominated all selective internal radiation therapies. In pairwise comparisons of sorafenib with each selective internal radiation therapy, sorafenib also dominated all selective internal radiation therapies. LIMITATIONS: The existing evidence cannot provide decision-makers with clear guidance on the comparative effectiveness of treatments in early- and intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma or on the efficacy of TheraSphere or QuiremSpheres. CONCLUSIONS: In the advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma population, two large randomised trials have shown that SIR-Spheres have similar clinical effectiveness to sorafenib. None of the selective internal radiation therapies was cost-effective, being more costly and less effective than lenvatinib, both at list price and with Patient Access Scheme discounts. FUTURE WORK: Future studies may wish to include early- and intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma patients and the low tumour burden/albumin-bilirubin 1 subgroup of advanced-stage patients. Future high-quality studies evaluating alternative selective internal radiation therapies would be beneficial. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019128383. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 48. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Hepatocellular carcinoma is the most common type of liver cancer. The choice of treatment depends on the extent of the cancer and liver function. Selective internal radiation therapies deliver radiation directly to liver tumours via tiny beads injected into the main blood vessel into the liver. There are three selective internal radiation therapies: TheraSphere™ [BTG Ltd, London, UK (now Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA)], SIR-Spheres^® (Sirtex Medical Ltd, Woburn, MA, USA) and QuiremSpheres^® (Quirem Medical BV, Deventer, the Netherlands). Our aim was to assess the clinical effectiveness of selective internal radiation therapies for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma that is not treatable by surgery, and to assess whether or not these therapies represent good value for money. There was no meaningful difference between SIR-Spheres and sorafenib (Nexavar^®; Bayer plc, Leverkusen, Germany), which is a cancer drug for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Studies of other selective internal radiation therapies and studies in patients with less advanced disease were generally of poor quality, so their results may not be reliable. We could not assess whether or not selective internal radiation therapies are beneficial to patients with early- or intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma, or whether or not TheraSphere and QuiremSpheres are beneficial. Compared with sorafenib or lenvatinib (Kisplyx^®; Eisai Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) (another systemic cancer drug), none of the selective internal radiation therapies were good value for money for treating patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. We found that TheraSphere might be cheaper than SIR-Spheres and QuiremSpheres, but differences between TheraSphere and SIR-Spheres were small. There was not enough evidence for patients with early or intermediate disease to say whether or not selective internal radiation therapy is good value for treating these patients. Future studies in these populations, alongside any studies comparing the selective internal radiation therapies against each other, would be helpful.

Understanding American Indian Perceptions Toward Radiation Therapy.

Many American Indian (AI) and Alaska native (AN) patients do not complete guideline-concordant cancer care for the 4 most common cancers. Our aim was to better understand AI/AN attitudes toward radiation therapy (RT). Patients eligible for this survey study were AI/AN patients with cancer at the Phoenix Indian Medical Center who either received previous RT or were recommended to receive RT. An 18-item questionnaire was administered to each of the 50 participants from October 1, 2018, through February 15, 2019. Willingness to travel for RT was compared to respondent characteristics, concerns regarding RT, and obstacles to obtain RT. Duration of RT was important to 78% of patients: 24% would consider traveling 25 miles or more for a standard course, and 48% would travel that distance for a shorter course (P < .001). The top-ranked barriers to RT were transportation, cost of treatment, and insurance compatibility. The top-ranked concerns about RT were adverse effects, cost of treatment, and fear of RT. Concerns about adverse effects were associated with the radiation team's inability to explain the treatment (P = .05). Transportation concerns were significantly associated with accessibility (P = .02), communication with the RT team (P = .02), and fear of RT (P = .04). AI/AN patients are concerned about the adverse effects of RT and the logistics of treatment, particularly costs, transportation, and insurance compatibility. Use of culturally specific education and hypofractionation regimens may increase acceptance of RT for AI/AN patients with cancer, and this hypothesis will be tested in a future educational intervention-based study.

Evaluating reimbursement of skin radiation therapy: Technique and fractionation.

PURPOSE: Multiple skin radiation therapy techniques exist including electron beam therapy, high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy, superficial/orthovoltage, and electronic brachytherapy (EB). The purpose of this analysis was to compare reimbursement between these modalities by fractionation regimen. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Reimbursement was derived from the 2020 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule by fractionation schedule or from the 2020 Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment national benchmarks. A secondary analysis evaluating incorporation of daily simulation codes was also performed to factor in coding heterogeneity. RESULTS: Superficial/orthovoltage was the least costly and EB the next least costly technique regardless of fractionation. When incorporating variations in coding of simulations, reimbursement with superficial/orthovoltage was still least costly, with a reduction in cost of $1,755, $2,715, $5,076, and $7,436 compared with HDR brachytherapy for 6, 10, 20, and 30 fractions, respectively, and a reduction in cost of $1,325, $2,170, $4,281, and $6,392 compared with EB. HDR brachytherapy and EB costs can increase by 63-110% based on nonrecommended variation in daily simulation billing, with superficial/orthovoltage experiencing the highest relative increase. Reimbursement per course can vary by a factor of 4.5-9.3x depending on the modality and fractionation scheme utilized. CONCLUSIONS: Superficial/orthovoltage followed by EB were the least costly modalities with regard to reimbursement; however, costs can vary with frequency of simulation code billing. Consistency and standardization in skin radiation therapy reimbursement is needed, and case rates within a radiation oncology alternative payment model may help to minimize reimbursement heterogeneity among treatment options.

Cost Effectiveness of External Beam Radiation Therapy versus Percutaneous Image-Guided Cryoablation for Palliation of Uncomplicated Bone Metastases.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of incorporating cryoablation in the treatment regimens for uncomplicated bone metastases using radiation therapy (RT) in single-fraction RT (SFRT) or multiple-fraction RT (MFRT) regimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov model was constructed using 1-month cycles over a lifetime horizon to compare the cost effectiveness of multiple strategies, including RT followed by RT (RT-RT) for recurrent pain, RT followed by cryoablation (RT-ablation), and cryoablation followed by RT (ablation-RT). RT-RT consisted of 8 Gy in 1 fraction/8 Gy in 1 fraction (SFRT-SFRT) and 30 Gy in 10 fractions/20 Gy in 5 fractions (MFRT-MFRT). Probabilities and utilities were extracted from a search of the medical literature. Costs were calculated from a payer perspective using 2017 Medicare reimbursement in an outpatient setting. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated using strategies evaluated for willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). To account for model uncertainty, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, SFRT-ablation was cost effective relative to SFRT-SFRT at $96,387/QALY. MFRT-ablation was cost effective relative to MFRT-MFRT at $85,576/QALY. Ablation-SFRT and ablation-MFRT were not cost effective with ICERs >$100,000/QALY. In one-way sensitivity analyses, results were highly sensitive to variation in multiple model parameters, including median survival (base: 9 months), with SFRT-SFRT favored at median survival ≤8.7 months. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis examining SFRT-based regimens showed that SFRT-ablation was preferred in 36.9% of simulations at WTP of $100,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Cryoablation is a potentially cost-effective alternative to reirradiation with RT for recurrent of pain following RT; however, no strategy incorporating initial cryoablation was cost effective.

Freeze-dried microspheres for selective intra-arterial radionuclide therapy: an affordable solution.

OBJECTIVE: Selective intra-arterial radionuclide therapy (SIRT) using radiolabelled microspheres is for the delivery of therapeutic radioisotope to liver cancers and thus, sparing healthy liver. Several radiolabelled microspheres are commercially available. The main issue associated with these microspheres is affordability. Re-188 is a generator produced radionuclide, emits high energy therapeutic beta particle and imageable gamma photons for pre- and post-therapy dosimetry. METHODS: Tc-99m/Re-188 labelled microspheres have been developed and quality control tests have been performed for suitable clinical use. The clinical studies with Re-188 microspheres for SIRT have been performed. Post-therapy images were acquired for dosimetry. RESULTS: The microspheres were found to possess spherical morphology of less than 20 µm size. The quality control revealed the suitability of microspheres for intravenous administration. The preliminary studies in thirty patients demonstrated good retention in tumor and high tumor to normal liver ratio. Re-188 microspheres were well tolerated by patients. Same microspheres labelled with either Tc-99m or Re-188 were used for pretherapy dosimetry and Re-188 labeled microspheres for therapy (SIRT) as a single-day procedure. CONCLUSION: The freeze-dried microspheres may emerge as highly cost-effective candidates for both pre-therapy dosimetry and SIRT and may benefit a large population with inoperable liver cancer.