Factors associated with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) treatment patterns and patient-reported outcomes across a large integrated health network.

PURPOSE: To examine associations between ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) patients' characteristics, treating locations and DCIS treatments received and to pilot assessing quality-of-life (QoL) values among DCIS patients with diverse backgrounds. METHODS: We performed a retrospective tumor registry review of all patients diagnosed and treated with DCIS from 2018 to 2019 in the UPMC-integrated network throughout central and western Pennsylvania. Demographics, clinical information, and administered treatments were compiled from tumor registry records. We categorized contextual factors such as different hospital setting (academic vs. community), socioeconomic status based on the neighborhood deprivation index (NDI) as well as age and race. QoL survey was administered to DCIS patients with diverse backgrounds via QoL questionnaire breast cancer module 23 and qualitative assessment questions. RESULTS: A total of 912 patients were reviewed. There were no treatment differences noted for age, race, or NDI. Mastectomy rate was higher in academic sites than community sites (29 vs. 20.4%; p = 0.0045), while hormone therapy (HT) utilization rate was higher in community sites (74 vs. 62%; p = 0.0012). QoL survey response rate was 32%. Only HT side effects negatively affected in QoL scores and there was no significant difference in QoL domains and decision-making process between races, age, NDI, treatment groups, and treatment locations. CONCLUSION: Our integrated health network did not show chronically noted disparities arising from social determinates of health for DCIS treatments by implementing clinical pathways and system-wide peer review. Also, we demonstrated feasibility in collecting QoL for DCIS women with diverse backgrounds and different socioeconomic statuses.

Is Radiation Therapy Cost-Effective in the Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Era for Early-Stage Favorable Hodgkin Lymphoma With Alternative Payment Models?

PURPOSE: Despite multiple randomized trials, variation in practice remains regarding the most effective treatment for early-stage, favorable-risk Hodgkin lymphoma. With increasing emphasis on alternative payment models, we investigate the cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy alone versus combined modality therapy (CMT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A Markov model was formed to compared 2 cycles of adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) to 2 cycles of ABVD followed by 20 Gy in 10 fractions involved-site radiation therapy. Modalities were compared using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, with effectiveness measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and evaluated with a willingness to pay a threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained. RESULTS: The base case analysis showed that CMT is cost-effective compared with ABVD alone, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $8028 per QALY gained and an incremental cost of $236 gaining 0.029 QALYs. On sensitivity analyses, the results were the most sensitive to changes in recurrence rates. If the recurrence rate differences were ≥6%, CMT was cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: CMT is a cost-effective strategy for early-stage, favorable-risk Hodgkin lymphoma based on currently available evidence. However, small variations in recurrence-rate estimates dramatically affect strategy cost-effectiveness.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Upfront SBRT for Oligometastatic Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Based on Mutational Status.

OBJECTIVES: Current National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines support systemic therapy based on mutational status in stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) reserved for oligoprogression. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the routine addition of SBRT to upfront therapy in stage IV NSCLC by mutational subgroup. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov state transition model was constructed to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing SBRT plus maintenance therapy with maintenance therapy alone for oligometastatic NSCLC. Three hypothetical cohorts were analyzed: epidermal growth factor receptor or anaplastic lymphoma kinase mutation-positive, programmed death ligand-1 expressing, and mutation-negative group. Clinical parameters were obtained largely from clinical trial data, and cost data were based on 2018 Medicare reimbursement. Strategies were compared using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio with effectiveness in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and evaluated with a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained. RESULTS: SBRT plus maintenance therapy was not cost-effective at a $100,000/QALY gained threshold, assuming the same survival for both treatments, resulting in an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of $564,186 and $299,248 per QALY gained for the epidermal growth factor receptor or anaplastic lymphoma kinase positive and programmed death ligand-1 positive cohorts, respectively. Results were most sensitive to the cost of maintenance therapy. A large overall survival gain with SBRT could potentially result in upfront SBRT becoming cost-effective. For the mutation-negative cohort, upfront SBRT was nearly cost-effective, costing $128,424 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: Adding SBRT to maintenance therapy is not a cost-effective strategy for oligometastatic NSCLC compared with maintenance therapy alone for mutation-positive groups. However, this should be validated via randomized trials.