High-precision stereotactic irradiation for focal drug-resistant epilepsy versus standard treatment: a randomized waitlist-controlled trial (the PRECISION trial).

INTRODUCTION: The standard treatment for patients with focal drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) who are not eligible for open brain surgery is the continuation of anti-seizure medication (ASM) and neuromodulation. This treatment does not cure epilepsy but only decreases severity. The PRECISION trial offers a non-invasive, possibly curative intervention for these patients, which consist of a single stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) treatment. Previous studies have shown promising results of SRT in this patient population. Nevertheless, this intervention is not yet available and reimbursed in the Netherlands. We hypothesize that: SRT is a superior treatment option compared to palliative standard of care, for patients with focal DRE, not eligible for open surgery, resulting in a higher reduction of seizure frequency (with 50% of the patients reaching a 75% seizure frequency reduction at 2 years follow-up). METHODS: In this waitlist-controlled phase 3 clinical trial, participants are randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either receive SRT as the intervention, while the standard treatments consist of ASM continuation and neuromodulation. After 2-year follow-up, patients randomized for the standard treatment (waitlist-control group) are offered SRT. Patients aged ≥ 18 years with focal DRE and a pretreatment defined epileptogenic zone (EZ) not eligible for open surgery will be included. The intervention is a LINAC-based single fraction (24 Gy) SRT treatment. The target volume is defined as the epileptogenic zone (EZ) on all (non) invasive examinations. The seizure frequency will be monitored on a daily basis using an electronic diary and an automatic seizure detection system during the night. Potential side effects are evaluated using advanced MRI, cognitive evaluation, Common Toxicity Criteria, and patient-reported outcome questionnaires. In addition, the cost-effectiveness of the SRT treatment will be evaluated. DISCUSSION: This is the first randomized trial comparing SRT with standard of care in patients with DRE, non-eligible for open surgery. The primary objective is to determine whether SRT significantly reduces the seizure frequency 2 years after treatment. The results of this trial can influence the current clinical practice and medical cost reimbursement in the Netherlands for patients with focal DRE who are not eligible for open surgery, providing a non-invasive curative treatment option. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT05182437. Registered on September 27, 2021.

Cost-effectiveness of proton radiotherapy versus photon radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer patients: Exploring the model-based approach.

INTRODUCTION: Proton radiotherapy (PT) is a promising but more expensive strategy than photon radiotherapy (XRT) for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PT is probably not cost-effective for all patients. Therefore, patients can be selected using normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models with predefined criteria. This study aimed to explore the cost-effectiveness of three treatment strategies for patients with stage III NSCLC: 1. photon radiotherapy for all patients (XRTAll); 2. PT for all patients (PTAll); 3. PT for selected patients (PTIndividualized). METHODS: A decision-analytical model was constructed to estimate and compare costs and QALYs of all strategies. Three radiation-related toxicities were included: dyspnea, dysphagia and cardiotoxicity. Costs and QALY's were incorporated for grade 2 and ≥ 3 toxicities separately. Incremental Cost-Effectiven Ratios (ICERs) were calculated and compared to a threshold value of €80,000. Additionally, scenario, sensitivity and value of information analyses were performed. RESULTS: PTAll yielded most QALYs, but was also most expensive. XRTAll was the least effective and least expensive strategy, and the most cost-effective strategy. For thresholds higher than €163,467 per QALY gained, PTIndividualized was cost-effective. When assuming equal minutes per fraction (15 minutes) for PT and XRT, PTIndividualized was considered the most cost-effective strategy (ICER: €76,299). CONCLUSION: Currently, PT is not cost-effective for all patients, nor for patient selected on the current NTCP models used in the Dutch indication protocol. However, with improved clinical experience, personnel and treatment costs of PT can decrease over time, which potentially leads to PTIndividualized, with optimal patient selection, will becoming a cost-effective strategy.

The relative effectiveness of eribulin for advanced breast cancer treatment: a study of the southeast Netherlands advanced breast cancer registry.

Background: Eribulin provided significant overall survival (OS) benefit in heavily pretreated advanced breast cancer patients in the EMBRACE trial. We investigated the use of eribulin in daily clinical practice, the relative effectiveness of eribulin versus non-eribulin chemotherapy, and the safety of eribulin in real-world patients included in the SOutheast Netherlands Advanced BREast cancer (SONABRE) registry.Material and methods: Patients treated with eribulin and eligible patients for eribulin who received a different chemotherapy (i.e., non-eribulin group) in ten hospitals in 2013-2017 were included. A multivariate matching algorithm was applied to correct for differences in baseline characteristics between the groups, including the number of previous treatment lines. Progression-free survival (PFS) and OS of eribulin were compared with the matched non-eribulin group through Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models. The occurrence of dose delay and reduction was described.Results: Forty-five patients received eribulin according to its registration criteria and 74 patients were eligible for eribulin but received non-eribulin chemotherapy. Matching increased the similarity in baseline characteristics between the eribulin and non-eribulin groups. Median PFS was 3.5 months (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.7-5.5) in the eribulin group and 3.2 months (95% CI: 2.0-4.8) in the matched non-eribulin group (adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 0.83, 95% CI: 0.49-1.38). Median OS was 5.9 months (95% CI: 4.6-11.0) and 5.2 months (95% CI: 4.6-9.5) in the eribulin and non-eribulin groups, respectively (adjusted HR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.38-1.13). Dose delay or reduction occurred in 14 patients (31%) receiving eribulin.Conclusions: No difference in PFS and OS was observed between eribulin and non-eribulin treated patients. Eribulin had a manageable toxicity profile.

Health-related quality of life after prophylactic cranial irradiation for stage III non-small cell lung cancer patients: Results from the NVALT-11/DLCRG-02 phase III study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The NVALT-11/DLCRG-02 phase III trial (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01282437) showed that, after standard curative intent treatment, prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) decreased the incidence of symptomatic brain metastases (BM) in stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients compared to observation. In this study we assessed the impact of PCI on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). In addition, an exploratory analysis was performed to assess the impact of neurocognitive symptoms and symptomatic BM on HRQoL. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Stage III NSCLC patients were randomized between PCI and observation. HRQoL was measured using the EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D-3L), EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BN20 instruments at completion of standard curative intent treatment and 4 weeks, 3, 6, 12, 24 and 36 months thereafter. Generalized linear mixed effects (GLM) models were used to assess the impact of PCI compared to observation over time on three HRQoL metrics: the EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status and the EQ-5D-3L utility and visual analogue scale (EQ VAS) scores. RESULTS: In total, 86 and 88 patients were included in the PCI and observation arm, with a median follow-up of 48.5 months (95% CI 39-54 months). Baseline mean HRQoL scores were comparable between the PCI and observation arm for the three HRQoL metrics. In the GLM models, none of the HRQoL metrics were clinically relevant or statistically significantly different between the PCI and the observation arm (p-values ranged between 0.641 and 0.914). CONCLUSION: No statistically significant nor a clinically relevant impact of PCI on HRQoL was observed.

Effects of tailored telemonitoring on functional status and health-related quality of life in patients with heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Functional status and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) are important in patients with heart failure (HF). Little is known about the effect of telemonitoring on functional status and HRQoL in that population. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 382 patients with HF (New York Heart Association class 2-4) were included in a randomised controlled trial to investigate the effect of tailored telemonitoring on improving HRQoL and functional status in HF patients. Randomisation was computer-generated with stratification per centre. At baseline and after 12 months, patients' functional status was determined by metabolic equivalent scores (METS). HRQoL was measured with the EuroQol five dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D), visual analogue scale (VAS) and Borg rating of perceived exertion scale (Borg). Additional outcome data included number of HF-related outpatient clinic visits and mortality. Telemonitoring was statistically significantly related to an increase in METS after 1 year (regression coefficient 0.318; p = 0.01). Telemonitoring did not improve Borg, EQ-5D or VAS scores after 1 year. EQ-5D [hazard ratio (HR) 0.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07-0.54], VAS (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.96-0.99), Borg (HR 1.21, 95% CI 1.11-1.31) and METS (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.58-0.93) at baseline were significantly associated with survival after 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Tailored telemonitoring stabilised the functional status of HF patients but did not improve HRQoL. Therefore, telemonitoring may help to prevent deterioration of exercise capacity in patients with HF. However, because our study is a reanalysis of a randomised controlled trial (RCT), this is considered hypothesis-generating and should be confirmed by adequately powered RCTs.

Real-world and trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of bevacizumab in HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer patients: a study of the Southeast Netherlands Breast Cancer Consortium.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of our analysis was to assess the real-world cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab in addition to taxane treatment versus taxane monotherapy for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer compared with the cost-effectiveness based on the efficacy results from a trial. METHODS: A state transition model was built to estimate costs, life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for both treatments. Two scenarios were examined: a real-world scenario and a trial-based scenario in which transition probabilities were primarily based on a real-world cohort study and the E2100 trial, respectively. In both scenarios, costs and utility parameter estimates were extracted from the real-world cohort study. Moreover, the Dutch health care perspective was adopted. RESULTS: In both the real-world and trial scenarios, bevacizumab-taxane is more expensive (incremental costs of €56,213 and €52,750, respectively) and more effective (incremental QALYs of 0.362 and 0.189, respectively) than taxane monotherapy. In the real-world scenario, bevacizumab-taxane compared to taxane monotherapy led to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €155,261 per QALY gained. In the trial scenario, the ICER amounted to €278,711 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: According to the Dutch informal threshold, bevacizumab in addition to taxane treatment was not considered cost-effective for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer both in a real-world and in a trial scenario.

Medical specialists care and hospital costs for low back pain in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: To examine the organization of medical specialist care and hospital costs for low back pain (LBP) in the Netherlands. METHODS: Aggregated health insurance claims data were provided on all diagnosis treatment combination (DTC) declarations for LBP patients first referred to the hospital in the 2nd half of 2008 and retrieved from Vektis, an organization that collects health insurance claims data. Data were available up to 1 January 2012. The data included patient characteristics, DTC-specific information including: neurology, neurosurgery, orthopaedic surgery, anaesthesiology and radiology. RESULTS: In total 80,652 LBP patients were referred to the hospital for the first time in the second half of 2008 accumulating to a total of 173,620 DTC's with total costs of €194 million. Of these patients, 56% were female and 61% aged above 50 years at first referral to the hospital. The average number of DTC's and costs per patient were 2.15 and €2410, respectively (during the follow-up period of 3.0-3.5 year). Moreover, 51% of the patients needed only one DTC; less than 10% of patients needed 5 DTC's. Following the DTC number, the share of consultations to the neurologist decreased, whereas that of the anaesthesiology specialism increased. The largest portion of costs was allocated to the anaesthesiology and neurosurgery specialisms. CONCLUSIONS: In the Netherlands, LBP patients consult a variety of medical specialists, in particular, the neurology, hospital costs for LBP patients are expected to increase given the rising incidence. Optimal diagnosis and tailored treatment plans might result in reduced costs and improved patient outcomes. SIGNIFICANCE: Low back pain patients consult various specialists, with the majority first referred to the neurologist. More than half of the LBD patients require only one DTC and less than 10% needed five DTC's or more. The largest portion of the hospital costs for LBP patients is allocated to the anaesthesiology and neurosurgery specialisms.

Sample Size Estimation for Non-Inferiority Trials: Frequentist Approach versus Decision Theory Approach.

BACKGROUND: Non-inferiority trials are performed when the main therapeutic effect of the new therapy is expected to be not unacceptably worse than that of the standard therapy, and the new therapy is expected to have advantages over the standard therapy in costs or other (health) consequences. These advantages however are not included in the classic frequentist approach of sample size calculation for non-inferiority trials. In contrast, the decision theory approach of sample size calculation does include these factors. The objective of this study is to compare the conceptual and practical aspects of the frequentist approach and decision theory approach of sample size calculation for non-inferiority trials, thereby demonstrating that the decision theory approach is more appropriate for sample size calculation of non-inferiority trials. METHODS: The frequentist approach and decision theory approach of sample size calculation for non-inferiority trials are compared and applied to a case of a non-inferiority trial on individually tailored duration of elastic compression stocking therapy compared to two years elastic compression stocking therapy for the prevention of post thrombotic syndrome after deep vein thrombosis. RESULTS: The two approaches differ substantially in conceptual background, analytical approach, and input requirements. The sample size calculated according to the frequentist approach yielded 788 patients, using a power of 80% and a one-sided significance level of 5%. The decision theory approach indicated that the optimal sample size was 500 patients, with a net value of €92 million. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates and explains the differences between the classic frequentist approach and the decision theory approach of sample size calculation for non-inferiority trials. We argue that the decision theory approach of sample size estimation is most suitable for sample size calculation of non-inferiority trials.