Methodological Comparison of Mapping the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite to EuroQoL-5D-3L Using Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Data: Secondary Analysis of NRG/RTOG 0415.

PURPOSE: To compare the predictive ability of mapping algorithms derived using cross-sectional and longitudinal data. METHODS: This methodological assessment used data from a randomized controlled noninferiority trial of patients with low-risk prostate cancer, conducted by NRG Oncology (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00331773), which examined the efficacy of conventional schedule versus hypofractionated radiation therapy (three-dimensional conformal external beam radiation therapy/IMRT). Health-related quality-of-life data were collected using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), and health utilities were obtained using EuroQOL-5D-3L (EQ-5D) at baseline and 6, 12, 24, and 60 months postintervention. Mapping algorithms were estimated using ordinary least squares regression models through five-fold cross-validation in baseline cross-sectional data and combined longitudinal data from all assessment periods; random effects specifications were also estimated in longitudinal data. Predictive performance was compared using root mean square error. Longitudinal predictive ability of models obtained using baseline data was examined using mean absolute differences in the reported and predicted utilities. RESULTS: A total of 267 (and 199) patients in the estimation sample had complete EQ-5D and EPIC domain (and subdomain) data at baseline and at all subsequent assessments. Ordinary least squares models using combined data showed better predictive ability (lowest root mean square error) in the validation phase for algorithms with EPIC domain/subdomain data alone, whereas models using baseline data outperformed other specifications in the validation phase when patient covariates were also modeled. The mean absolute differences were lower for models using EPIC subdomain data compared with EPIC domain data and generally decreased as the time of assessment increased. CONCLUSION: Overall, mapping algorithms obtained using baseline cross-sectional data showed the best predictive performance. Furthermore, these models demonstrated satisfactory longitudinal predictive ability.

68Ga-DOTATATE PET-CT as a tool for radiation planning and evaluating treatment responses in the clinical management of meningiomas.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Meningiomas express the somatostatin receptor (SSTR), which normal bone and brain lack. PET imaging with SSTR ligands such as 68 Ga-DOTATATE have been recently shown to aid in the imaging and identification of menginiomas. We hypothesize that 68 Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT in conjunction with MRI aids in radiation (RT) target volume delineation and evaluating treatment response. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nineteen patients with meningiomas underwent 68 Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT and MRI for RT planning and/or post-treatment follow-up. Meningiomas were grade I (n = 9) or not biopsied (n = 8) and frequently involved base of skull (n = 10). Ten (53%) patients received post-operative RT and 9 (47%) received fractaionted RT. In the subgroup that underwent both pre- and post-RT 68 Ga-DOTATATE PET as well as MRI (n = 10), ROVER (ABX GmbH, Radeberg, Germany) adaptive thresholding software was utilized to measure total lesion activity (mean and max) before and after treatment. Tumor volume based on MRI was calculated before and after treatment. Total lesion activity and tumor volume changes were compared using Wilcoxon signed rank test. RESULTS: 68 Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT identified intraosseous (n = 4, 22%), falcine (n = 5, 26%) and satellite lesions (n = 3, 19%) and clarified the diagnosis of meningioma, resulting in a change in management in three patients. Mean total lesion activity decreased 14.7% (median), from pre to post-RT 68 Ga-DOTATATE PET [range 97-8.5% (25-75%),S = - 26.5, p = 0.0039]. Max total lesion activity decreased 36% (median) over the same period [range 105-15% (25-75%), S = - 26.5 p = 0.0039]. In contrast, meningioma volumes based on MRI measurements did not significantly change per RECIST criteria and Wilcoxon signed rank test (S = - 3, p = 0.7422). CONCLUSION: 68 Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT helped confirm suspected diagnoses and delineate target volumes particularly when lesions involved osseous structures and the falx. Mean and max total tumor 68 Ga-DOTATATE activity on PET/CT decreased at three months following RT despite stable tumor volumes on MRI. Future studies are warranted to (1) assess the sensitivity and specificity of 68 Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT, (2) evaluate the impact of 68 Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT-based planning on treatment outcomes, and (3) assess the prognostic significance of these post-treatment imaging changes.

Mapping expanded prostate cancer index composite to EQ5D utilities to inform economic evaluations in prostate cancer: Secondary analysis of NRG/RTOG 0415.

PURPOSE: The Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) is the most commonly used patient reported outcome (PRO) tool in prostate cancer (PC) clinical trials, but health utilities associated with the different health states assessed with this tool are unknown, limiting our ability to perform cost-utility analyses. This study aimed to map EPIC tool to EuroQoL-5D-3L (EQ5D) to generate EQ5D health utilities. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This is a secondary analysis of a prospective, randomized non-inferiority clinical trial, conducted between 04/2006 and 12/2009 at cancer centers across the United States, Canada, and Switzerland. Eligible patients included men >18 years with a known diagnosis of low-risk PC. Patient HRQoL data were collected using EPIC and health utilities were obtained using EQ5D. Data were divided into an estimation sample (n = 765, 70%) and a validation sample (n = 327, 30%). The mapping algorithms that capture the relationship between the instruments were estimated using ordinary least squares (OLS), Tobit, and two-part models. Five-fold cross-validation (in-sample) was used to compare the predictive performance of the estimated models. Final models were selected based on root mean square error (RMSE). RESULTS: A total of 565 patients in the estimation sample had complete information on both EPIC and EQ5D questionnaires at baseline. Mean observed EQ5D utility was 0.90±0.13 (range: 0.28-1) with 55% of patients in full health. OLS models outperformed their counterpart Tobit and two-part models for all pre-determined model specifications. The best model fit was: "EQ5D utility = 0.248541 + 0.000748*(Urinary Function) + 0.001134*(Urinary Bother) + 0.000968*(Hormonal Function) + 0.004404*(Hormonal Bother)- 0.376487*(Zubrod) + 0.003562*(Urinary Function*Zubrod)"; RMSE was 0.10462. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to identify a comprehensive set of mapping algorithms to generate EQ5D utilities from EPIC domain/ sub-domain scores. The study results will help estimate quality-adjusted life-years in PC economic evaluations.

Immune checkpoint inhibition in patients treated with stereotactic radiation for brain metastases.

PURPOSE: Stereotactic radiation therapy (SRT) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) may act synergistically to improve treatment outcomes but may also increase the risk of symptomatic radiation necrosis (RN). The objective of this study was to compare outcomes for patients undergoing SRT with and without concurrent ICI. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients treated for BMs with single or multi-fraction SRT were retrospectively reviewed. Concurrent ICI with SRT (SRT-ICI) was defined as administration within 3 months of SRT. Local control (LC), radiation necrosis (RN) risk and distant brain failure (DBF) were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between groups using the log-rank test. Wilcoxon rank sum and Chi-square tests were used to compare covariates. Multivariate cox regression analysis (MVA) was performed. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-nine patients treated with SRT for 385 brain lesions were included; 36 patients with 99 lesions received SRT-ICI. Median follow up was 10.3 months (SRT alone) and 7.7 months (SRT- ICI) (p = 0.08). Lesions treated with SRT-ICI were more commonly squamous histology (17% vs 8%) melanoma (20% vs 2%) or renal cell carcinoma (8% vs 6%), (p < 0.001). Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) compromised 60% of patients receiving ICI (n = 59). Lesions treated with SRT-ICI had significantly improved 1-year local control compared to SRT alone (98 and 89.5%, respectively (p = 0.0078). On subset analysis of NSCLC patients alone, ICI was also associated with improved 1 year local control (100% vs. 90.1%) (p = 0.018). On MVA, only tumor size ≤2 cm was significantly associated with LC (HR 0.38, p = 0.02), whereas the HR for concurrent ICI with SRS was 0.26 (p = 0.08). One year DBF (41% vs. 53%; p = 0.21), OS (58% vs. 56%; p = 0.79) and RN incidence (7% vs. 4%; p = 0.25) were similar for SRT alone versus SRT-ICI, for the population as a whole and those patients with NSCLC. CONCLUSION: These results suggest SRT-ICI may improve local control of brain metastases and is not associated with an increased risk of symptomatic radiation necrosis in a cohort of predominantly NSCLC patients. Larger, prospective studies are necessary to validate these findings and better elucidate the impact of SRT-ICI on other disease outcomes.

Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Recurrent Glioblastoma Treated with Proton Beam Therapy Reirradiation: Analysis of the Multi-Institutional Proton Collaborative Group Registry.

PURPOSE: As a means of limiting normal tissue toxicity, proton-beam therapy (PBT) is an emerging radiation modality for glioblastoma (GBM) reirradiation. However, data for recurrent GBM treated with PBT reirradiation is limited. Therefore, we analyzed treatment patterns, toxicities, and clinical outcomes of patients with recurrent GBM treated with PBT reirradiation using the multi-institutional Proton Collaborative Group registry. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Prospectively collected data for patients with recurrent GBM who underwent PBT while enrolled in Proton Collaborative Group study 01-009 (NCT01255748) were analyzed. We evaluated overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and toxicity. Toxicities were scored per the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0. Descriptive statistics were used to report patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics. Multivariable analyses (MVA) for toxicity were conducted using logistic regression. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate OS and PFS. MVA for OS and PFS was conducted using Cox proportional-hazards models. The SAS statistical software was used for the analysis. RESULTS: We identified 45 recurrent patients with GBM who underwent PBT reirradiation between 2012 and 2018. The median time between initial GBM diagnosis and recurrence was 20.2 months. The median follow-up time from PBT reirradiation was 10.7 months. Median PFS was 13.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.23-20.0 months) and median OS was 14.2 months (95% CI, 9.6-16.9 months) after PBT reirradiation. One patient experienced an acute grade 3 toxicity, 4 patients experienced late grade 3 toxicity (no grade ≥4 toxicities). MVA revealed that prior surgery was associated with a 91.3% decreased hazard of death (hazard ratio: 0.087; 95% CI, 0.02-0.42; P < .01). No explanatory variables were associated with PFS or grade 3 toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest series to date reporting outcomes for PBT reirradiation of patients with recurrent GBM. Our analysis indicates that PBT is well tolerated and offers efficacy rates comparable with previously reported photon reirradiation.

A multi-center analysis of single-fraction versus hypofractionated stereotactic radiosurgery for the treatment of brain metastasis.

BACKGROUND: Hypofractionated-SRS (HF-SRS) may allow for improved local control and a reduced risk of radiation necrosis compared to single-fraction-SRS (SF-SRS). However, data comparing these two treatment approaches are limited. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between SF-SRS versus HF-SRS across our multi-center academic network. METHODS: Patients treated with SF-SRS or HF-SRS for brain metastasis from 2013 to 2018 across 5 radiation oncology centers were retrospectively reviewed. SF-SRS dosing was standardized, whereas HF-SRS dosing regimens were variable. The co-primary endpoints of local control and radiation necrosis were estimated using the Kaplan Meier method. Multivariate analysis using Cox proportional hazards modeling was performed to evaluate the impact of select independent variables on the outcomes of interest. Propensity score adjustments were used to reduce the effects confounding variables. To assess dose response for HF-SRS, Biologic Effective Dose (BED) assuming an α/ß of 10 (BED10) was used as a surrogate for total dose. RESULTS: One-hundred and fifty six patients with 335 brain metastasis treated with SF-SRS (n = 222 lesions) or HF-SRS (n = 113 lesions) were included. Prior whole brain radiation was given in 33% (n = 74) and 34% (n = 38) of lesions treated with SF-SRS and HF-SRS, respectively (p = 0.30). After a median follow up time of 12 months in each cohort, the adjusted 1-year rate of local control and incidence of radiation necrosis was 91% (95% CI 86-96%) and 85% (95% CI 75-95%) (p = 0.26) and 10% (95% CI 5-15%) and 7% (95% CI 0.1-14%) (p = 0.73) for SF-SRS and HF-SRS, respectively. For lesions > 2 cm, the adjusted 1 year local control was 97% (95% CI 84-100%) for SF-SRS and 64% (95% CI 43-85%) for HF-SRS (p = 0.06). On multivariate analysis, SRS fractionation was not associated with local control and only size ≤2 cm was associated with a decreased risk of developing radiation necrosis (HR 0.21; 95% CI 0.07-0.58, p < 0.01). For HF-SRS, 1 year local control was 100% for lesions treated with a BED10 ≥ 50 compared to 77% (95% CI 65-88%) for lesions that received a BED10 < 50 (p = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: In this comparison study of dose fractionation for the treatment of brain metastases, there was no difference in local control or radiation necrosis between HF-SRS and SF-SRS. For HF-SRS, a BED10 ≥ 50 may improve local control.

Patient reported outcomes following proton pencil beam scanning vs. passive scatter/uniform scanning for localized prostate cancer: Secondary analysis of PCG 001-09.

BACKGROUND: Although pencil beam scanning (PBS) is the most conformal method for proton beam therapy (PBT) delivery, it is unknown if outcomes differ compared to treatment with passive scatter/uniform scanning (PS/US). This analysis compares patient reported outcomes (PRO) changes following PBS and PS/US for prostate cancer (PC) in a prospective multicenter registry study. METHODS: We evaluated PROs with the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) instrument for men with localized PC enrolled in PCG 001-09 (NCT01255748). PROs were assessed at baseline and through 12 months of follow-up. We compared mean changes in EPIC scores, as well as the proportions of men experiencing a one- and two-fold minimally important difference (MID) in domain scores, between PBS and PS/US. Multivariate analyses (MVAs) were performed to further evaluate the association between proton modality and PRO changes. RESULTS: Three-hundred-and-four men completed EPIC at baseline; 72 received PBS and 232 received PS/US. The average quality-of-life (QOL) declines from baseline through 12 months did not significantly differ between the two groups. The proportion of men reporting a 1-MID decline at 12 months for PBS and PS/US was 34.3% and 27.4%, respectively, for urinary QOL (P = 0.27); 40. 1% and 40.9% for bowel QOL (P = 0.36); and 30. 1% and 36.6% for sexual QOL (P = 0.94). Corresponding 2-MID declines for PBS and PS/US were observed in 26.9% and 13.2% of men for urinary QOL (P = 0.01), 35.3% and 29.1% for bowel QOL (P = 0.33); and 16.4% and 18.1% for sexual QOL (P = 0.76). The association between proton modality and 2-MID changes in urinary QOL at 12-months remained significant on MVA (P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this analysis show differences between PBS and PS/US with regards to two-fold MID changes in urinary function at 12 months, but no differences for average score declines over time. Future studies evaluating PRO measures between the two PBT modalities are warranted.

Utilization of novel systemic therapies for multiple myeloma: A retrospective study of front-line regimens using the SEER-Medicare data.

The landscape of treatment for multiple myeloma (MM) has significantly changed over the last decade due to novel agents that have shown superiority in efficacy such as proteasome inhibitors (PIs) and immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) over traditional therapies. However, the real-world utilization of these new agents has not been studied well. This study evaluated year-to-year changes in treatment choices in a cohort of patients aged 66 or older in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry linked with Medicare claims (SEER-Medicare) data who were diagnosed with MM between 2007 and 2011. We identified 2477 symptomatic newly diagnosed patients who were followed for 6 months or more postdiagnosis and treated with systemic therapies but not with stem cell transplantation. Symptomatic patients were identified by evidence of hypercalcemia, renal failure, anemia, or bone lesions (CRAB criteria). The minimum follow-up was imposed to ensure sufficient data to characterize treatment. Our analysis found that the proportion of treated patients increased from 75% in the 2007 cohort to 79% in the 2011 cohort. The share of PI-based regimens including PI plus alkylating agents, PI plus IMiD, and PI-only increased from 9% to 21%, 3% to 11%, and 16% to 22%, respectively, between 2007 and 2011. These findings translate to the share of PI-based regimens having increased from 28% to 55% and that of IMiDs-based regimens (excluding PI plus IMiD) having decreased from 43% to 27%. In conclusion, while the usage of PIs among elderly MM patients increased significantly replacing IMiD-based regimens (with or without alkylating agents but not with PI) between 2007 and 2011, this significant shift did not increase the proportion of treated patients.

Patient Prioritization for Proton Beam Therapy in a Cost-neutral Payer Environment: Use of the Clinical Benefit Score for Resource Allocation.

Objectives There has been a rapid increase in the number of one- and two-room proton beam therapy (PBT) centers, which may be limited in the number of patients they can treat. The objective of this study was to analyze the impact of the 'clinical benefit score' (CBS), utilized as a method for treatment prioritization for PBT operating in a 'cost-neutral' proton-photon payer environment. Materials & methods This study includes patients considered for PBT at a center that initially had only one or two treatment rooms available for clinical use. Patients were prospectively scored using the CBS, and higher scores were prioritized. The outcome was receipt of PBT and the independent variable was CBS. Crude and adjusted analyses were performed using logistic regression. Results There were 2163 patients evaluated. A total of 205 patients (9.5%) were deemed candidates for PBT, which was received by 122 (5.6%) patients. In patients considered for PBT, the mean CBS was 18.7. Patients who were <21 years old, female, non-Caucasian, receiving re-irradiation, and those with Medicare had a higher CBS. Multivariate analysis adjusting for insurance status revealed both CBS and insurance to be significant predictors for receiving PBT. A unit increase in CBS was associated with 1.04 times increased odds of receiving PBT (OR=1.04, 95%CI: 1.01-1.07, p=0.0145) and having Medicare was associated with 3.13 times increased odds of receiving PBT (OR=3.13, 95%CI: 1.57-6.26, p=0.0012). Subgroup analysis, which only included patients enrolled prior to opening the second gantry, showed 1.05 times increased odds of receiving PBT per unit increase in CBS (OR=1.05, 95%CI: 1.00-1.10, p=0.03) and 2.87 times increased odds of receiving PBT in patients with Medicare (OR=2.87, 95%CI: 1.04-7.92, p=0.04). Conclusion  The CBS utilized was significantly associated with the receipt of PBT in a cost-neutral payer setting. Physicians may consider the use of CBS as a resource allocation tool.

Proton beam therapy delivered using pencil beam scanning vs. passive scattering/uniform scanning for localized prostate cancer: Comparative toxicity analysis of PCG 001-09.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Patient-level benefits of proton beam therapy (PBT) relative to photon therapy for prostate cancer (PC) continue to be the focus of debate. Although trials comparing the two modalities are underway, most are being conducted using "conventional" PBT (passive scattering/uniform scanning [PS/US]) rather than pencil beam scanning (PBS). The dosimetric benefits of PBS are well-known, but comparative data are limited. This analysis compares PBS toxicity rates with those of PS/US in a prospective multicenter registry. METHODS: We evaluated acute/late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity rates for men with low-to-intermediate risk PC enrolled in PCG 001-09. Acute toxicities with the two techniques were compared using χ2 tests, and the cumulative incidence methods for late toxicity. Multivariable analyses (MVAs) for acute toxicity were performed using logistic regression, and cox proportional hazards models for late toxicity. RESULTS: Patients were treated using PS/US (n = 1105) or PBS (n = 238). Acute grade ≥2 GI toxicity in PBS did not significantly differ from that with PS/US (2.9% and 2.1%, respectively; P = 0.47). Acute grade ≥2 GU toxicity was significantly higher with PBS (21.9% and 15.1%; P < 0.01). In MVA, PBS was significantly associated with increased acute grade ≥2 GU toxicity (RR = 1.57, p < 0.001). Late grade ≥2 GI and GU toxicities did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first multi-institutional comparative effectiveness evaluation of PBT techniques in PC. Differences in acute GU toxicity warrant further evaluation, and highlight the urgent need for prospective data using PBT.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective trials.

Background: Despite the increasing worldwide utilization of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer, there are no known summative data regarding its safety and efficacy. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a PRISMA-guided systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective prostate SBRT trials. Results: Fourteen trials with a total of 2,038 patients were included. Median follow-up was 37 months (range 6-55 months). Most patients had cT1-T2a, Gleason ≤7 disease with median pre-treatment PSAs of 5-10; 1,042 (51%) were low-risk, 744 (37%) were intermediate-risk, 158 (8%) were high-risk, and the remainder were unreported. Doses ranged from 33.5-50.0 Gy, most typically in 5 fractions, with nearly all studies delivering nondaily fractionation with some type of daily image guidance. Outcomes were converted into counts at the end of one year. The pooled rate of FFBF was 98% [95% confidence interval, 97-98%]. The pooled rate of late grade ≥3 gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicities were 1% [0-5%] and 2% [1-3%], respectively. Methods: PubMed and Google Scholar were queried for prospective studies evaluating survival and/or toxicity outcomes in SBRT (≤5 fractions) for localized prostate cancer. Pooled rates of freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) and late grades ≥3 gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities were assessed. Meta-analysis of proportions was logit transformed and pooled using generalized linear mixed models (both fixed and random effects) and subsequently back transformed to standard proportions. Conclusions: Despite the lack of long-term follow-up and heterogeneity of the available evidence, prostate SBRT affords appropriate biochemical control with few high-grade toxicities. These data have implications for ongoing worldwide utilization of prostate SBRT as well as ongoing prospective investigations.

Barriers and facilitators to diabetes self-management in a primary care setting - Patient perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes self-management (DSM) is a key element in the overall management of type-2 diabetes (T2DM). Identifying barriers and facilitators to DSM and addressing them is a critical step in achieving improved health outcomes in this population. OBJECTIVE: To assess patient reported barriers and facilitators to self-management of T2DM in a primary care setting. METHODS: This cross sectional study combined patient survey data with electronic medical record (EMR) data. Patients (age≥18 years) with a recorded diagnosis of T2DM (ICD-9 code: 250. xx) and having ≥2 physician visits were identified from a physician group's EMR database. Patients were grouped based on their A1C levels: <7, 7-9, and >9. Information on demographics, knowledge of diabetes, attitudes, health beliefs, and level of self-management was collected through survey administration. Survey responses were linked to the EMR data, and additional patient information was extracted. RESULTS: A total of 2100 surveys were administered (700 in each A1C category) of which 210 responses were received (10% response rate). Mean age was 63.7 years ( ±11.79), 108 (51.4%) were males, and 197 (93.8%) were Caucasian. Age (X2 = 15.73, p < 0.01), insurance status (X2 = 12.03, p < 0.05), referral to an endocrinologist (X2 = 6.17, p < 0.05), level of self-management (X2 = 12.01, p < 0.05) and willingness to use insulin (X2 = 9.8, p < 0.01) were associated with glycemic variability. Level of self-management (X2 = 33.04, p < 0.01) and referral to an endocrinologist (X2 = 11.11, p < 0.01) were associated with readiness to change DSM behavior. Better self-management, older age, lower willingness to use insulin, and 'less than graduate level' education were significant predictors of glycemic stability. CONCLUSIONS: Self-management behavior of patients with T2DM is strongly associated with glycemic stability. Interventions directed towards improving self-management in this population may result in improved clinical outcomes.

Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Hydrogel Rectal Spacer in Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: A hydrogel rectal spacer (HRS) is a medical device that is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to increase the separation between the prostate and rectum. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of HRS use for reduction in radiation therapy (RT) toxicities in patients with prostate cancer (PC) undergoing external beam RT (EBRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A multistate Markov model was constructed from the U.S. payer perspective to examine the cost-effectiveness of HRS in men with localized PC receiving EBRT (EBRT alone vs EBRT + HRS). The subgroups analyzed included site of HRS placement (hospital outpatient, physician office, ambulatory surgery center) and proportion of patients with good baseline erectile function (EF). Data on EF, gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicities incidence, and potential risks associated with HRS implantation were obtained from a recently published randomized clinical trial. Health utilities and costs were derived from the literature and the 2018 Physician Fee Schedule and were discounted 3% annually. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs were modeled for a 5-year period from receipt of RT. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and value-based threshold analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The per-patient 5-year incremental cost for spacers administered in a hospital outpatient setting was $3578, and the incremental effectiveness was 0.0371 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $96,440/QALY for patients with PC undergoing HRS insertion in a hospital and $39,286/QALY for patients undergoing HRS insertion in an ambulatory facility. For men with good baseline EF, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $35,548/QALY and $9627/QALY in hospital outpatient and ambulatory facility settings, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, HRS is cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000. These results contain substantial uncertainty, suggesting more evidence is needed to refine future decision-making.

Impact of United States Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations on Utilization of Prostate-specific Antigen Screening in Medicare Beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies assessing the impact of United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations on utilization of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening have not investigated longer-term impacts of 2008 recommendations nor have they investigated the impact of 2012 recommendations in the Medicare population. This study aimed to evaluate change in utilization of PSA screening, post-2008 and 2012 USPSTF recommendations, and assessed trends and determinants of receipt of PSA screening in the Medicare population. METHODS: This retrospective study of male Medicare beneficiaries utilized Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey data and linked administrative claims from 2006 to 2013. Beneficiaries aged ≥65 years, with continuous enrollment in parts A and B for each year they were surveyed were included in the study. Beneficiaries with self-reported/claims-based diagnosis of prostate cancer were excluded. The primary outcome was receipt of PSA screening. Other measures included age groups (65 to 74 and ≥75), time periods (pre-2008/post-2008 and 2012 recommendations), and sociodemographic variables. RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 11,028 beneficiaries, who were predominantly white (87.56%), married (69.25%), and unemployed (84.4%); 52.21% beneficiaries were aged ≥75. Declining utilization trends for PSA screening were observed in men aged ≥75 after 2008 recommendations and in both age groups after 2012 recommendations. The odds of receiving PSA screening declined by 17% in men aged ≥75 after 2008 recommendations and by 29% in men aged ≥65 after 2012 recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: The 2008 and 2012 USPSTF recommendations against PSA screening were associated with declines in utilization of PSA screening during the study period. USPSTF recommendations play a significant role in affecting utilization patterns of health services.

Cost-of-Illness Studies: An Updated Review of Current Methods.

INTRODUCTION: Cost-of-illness (COI) studies provide policy-relevant information for cross-country, longitudinal, and other cost comparisons. Prior studies have called for standardization in COI methods. We investigated trends, identified factors associated with variation in COI estimation methods, and characterized reporting of heterogeneity in COI estimates. METHODS: The review of COI studies was implemented following (i) a structured search of PubMed, SCOPUS and EMBASE; (ii) a review of abstracts; (iii) a full-text review; and (iv) classification of articles according to six COI estimation methods: Sum_All Medical, Sum_Diagnosis Specific, Matched, Regression, Other_Total and Other_Incremental. Descriptive and multivariable regression analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Of the 993 studies included in the full-text review, 186 (18.7 %) were Sum_All Medical, 458 (46.1 %) were Sum_Diagnosis Specific, 96 (9.7 %) were Matched, 97 (9.8 %) were Regression, 70 (7.1 %) were Other_Incremental, and 68 (6.9 %) were Other_Total. Compared with the early period, publications in the middle and late period were associated with lower odds of using Sum_All Medical compared with Sum_Diagnosis Specific (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]middle 0.14; 95 % CI 0.07-0.28; AORlate 0.44; 95 % CI 0.29-0.67). Overall, 640 articles (64 %) reported COI estimates across patient groups defined by patient-level factors, while 247 articles (25 %) reported COI estimates across patient groups defined by non-patient-level factors. CONCLUSION: The disease-specific total costing method (Sum_Diagnosis Specific) was most commonly used and its use increased over the time period covered by this review. The investigation of subgroup heterogeneity in COI estimates represents an area for future research.