Cost-effectiveness of carbon-ion radiotherapy versus stereotactic body radiotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer.

Carbon-ion radiotherapy (CIRT) for clinical stage I non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is used as an advanced medical treatment regimen in Japan. Carbon-ion radiotherapy reportedly aids in achieving excellent treatment outcomes, despite its high medical cost. We aimed to compare CIRT with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in terms of cost-effectiveness for treating clinical stage I NSCLC. Data of patients with clinical stage I NSCLC treated with CIRT or SBRT at Gunma University between 2010 and 2015 were analyzed. The CIRT and SBRT groups included 62 and 27 patients, respectively. After propensity-score matching, both groups comprised 15 patients. Life year (LY) was used as an indicator of outcome. The CIRT technical fee was 3 140 000 JPY. There was no technical fee for the second CIRT carried out on the same organ within 2 years. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated by dividing the incremental cost by the incremental LY for 5 years after treatment. Sensitivity analysis was applied to evaluate the impact of LY or costs of each group on ICER. The ICERs were 7 491 017 JPY/LY and 3 708 330 JPY/LY for all patients and matched patients, respectively. Hospitalization and examination costs were significantly higher in the CIRT group, and the impact of the CIRT technical costs was smaller than other costs and LY. Carbon-ion radiotherapy is a cost-effective treatment approach. However, our findings suggest that reducing excessive costs by considering the validity and necessity of examinations and hospitalizations would make CIRT a more cost-effective approach.

Trends in physician reimbursements and procedural volumes for radiosurgery versus open surgery in brain tumor care: an analysis of Medicare data from 2009 to 2018.

OBJECTIVE: Given its minimally invasive nature and effectiveness, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has become a mainstay for the multimodal treatment of intracranial neoplasm. However, no studies have evaluated recent trends in the use of SRS versus those of open resection for the management of brain tumor or trends in the involvement of neurosurgeons in SRS (which is primarily delivered by radiation oncologists). Here, the authors used publicly available Medicare data from 2009 to 2018 to elucidate trends in the treatment of intracranial neoplasm and to compare reimbursements between these approaches. METHODS: By using CPT Professional 2019, the authors identified 10 open resection and 9 SRS codes (4 for neurosurgery and 5 for radiation oncology) for the treatment of intracranial neoplasm. Medicare payments (inflation adjusted) and allowed services (number of reimbursed procedures) for each code were abstracted from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Part B National Summary Data File (2009-2018). Payments per procedure and procedures per 100,000 Medicare enrollees were analyzed with linear regression and compared with tests for equality of slopes (α = 0.05). The average payment per procedure over the study period was compared by using the 2-tailed Welsh unequal variances t-test, and more granular comparisons were conducted by using ANOVA with post hoc Tukey honestly significant difference (HSD) tests. RESULTS: From 2009 to 2018, the number of SRS treatments per 100,000 Medicare enrollees for intracranial neoplasm increased by 3.97 cases/year (R2 = 0.99, p < 0.001), while comparable open resections decreased by 0.34 cases/year (R2 = 0.85, p < 0.001) (t16 = 7.5, p < 0.001). By 2018, 2.6 times more SRS treatments were performed per 100,000 enrollees than open resections (74.9 vs 28.7 procedures). However, neurosurgeon involvement in SRS treatment declined over the study period, from 23.4% to 11.5% of SRS treatments; simultaneously, the number of lesions treated per session increased from 1.46 to 1.84 (R2 = 0.98, p < 0.001). Overall, physician payments from 2013 to 2018 averaged $1816.08 (95% CI $1788.71-$1843.44) per SRS treatment and $1565.59 (95% CI $1535.83-$1595.34) per open resection (t10 = 15.9, p < 0.001). For neurosurgeons specifically, reimbursements averaged $1566 per open resection, but this decreased to $1031-$1198 per SRS session; comparatively, radiation oncologists were reimbursed even less (average $359-$898) per SRS session (p < 0.05 according to the Tukey HSD test for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: Over a decade, the number of open resections for intracranial neoplasm in Medicare enrollees declined slightly, while the number of SRS procedures increased greatly. This latter expansion is largely attributable to radiation oncologists; meanwhile, neurosurgeons have shifted their involvement in SRS toward sessions for the management of multiple lesions.

Cost-utility analysis of stereotactic body radiotherapy plus cetuximab in previously irradiated recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to estimate the cost-utility of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) plus cetuximab for patients with previously irradiated recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. METHODS: We constructed a Markov health-state transition model to simulate costs and clinical outcomes of recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Model parameters were derived from the published literature and the National Health Insurance Administration reimbursement price list. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and the net monetary benefit were calculated from a health payer perspective. The impact of uncertainty was modeled with one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In the base-case, SBRT plus cetuximab compared to SBRT alone resulted in an ICER of NT$ 840,455 per QALY gained. In the one-way sensitivity analysis, the utility of progression-free state for patients treated with SBRT plus cetuximab or SBRT alone and the cost of progression-free survival for SBRT+Cet were the most sensitive parameters in the model. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold of NT$ 2,252,340 per QALY was 100% for SBRT plus cetuximab but 0% for SBRT alone. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that SBRT+Cet was cost-effective and benefited patients with previously irradiated rSCCHN.

Does Endovascular Treatment with Curative Intention Have Benefits for Treating High-Grade Arteriovenous Malformation versus Radiosurgery? Efficacy, Safety, and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of high-grade arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) remains challenging. Microsurgery provides a rapid and complete occlusion compared with other options but is associated with undesirable morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to compare the occlusion rates, incidence of unfavorable outcomes, and cost-effectiveness of embolization and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) as a curative treatment for high-grade AVMs. METHODS: A retrospective series of 57 consecutive patients with high-grade AVM treated with embolization or SRS, with the aim of achieving complete occlusion, was analyzed. Demographic, clinical, and angioarchitectonic variables were collected. Both treatments were compared for the occlusion rate and procedure-related complications. In addition, a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed. RESULTS: Thirty patients (52.6%) were men and 27 (47.4%) were women (mean age, 39 years). AVMs were unruptured in 43 patients (75.4%), and ruptured in 14 patients (24.6%). The presence of deep venous drainage, nidus volume, perforated arterial supply, and eloquent localization was more frequent in the SRS group. Complications such as hemorrhage or worsening of previous seizures were more frequent in the embolization group. No significant differences were observed in the occlusion rates or in the time necessary to achieve occlusion between the groups. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for endovascular treatment versus SRS was $53.279. CONCLUSIONS: Both techniques achieved similar occlusion rates, but SRS carried a lower risk of complications. Staged embolization may be associated with a greater risk of hemorrhage, whereas SRS was shown to have a better cost-effectiveness ratio. These results support SRS as a better treatment option for high-grade AVMs.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Stereotactic Ablative Radiation Therapy in Patients With Oligometastatic Cancer.

PURPOSE: The Stereotactic Ablative Radiation therapy for Comprehensive Treatment of Oligometastatic Tumors phase 2 randomized clinical trial found that stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) improved outcomes among cancer patients with oligometastatic disease. Yet, the cost of SABR along with the large number of patients with oligometastatic disease raises the important question of value. This study sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the addition of SABR compared with standard therapy alone among cancer patients with oligometastatic disease. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We constructed a Markov model to simulate treatment with stereotactic ablative radiation therapy or standard therapy among patients with oligometastatic cancers. The model derived transition probabilities from Stereotactic Ablative Radiation therapy for Comprehensive Treatment of Oligometastatic Tumors clinical trial data to estimate risks of toxicity, disease progression and survival. Health care costs and health utilities were estimated from the literature. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses evaluate model uncertainty. Cost-effectiveness was estimated from both the health care sector and societal perspectives with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) defined as dollars per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). An ICER less than $100,000/QALY was considered cost-effective. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to examine model uncertainty. RESULTS: The addition of SABR increased total costs by $54,260 (health care sector perspective) or $72,799 (societal perspective) and improved effectiveness by 1.88 QALYs compared with standard therapy, leading to an ICER of $28,906/QALY (health care sector perspective) or $38,783/QALY (societal perspective). The model was modestly sensitive to assumptions about tumor progression, although the model was not sensitive to assumptions about survival or cost of treatment. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that SABR was the cost-effective treatment option 99.8% (health care sector perspective) or 98.7% (societal perspective) of the time. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of SABR increased costs and improved quality adjusted survival, overall leading to a cost-effective treatment strategy for patients with oligometastatic cancer.

Is SABR Cost-Effective in Oligometastatic Cancer? An Economic Analysis of the SABR-COMET Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: The phase 2 randomized study SABR-COMET demonstrated that in patients with controlled primary tumors and 1 to 5 oligometastatic lesions, SABR was associated with improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with standard of care (SoC), but with higher costs and treatment-related toxicities. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of SABR versus SoC in this setting. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A Markov model was constructed to perform a cost-utility analysis from the Canadian health care system perspective. Utility values and transition probabilities were derived from individual-level data from the SABR-COMET trial. One-way, 2-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Costs were expressed in 2018 CAD. A separate analysis based on US payer's perspective was performed. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was used. RESULTS: In the base case scenario, SABR was cost-effective at an ICER of $37,157 per QALY gained. This finding was most sensitive to the number of metastatic lesions treated with SABR (ICER: $28,066 per QALY for 2, increasing to $64,429 per QALY for 5), difference in chemotherapy use (ICER: $27,173-$53,738 per QALY), and PFS hazard ratio (HR) between strategies (ICER: $31,548-$53,273 per QALY). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that SABR was cost-effective in 97% of all iterations. Two-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated a nonlinear relationship between the number of lesions and the PFS HR. To maintain cost-effectiveness for each additional metastasis, the HR must decrease by approximately 0.047. The US cost analysis yielded similar results, with an ICER of $54,564 (2018 USD per QALY) for SABR. CONCLUSIONS: SABR is cost-effective for patients with 1 to 5 oligometastatic lesions compared with SoC.

Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing Comparison of Stereotactic Radiosurgery to Multiple Brain Lesions Using Single-Isocenter Versus Multiple-Isocenter Technique.

PURPOSE: Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) historically has been used to treat multiple brain lesions using a multiple-isocenter technique-frequently associated with significant complexity in treatment planning and long treatment times. Recently, given innovations in planning algorithms, patients with multiple brain lesions may now be treated with a single-isocenter technique using fewer total arcs and less time spent during image guidance (though with stricter image guided radiation therapy tolerances). This study used time-driven activity-based costing to determine the difference in cost to a provider for delivering SRS to multiple brain lesions using single-isocenter versus multiple-isocenter techniques. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Process maps, consisting of discrete steps, were created for each phase of the SRS care cycle and were based on interviews with department personnel. Actual treatment times (including image guidance) were extracted from treatment record and verify software. Additional sources of data to determine costs included salary/benefit data of personnel and average list price/maintenance costs for equipment. RESULTS: Data were collected for 22 patients who underwent single-isocenter SRS (mean lesions treated, 5.2; mean treatment time, 30.2 minutes) and 51 patients who underwent multiple-isocenter SRS (mean lesions treated, 4.4; mean treatment time, 75.2 minutes). Treatment time for multiple-isocenter SRS varied substantially with increasing number of lesions (11.8 minutes/lesion; P < .001), but to a much lesser degree in single-isocenter SRS (1.8 minutes/lesion; P = .029). The resulting cost savings from single-isocenter SRS based on number of lesions treated ranged from $296 to $3878 for 2 to 10 lesions treated. The 2-mm planning treatment volume margin used with single-isocenter SRS resulted in a mean 43% increase of total volume treated compared with a 1-mm planning treatment volume expansion. CONCLUSIONS: In a comparison of time-driven activity-based costing assessment of single-isocenter versus multiple-isocenter SRS for multiple brain lesions, single-isocenter SRS appears to save time and resources for as few as 2 lesions, with incremental benefits for additional lesions treated.

Cost-Effectiveness of Metastasis-Directed Therapy in Oligorecurrent Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Oligorecurrent prostate cancer has historically been treated with indefinite androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), although many patients and providers opt to defer this treatment at the time of recurrence given quality-of-life and/or comorbidity considerations. Recently, metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) has emerged as a potential intermediary between surveillance and immediate continuous ADT. Simultaneously, advanced systemic therapy in addition to ADT has also been shown to improve survival in metastatic hormone-sensitive disease. This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of treating oligorecurrent patients with upfront MDT before standard-of-care systemic therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A Markov-based cost-effectiveness analysis was constructed comparing 3 strategies: (1) upfront MDT → salvage abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP) + ADT → salvage docetaxel + ADT; (2) upfront AAP + ADT → salvage docetaxel + ADT; and (3) upfront docetaxel + ADT → salvage AAP + ADT. Transition probabilities and utilities were derived from the literature. Using a 10-year time horizon and willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY), net monetary benefit values were subsequently calculated for each treatment strategy. RESULTS: At 10 years, the base case revealed a total cost of $141,148, $166,807, and $136,154 with QALYs of 4.63, 4.89, and 4.00, respectively, reflecting a net monetary benefit of $322,240, $322,018, and $263,407 for upfront MDT, upfront AAP + ADT, and upfront docetaxel + ADT, respectively. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis using a Monte Carlo simulation (1,000,000 simulations), upfront MDT was the cost-effective strategy in 53.6% of simulations. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed 95% confidence intervals for cost ($75,914-$179,862, $124,431-$223,892, and $103,298-$180,617) and utility in QALYs (3.85-6.12, 3.91-5.86, and 3.02-5.22) for upfront MDT, upfront AAP + ADT, and upfront docetaxel + ADT, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: At 10 years, upfront MDT followed by salvage AAP + ADT, is comparably cost-effective compared with upfront standard-of-care systemic therapy and may be considered a viable treatment strategy, especially in patients wishing to defer systemic therapy for quality-of-life or comorbidity concerns. Additional studies are needed to determine whether MDT causes a sustained meaningful delay in disease natural history and whether any benefit exists in combining MDT with upfront advanced systemic therapy.

The Role of Stereotactic Radiosurgery in the Management of Brain Metastases From a Health-Economic Perspective: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is an effective option in the management of brain metastases, offering improved overall survival to whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT). However, given the need for active surveillance and the possibility of repeated interventions for local/distant brain recurrences, the balance between clinical benefit and economic impact must be evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of health-economic analyses of SRS for brain metastases, compared with other existing intervention options, to determine the cost-effectiveness of this treatment across different clinical scenarios. METHODS: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, CRD, and EconLit databases were searched for health-economic analyses, according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, using terms relevant to brain metastases and radiation-based therapies. Simple cost analysis studies were excluded. Quality analysis was based on BMJ Consolidated Health Economics Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. RESULTS: Eleven eligible studies were identified. For lesions with limited mass effect, SRS was more cost-effective than surgical resection (6 studies). In patients with Karnofsky performance scale (KPS) >70 and good predicted survival, SRS was cost-effective compared to WBRT (7 studies); WBRT became cost-effective with poor performance status or low anticipated life span. Following SRS, routine magnetic resonance imaging surveillance saved $1326/patient compared to symptomatic imaging due to reduced surgical salvage and hospital stay (1 study). CONCLUSION: Based on our findings, SRS is cost-effective in the management of brain metastases, particularly in high-functioning patients with longer expected survival. However, before an optimal care pathway can be proposed, emerging factors such as tumor molecular subtype, diagnosis-specific graded prognostic assessment, neuroprognostic score, tailored surveillance imaging, and patient utilities need to be studied in greater detail.

Cost-Effectiveness of Subsequent Whole-Brain Radiotherapy or Hippocampal-Avoidant Whole-Brain Radiotherapy Versus Stereotactic Radiosurgery or Surgery Alone for Treatment of Melanoma Brain Metastases.

BACKGROUND: A randomized phase III trial comparing whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) to observation following definitive local treatment of intracranial melanoma metastases with neurosurgery and/or stereotactic surgery (SRS) is underway. OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess the pre-trial cost-effectiveness of WBRT, hippocampal-avoidant WBRT (HA-WBRT), and observation (SRS or surgery alone) for this population to guide trial data collection efforts and reduce decision uncertainty. METHODS: A time-dependent Markov model followed patients treated with neurosurgery or SRS who received subsequent WBRT, HA-WBRT or observation over a 5-year time horizon. Model inputs were sourced from published literature and results tested for robustness using probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Value of information (VOI) analysis was undertaken to guide data collection for the randomized trial. RESULTS: Over 5 years, the WBRT strategy produced 1.74 QALYs (2.38 life-years) at a mean cost of $40,128 (costs in 2017 Australian dollars); HA-WBRT produced 1.88 QALYs (2.38 life-years) and cost $42,977; and SRS/surgery alone produced 1.65 QALYs (2.13 life-years) at a cost of $46,281. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed HA-WBRT was the preferred strategy in 77% of simulations. Cost-effectiveness results were most sensitive to utilities of the controlled-disease health state in the WBRT group, and costs of HA-WBRT. The EVPI for a randomized trial was estimated at $6,888 per person. CONCLUSIONS: HA-WBRT may be cost-effective for the treatment of melanoma brain metastases. The results predicted in our model can be validated with prospective trial data when available.

Adherence of US Insurance Payer Policies to the American Society of Radiation Oncology Stereotactic Radiosurgery Model Policy.

PURPOSE: The medical necessity of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is nonuniform across insurance policies. The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) created a model policy based on the consensus of the radiation oncology community to communicate medically necessary indications for SRS. We compared the current insurance policies for SRS with those of the ASTRO model policy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We identified 58 insurance payers and 3 national benefits managers with SRS policies. Among these, 7 insurance payers were excluded for policies that were not reviewed after 2015 and for not detailing individual medically necessary indications. For each of the indications listed in ASTRO's model policy, we determined the proportion of payers that considered SRS medically necessary. We compared these proportions for national versus regional payers and policies updated in the last 12 months versus those updated less often using Fisher exact and χ2 tests. RESULTS: All insurance policies reviewed considered SRS as medically necessary for brain metastases, medically refractory trigeminal neuralgia, and arteriovenous malformations. Compared with national payers, regional payers were less likely to deem other schwannomas, and a boost for large cranial or spinal lesions medically necessary (P < .05). The indication with the lowest coverage was medically refractory movement disorders (44.4%), followed by medically refractory epilepsy (33.3%). However, policies that were updated within the last year were more likely to deem medical necessity for epilepsy, movement disorders, hemangioblastoma, pineal gland tumors, and other schwannomas. CONCLUSIONS: Significant discrepancy remains among insurance policies for several indications in ASTRO's model policy for SRS; however, national payers and those with recent policy updates have a greater concordance with the ASTRO model policy.

Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy for Intermediate- or High-Risk Prostate Cancer.

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is a relatively novel form of high precision radiotherapy. For low- and intermediate risk patients, ultrahypofractionation (UHF - more than 5 Gy per day) has been compared to conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy in two large randomized studies. A third smaller randomized study examined the question of the optimal frequency of treatments. The results of these studies will be reviewed. SABR for high risk prostate cancer has been shown to be feasible and is well tolerated with careful planning and setup techniques. However, there is currently insufficient data supporting its use for high-risk patients to offer SABR outside of a clinical trial. SABR costs less to the radiotherapydepartments and, the patient, as well as increasing system capacity. Therefore, it has the potential to be widely adopted in the next few years.

Cost-effectiveness of stereotactic body radiation therapy versus video assisted thoracic surgery in medically operable stage I non-small cell lung cancer: A modeling study.

OBJECTIVES: Stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) can be treated with either Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) or Video Assisted Thoracic Surgery (VATS) resection. To support decision making, not only the impact on survival needs to be taken into account, but also on quality of life, costs and cost-effectiveness. Therefore, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing SBRT to VATS resection with respect to quality adjusted life years (QALY) lived and costs in operable stage I NSCLC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patient level and aggregate data from eight Dutch databases were used to estimate costs, health utilities, recurrence free and overall survival. Propensity score matching was used to minimize selection bias in these studies. A microsimulation model predicting lifetime outcomes after treatment in stage I NSCLC patients was used for the cost-effectiveness analysis. Model outcomes for the two treatments were overall survival, QALYs, and total costs. We used a Dutch health care perspective with 1.5 % discounting for health effects, and 4 % discounting for costs, using 2018 cost data. The impact of model parameter uncertainty was assessed with deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Patients receiving either VATS resection or SBRT were estimated to live 5.81 and 5.86 discounted QALYs, respectively. Average discounted lifetime costs in the VATS group were €29,269 versus €21,175 for SBRT. Difference in 90-day excess mortality between SBRT and VATS resection was the main driver for the difference in QALYs. SBRT was dominant in at least 74 % of the probabilistic simulations. CONCLUSION: Using a microsimulation model to combine available evidence on survival, costs, and health utilities in a cost-effectiveness analysis for stage I NSCLC led to the conclusion that SBRT dominates VATS resection in the majority of simulations.

Disparities in the use of stereotactic radiosurgery for the treatment of lung cancer brain metastases: a SEER-Medicare study.

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is a costly procedure used to irradiate disease tissue while sparing healthy tissue, ideally limiting the side effects of treatment. SRS is frequently used in the setting of lung cancer, which is associated with greater rates of BM, though its cost may lead to potentially inequitable use across patient populations. This study investigates potential disparities in the use of SRS to treat Medicare patients. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End-Results cancer registry data for patients diagnosed between the years 2010 and 2012 were examined to identify lung cancer patients diagnosed with BM at the same time as their primary cancer (SBM). Medicare claims for SRS were identified; the odds of having SRS claims and hazards of mortality associated with those odds were examined with respect to various clinical and demographic characteristics. Of 74,142 Medicare-enrolled patients diagnosed with lung cancer, 9192 were diagnosed with SBM and 3259 of those patients received SRS. Adjusting for clinical and demographic characteristics, males with SBM had 0.85 times the odds of SRS compared to females with SBM. Black patients and those of other race had significantly lower odds of evidence of SRS compared to WNH patients. SRS may not be delivered equitably among Medicare patients. Males and minority patients may have decreased odds of SRS and worse survival compared to female and WNH patients, respectively.

Cost determinants in management of brain arteriovenous malformations.

INTRODUCTION: There is little data on the cost of treating brain arteriovenous malformations (AVMs). The goal of this study then is to identify cost determinants in multimodal management of brain AVMs. METHODS: One hundred forty patients with brain AVMs prospectively enrolled in the UCSF brain AVM registry and treated between 2012 and 2015 were included in the study. Patient and AVM characteristics, treatment type, and length of stay and radiographic evidence of obliteration were collected from the registry. We then calculated the cost of all inpatient and outpatient encounters, interventions, and imaging attributable to the AVM. We used generalized linear models to test whether there was an association between patient and AVM characteristics, treatment type, and cost and length of stay. We tested whether the proportion of patients with radiographic evidence of obliteration differed between treatment modalities using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: The overall median cost of treatment and interquartile range was $77,865 (49,566-107,448). Surgery with preoperative embolization was the costliest treatment at $91,948 (79,914-140,600), while radiosurgery was the least at $20,917 (13,915-35,583). In multi-predictor analyses, hemorrhage, Spetzler-Martin grade, and treatment type were significant predictors of cost. Patients who had surgery had significantly higher rates of obliteration compared with radiosurgery patients. CONCLUSIONS: Hemorrhage, AVM grade, and treatment modality are significant cost determinants in AVM management. Surgery with preoperative embolization was the costliest treatment and radiosurgery the least; however, surgical cases had significantly higher rates of obliteration.

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.

Worldwide Access to Stereotactic Radiosurgery.

Stereotactic radiosurgery is a safe and effective technology that can address a variety of neurosurgical conditions, but in many parts of the world, access remains an issue. Although the technology is increasingly available in the United States, Canada, Europe, and parts of Asia, poor access to central nervous system (CNS) imaging and inadequate treatment equipment in other parts of the world limit the availability of radiosurgery as a treatment option. In addition, epidemiologic data about cancer and CNS metastases in low-income countries are sparse and much less complete than in more developed countries, and the need for radiosurgery may be underestimated as a result. Current radiosurgical platforms can be expensive to install and require a substantial amount of personnel training for safe operation. Socioeconomic and political forces are relevant to limitations to and opportunities for improving access to care. Here we examine the current barriers to access and propose areas for future efforts to improve global availability of radiosurgery for neurosurgical conditions.

Impact of the American Tax Payer Relief Act on stereotactic radiosurgery utilization in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Single-fraction stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is delivered predominantly via two modalities: Gamma Knife, and linear accelerator (LINAC). Implementation of the American Tax Payer Relief Act (ATRA) in 2013 represented the first time limitations specifically targeting SRS reimbursement were introduced into federal law. The subsequent impact of the ATRA on SRS utilization in the United States (US) has yet to be examined. METHODS: The National Cancer Database from 2010-2016 identified brain metastases patients from non-small cell lung cancer throughout the US having undergone SRS. Utilization between GKRS and LINAC was assessed before (2010-2012), during (2013-2014) and after (2015-2016) ATRA implementation. RESULTS: In 2013, there was a substantial decrease of LINAC SRS in favor of GKRS in non-academic centers. Over the 3-year span immediately preceding ATRA implementation, 39% of all eligible SRS cases received LINAC. There was a modest decrease in LINAC utilization over the 2 years immediately following ATRA implementation (35%), followed by an increase over the next two years (40%). SRS modality showed differences over the three time periods (unadjusted, p = 0.043), primarily in non-academic centers (unadjusted, p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: ATRA implementation in 2013 caused an initial spike in Gamma Knife SRS utilization, followed by a decline to rates similar to the years before implementation. These findings indicate that the ATRA provision mandating Medicare reduction of outpatient payment rates for Gamma Knife to be equivalent with those of LINAC SRS had a significant short-term impact on the radiosurgical treatment of metastatic brain disease throughout the US, serving as a reminder of the importance/impact of public policy on treatment modality utilization by physicians and hospitals.

Direct and indirect costs associated with stereotactic radiosurgery or open surgery for medial temporal lobe epilepsy: Results from the ROSE trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a less-invasive approach to surgery for medically refractory temporal lobe epilepsy is associated with lower health care costs and costs of lost productivity over time, compared to open surgery. METHODS: We compared direct medical costs and indirect productivity costs associated with treatment with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) or anterior temporal lobectomy (ATL) in the ROSE (Radiosurgery or Open Surgery for Epilepsy) trial. Health care use was abstracted from hospital bills, the study database, and diaries in which participants recorded health care use and time lost from work while seeking care. Costs of use were calculated using a Medicare costing approach used in a prior study of the costs of ATL. The power of many analyses was limited by the sample size and data skewing. RESULTS: Combined treatment and follow-up costs (in thousands of US dollars) did not differ between SRS (n = 20, mean = $76.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 50.7-115.6) and ATL (n = 18, mean = $79.0, 95% CI = 60.09-103.8). Indirect costs also did not differ. More ATL than SRS participants were free of consciousness-impairing seizures in each year of follow-up (all P < 0.05). Costs declined following ATL (P = 0.005). Costs tended to increase over the first 18 months following SRS (P = 0.17) and declined thereafter (P = 0.06). This mostly reflected hospitalizations for SRS-related adverse events in the second year of follow-up. SIGNIFICANCE: Lower initial costs of SRS for medial temporal lobe epilepsy were largely offset by hospitalization costs related to adverse events later in the course of follow-up. Future studies of less-invasive alternatives to ATL will need to assess adverse events and major costs systematically and prospectively to understand the economic implications of adopting these technologies.

Differences in United States Insurance Payer Policies and American Society for Radiation Oncology's (ASTRO) Model Policy on Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT).

PURPOSE: Insurance payers in the United States vary in the indications for which they consider stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) "medically necessary." We compared changes in policies after the last update to the American Society for Radiation Oncology's (ASTRO) SBRT model policy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We identified 77 payers with SBRT policies in 2015 from a policy aggregator, as well as 4 national benefits managers (NBMs). Of these, 65 payers and 3 NBMs had publicly available updates since 2015. For each of the indications in ASTRO's model policy, we calculated the proportion of payers that considered SBRT medically necessary. We used Fisher's exact test to compare these proportions between 2015 and now, between policies updated in the past 12 months and those updated less often, and between national and regional payers currently. RESULTS: Payers consider SBRT medically necessary most often for primary lung cancer (97%), reirradiation to the spine (91%), prostate cancer (68%), primary liver cancer (66%), and spinal metastases with radioresistant histologies (66%). Policies have become more aligned with ASTRO's model policy over time. National payers and NBMs cover indications in higher proportions than regional payers. CONCLUSIONS: Although there have been improvements over time, more work is needed to align payer policies with ASTRO's model SBRT policy, especially at the regional level.