Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiation Therapy Compared With Surgery and Radiofrequency Ablation in Two Patient Cohorts: Metastatic Liver Cancer and Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

ABSTRACT

AIMS: To compare the cost-effectiveness of stereotactic ablative body radiation therapy (SABR) with radiofrequency ablation and surgery in adult patients with metastatic liver cancer and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two patient cohorts were assessed liver oligometastases and HCC. For each patient cohort, a decision analytic model was constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness of interventions over a 5-year horizon. A Markov process was embedded in the decision model to simulate the possible prognosis of cancer. Data on transition probabilities, survival, side-effects, quality of life and costs were obtained from published sources and the SABR Commissioning through Evaluation (CtE) scheme. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio with respect to quality-adjusted life-years. The robustness of the results was examined in a sensitivity analysis. Analyses were conducted from a National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, which assumed that all three interventions were associated with the same cancer progression rates and mortality rates, SABR was the most cost-effective intervention for both patient cohorts. This conclusion was sensitive to the cancer progression rate, mortality rate and cost of interventions. Assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year, the probability that SABR is cost-effective was 57% and 50% in liver oligometastases and HCC, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate a potential for SABR to be cost-effective for patients with liver oligometastases and HCC. This finding supports further investigation in clinical trials directly comparing SABR with surgery and radiofrequency ablation.