Palliative radiotherapy practice within Western European countries: impact of the radiotherapy financing system?

Cost-effectiveness of particle therapy: current evidence and future needs

PURPOSE

Questions are being raised regarding the cost of particle therapy (PT), and with them criticism that PT is too expensive to allow the expected gain in effectiveness. This paper aims to get more insight in the cost and cost-effectiveness of particle therapy and to discuss a future strategy that allows for critical assessment of this health technology.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic literature review based on an earlier published comprehensive review was performed and updated until June 1st 2008. Besides, current business plans of PT projects were examined. Additionally, results retrieved from a cost-simulation tool developed under auspice of the ENLIGHT were discussed.

RESULTS

The current literature on cost-effectiveness of PT is scarce, non-comparable, and largely not performed according to standard health technology assessment criteria. Besides, different perspectives for cost evaluations have been used, making it difficult to compare and to determine the relative impact in terms of costs for this new treatment modality.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence on the cost-effectiveness of PT is scarce. Adequate reimbursement is necessary to support such innovative yet costly treatments. For now, model-based economic evaluations performed at least from a health care perspective may help us to gain evidence-based insight into cost-effectiveness.

Defining the Need for Breast Cancer Radiotherapy in the General Population: a Criterion-based Benchmarking Approach

AIMS

Determining the appropriate rate of radiotherapy is important for ensuring optimal radiotherapy utilisation and accessibility. A criterion-based benchmark (CBB) was developed for estimating the need for radiotherapy in incident breast cancer cases. Our primary objective was to compare an evidence-based estimate (Ebest) of need against the CBB. These estimates were then compared with radiotherapy rates in Ontario, Canada and the USA. Surgical rates were also examined.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Benchmarks were defined in Ontario as communities in proximity to cancer centres and without long waiting lists. Patient data from 1997 to 2001 were prospectively collected from radiotherapy cancer centres. Surgical data were obtained from the Canadian Institute for Health Information database. The public use file of Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) described treatment in the USA.

RESULTS

In total, 4241 cases of breast cancer were diagnosed in benchmark communities. The overall radiotherapy rate by Ebest was 64.0% (95% confidence interval: 58.1-69.8%) compared with the CBB of 60.7% (59.3-62.1%). In comparison, Ontario's overall radiotherapy rate was 55.6% (55.0-56.1%) and in SEER it was 49.3% (48.9-49.6%). Adjuvant radiotherapy rates after lumpectomy were 100% in Ebest and 83.6% (82.0-85.1%) by the CBB. The Ebest and CBB post-mastectomy rates were 21.9% (20.6-23.3%) and 34.6% (32.5-36.7%), respectively. Observed post-lumpectomy radiotherapy rates were 75.1% in Ontario and 65.3% in SEER. Post-mastectomy radiotherapy rates were 29.5% in Ontario and 17.0% in SEER.

CONCLUSIONS

CBB provides a reasonable estimate of the overall need for radiotherapy in breast cancer. Observed radiotherapy rates in Ontario and the USA suggest an age-related decrease in the use of radiotherapy. The benchmark estimate suggests a shortfall of adjuvant breast radiotherapy utilisation in Ontario.

Review of patterns of practice and patients’ preferences in the treatment of bone metastases with palliative radiotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Since the 1980s, randomized clinical trials showed that single fraction radiotherapy (RT) provided equal pain relief as multiple fractions of RT in the treatment of bone metastases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using Medline, a literature search was conducted on patterns of practice among radiation oncologists and patients' preferences of dose fractionations for the treatment of bone metastases.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Fifteen studies on international patterns of practice published between 1966 and May 2006 were identified. Surveys of Canadian radiation oncologists indicated approximately 85% preferred multiple fractions, most often as 20 Gray in five fractions (20 Gy/5). Surveys in the United States indicated that 30 Gy/10 was most commonly used, and 90-100% of these oncologists preferred multiple over single fraction RT. Multiple fractions were most commonly used in the United Kingdom, Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand, and India; however, more radiation oncologists in these countries would prescribe a single fraction than in North America. Three studies investigated patients' preferences of dose fractionations. In the Australian study, most patients favored single fraction RT as long as long-term outcomes were not compromised. Durability of pain relief was considered more important than short-term convenience factors. In the Singapore study, 85% of patients would choose extended courses of RT (24 Gy/6) compared to a single 8 Gy. In the Canadian study, most patients (76%) would choose a single 8 Gy over 20 Gy/5 of palliative RT due to greater convenience.

CONCLUSION

Despite strong evidence supporting the use of single fraction RT, current practices and preferences favor multiple fractions for the treatment of bone metastases. This has significant implications for the overall quality of life, RT department workload, costs to healthcare systems, and patient convenience.

[Valorisation of high technology radiotherapy in Europe]

In order to support adoption and dissemination into clinical practice of innovative treatment strategies, being almost by definition more expensive than the corresponding standard treatments, an appropriate reimbursement is a prerequisite. This article describes different possible financing systems in the context of technological advances in radiation oncology and analyses if and how the reimbursement issue has been tackled in European radiotherapy centres.

Survey on use of palliative radiotherapy in hospice care

PURPOSE

Radiation oncologists and hospice professionals both provide end-of-life care for oncology patients, and little has been written about the interface between these two groups of specialists. Hospice professionals were surveyed to assess the perceived need for palliative radiotherapy in the hospice setting, to investigate factors that limit the access of hospice patients to radiotherapy, and to suggest areas of future collaboration on education, research, and patient advocacy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Members of the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization (NHPCO) and American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology jointly authored a questionnaire to investigate the beliefs of hospice professionals toward the use of radiotherapy for oncology patients in hospice. The questionnaire was distributed to all NHPCO member institutions, and the results were compiled and statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

Four hundred eighty of more than 1,800 surveyed facilities responded to the questionnaire. The findings suggest that the majority of hospice professionals feel that radiotherapy is important in palliative oncology and that radiotherapy is widely available in the United States. Yet less than 3% on average of hospice patients served by hospices responding to the survey actually received radiotherapy in 2002. The most common barriers to radiotherapy in hospice care include radiotherapy expense, transportation difficulties, short life expectancy, and educational deficiencies between the specialties.

CONCLUSION

Multiple barriers act to limit the use of palliative radiotherapy in hospice care. Finding ways to surmount these obstacles will provide opportunity for improvement in the end-of-life care of cancer patients.

Palliation of metastatic bone pain: single fraction versus multifraction radiotherapy--a systematic review of randomised trials

Recent randomised studies have reported that single fraction radiotherapy is as effective as multifraction radiotherapy in relieving pain caused by bone metastasis. However, there are concerns about the higher re-treatment rates and the efficacy of preventing future complications, such as pathological fracture and spinal cord compression, by single fraction radiotherapy. A systematic review of randomised studies, examining the effectiveness of single fraction radiotherapy versus multiple fraction radiotherapy for metastatic bone pain relief and prevention of bone complications, was conducted to help answer this controversy. Randomised studies comparing single fraction radiotherapy with multifraction radiotherapy on metastatic bone pain were identified. The analyses were performed using intention-to-treat principle. The results were pooled using meta-analysis to estimate the effect of treatment on pain response, re-treatment rate, pathological fracture rate and spinal cord compression rate. Twelve trials involving 3621 sites were included in the meta-analysis. The overall pain-response rates for single fraction radiotherapy and multifraction radiotherapy were 60% (1080/1814) and 59% (1060/1807), respectively, giving an odds ratio (OR) of 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90-1.19), indicating no difference between the two radiotherapy schedules. There was also no difference in complete pain response rates for single fraction radiotherapy (34% [508/1476]) and multifraction radiotherapy (32% [475/1473]), with an OR of 1.10 (950% CI 0.94-1.30). Patients treated by single fraction radiotherapy had a higher re-treatment rate, with 21.5% (267/1240) requiring re-treatment compared with 7.4% (91/1236) of patients in the multifraction radiotherapy arm (OR 3.44 [95% CI 2.67-4.43]). The pathological fracture rate was also higher in single fraction radiotherapy arm patients. Three per cent (37/1240) of patients treated by single fraction radiotherapy developed pathological fracture compared with 1.6% (20/1236) for those treated by multifraction radiotherapy (OR 1.82 [95% CI 1.06-3.11]). The spinal cord compression rates were similar for both arms (OR 1.41 [95% CI 0.72-2.75]). Single fraction radiotherapy was as effective as multifraction radiotherapy in relieving metastatic bone pain. However, the re-treatment rate and pathological fracture rate were higher after single fraction radiotherapy. Studies with quality of life and health economic end points are warranted to find out the optimal treatment option.

Palliation of metastatic bone pain: single fraction versus multifraction radiotherapy - a systematic review of the randomised trials

BACKGROUND

Recent randomised studies reported that single fraction radiotherapy was as effective as multifraction radiotherapy in relieving pain due to bone metastasis. However, there are concerns about the higher re-treatment rates and the efficacy of preventing future complications such as pathological fracture and spinal cord compression by single fraction radiotherapy.

OBJECTIVES

To undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis of single fraction radiotherapy versus multifraction radiotherapy for metastatic bone pain relief and prevention of bone complications.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Trials were identified through MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cancerlit, reference lists of relevant articles and conference proceedings. Relevant data was extracted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised studies comparing single fraction radiotherapy with multifraction radiotherapy on metastatic bone pain

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The analyses were performed using intention-to-treat principle. The results were pooled using meta-analysis to estimate the effect of treatment on pain response, re-treatment rate, pathological fracture rate and spinal cord compression rate.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven trials that involved 3435 patients were identified. Of 3435 patients, 52 patients were randomised more than once for different painful bone metastasis sites. Altogether, 3487 painful sites were randomised. The trials included patients with painful bone metastases of any primary sites, but were mainly prostate, breast and lung. The overall pain response rates for single fraction radiotherapy and multifraction radiotherapy were 60% (1059/1779) and 59% (1038/1769) respectively, giving an odds ratio of 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89 - 1.19) indicating no difference between the two radiotherapy schedules. There was also no difference in complete pain response rates for single fraction radiotherapy (34% [497/1441]) and multifraction radiotherapy (32% [463/1435]) with an odds ratio of 1.11 (95%CI 0.94-1.30). Patients treated by single fraction radiotherapy had a higher re-treatment rate with 21.5% (267/1240) requiring re-treatment compared to 7.4% (91/1236) of patients in the multifraction radiotherapy arm (odds ratio 3.44 [95%CI 2.67-4.43]). The pathological fracture rate was also higher in single fraction radiotherapy arm patients. Three percent (37/1240) of patients treated by single fraction radiotherapy developed pathological fracture compared to 1.6% (20/1236) for those treated by multifraction radiotherapy (odds ratio 1.82 [95%CI 1.06-3.11]). The spinal cord compression rates were similar for both arms (odds ratio 1.41 [95%CI 0.72-2.75]). Repeated analyses excluding dropout patients gave similar results.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

Single fraction radiotherapy was as effective as multifraction radiotherapy in relieving metastatic bone pain. However, the re-treatment rate and pathological fracture rates were higher after single fraction radiotherapy. Studies with quality of life and health economic end points are warranted to find out the optimal treatment option.

Defining the need for radiotherapy for lung cancer in the general population: a criterion-based, benchmarking approach

BACKGROUND

We have previously used an evidence-based, epidemiologic approach to estimate the proportion of incident cases that should be treated with radiotherapy (RT) for lung cancer. The first objective of the present study was to compare this evidence-based estimate of the appropriate rate of use of RT with the rates observed in selected "benchmark" communities where there are no barriers to the appropriate use of RT and no incentives to the unnecessary use of RT. The second objective of the study was to compare the rates of use of RT in the general populations in the United States and Canada with the estimated appropriate rate.

METHODS

We established benchmark rates for the use of RT for lung cancer in Ontario, Canada, where: 1) residents make no direct payments for RT; 2) all RT is provided by site-specialized radiation oncologists in multidisciplinary cancer centers, and 3) radiation oncologists receive a salary in lieu of technical fees. Communities located close to cancer centers without long waiting lists for RT were selected to serve as benchmarks. Prospectively gathered electronic treatment records from all RT cancer centers were linked to the provincial cancer registry to describe the rate of use of RT in Ontario. The public use file of Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Registries (SEER) was used to describe the use of RT in the United States.

RESULTS

Overall, 41.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 39.9%, 42.7%) of incident cases of lung cancer received RT as part of their initial management in the benchmark communities compared with the evidence-based estimate of 41.6% (95% CI, 39.2%, 44.1%). The rate of use of RT in the initial management of nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the benchmark communities was 49.3% (95% CI, 47.5%, 51.1%) compared with the evidence-based estimate of 45.9% (95% CI, 41.6%, 50.2%). The use of RT in the initial management of small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) in the benchmark communities was 47.0% (95% CI, 43.3%, 50.7%) compared with the evidence-based estimate of 45.4% (95% CI, 42.4%, 48.4%). In many counties of Ontario, the observed rates of RT use in the initial management of lung cancer were significantly lower than either the benchmark rate or the evidence-based estimate of the appropriate rate. In contrast, rates of use of RT in most counties in the SEER regions of the United States were close to, or higher than, the estimated appropriate rate.

CONCLUSIONS

The observed benchmark rate converged on the evidence-based estimate of the appropriate rate of use of RT for lung cancer, suggesting that either measure might reasonably be used as a "standard" against which to compare rates observed in similar populations elsewhere.

Palliative radiotherapy for patients with bone metastases: survey of primary care physicians

Three hundred Canadian primary care physicians were surveyed to determine their perceived barriers to the accessibility of palliative bone radiotherapy and their perceptions regarding treatment efficacy. The response rate was 61%. Factors perceived to hinder accessibility were identified, and the physicians recognized they were not comfortable with their radiotherapy knowledge.

Meta-analysis of dose-fractionation radiotherapy trials for the palliation of painful bone metastases

PURPOSE

To compare pain relief among various dose-fractionation schedules of localized radiotherapy (RT) in the treatment of painful bone metastases.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A systematic search for randomized trials of localized RT on bone metastases using different dose fractionations was performed using Medline (1966 to February 2001) and other sources. The primary outcomes of interest were complete and overall pain relief. The studies were divided into three groups: comparisons of doses given as a single fraction, single vs. multiple fractions, and comparisons of doses given as multiple fractions. The complete and overall pain responses for studies comparing single vs. multiple fractions were pooled. Exploratory analyses of the dose-response relationship, using the biologic effective dose (alpha/beta = 10), were performed using results from all three groups of trials.

RESULTS

Two trials comparing single vs. single, eight trials comparing single vs. multiple, and six trials comparing multiple vs. multiple fractions were included. The complete and overall response rates from studies comparing single-fraction RT (median 8 Gy, range 8-10 Gy) against multifraction RT (median 20 Gy in 5 fractions, range 20 Gy in 5 fractions to 30 Gy in 10 fractions) were homogeneous and allowed pooling of data. Of 3260 randomized patients in seven studies, 539 (33.4%) of 1613 and 523 (32.3%) of 1618 patients achieved a complete response after single and multifraction RT, respectively, giving a risk ratio of 1.03 (95% confidence interval 0.94-1.14; p = 0.5). The overall response rate was in favor of single-fraction RT (1011 [62.1%] of 1629) compared with multifraction (958 [58.7%] of 1631; risk ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 1.00-1.11, p = 0.04), reaching statistical significance. However, when the analysis was restricted to evaluated patients alone, the overall response rates were similar for single fraction and multifraction RT, at 1011 (72.7%) of 1391 and 958 (72.5%) of 1321, respectively (risk ratio 1.00; p = 0.9). Exploratory analyses by biologic effective dose did not reveal any dose-response relationship among the fractionation schedules used (single 8 Gy to 40 Gy in 15 fractions). Of the other results and observations reported in the trials, only the re-irradiation rates were consistently different between the treatment arms (more frequent re-irradiation in lower dose arms among trials reporting re-irradiation rates).

CONCLUSION

Meta-analysis of reported randomized trials shows no significant difference in complete and overall pain relief between single and multifraction palliative RT for bone metastases. No dose-response relationship could be detected by including data from the multifraction vs. multifraction trials. Additional data are needed to evaluate the role of re-irradiation and the impact of RT on other treatment end points such as quality of life.

Single- versus multiple-fraction radiotherapy in patients with painful bone metastases: cost-utility analysis based on a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Radiotherapy is an effective palliative treatment for cancer patients with painful bone metastases. Although single- and multiple-fraction radiotherapy are thought to provide equal palliation, which treatment schedule provides better value for the money is unknown. We compared quality-adjusted life expectancy (the overall valuation of the health of the patients) and societal costs for patients receiving either single- or multiple-fraction radiotherapy.

METHODS

A societal cost-utility analysis was performed on a Dutch randomized, controlled trial of 1157 patients with painful bone metastases that compared pain responses and quality of life from a single-fraction treatment schedule of 8 Gy with a treatment schedule of six fractions of 4 Gy each. The societal values of life expectancies were assessed with the EuroQol classification system (EQ-5D) questionnaire. A subset of 166 patients also answered additional questionnaires to estimate nonradiotherapy and nonmedical costs. Statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

Comparing the single- and multiple-fraction radiotherapy schedules, no differences were found in life expectancy (43.0 versus 40.4 weeks, P =.20) or quality-adjusted life expectancy (17.7 versus 16.0 weeks, P =.21). The estimated cost of radiotherapy, including retreatments and nonmedical costs, was statistically significantly lower for the single-fraction schedule than for the multiple-fraction schedule ($2438 versus $3311, difference = $873, 95% confidence interval [CI] on the difference = $449 to $1297; P<.001). The estimated difference in total societal costs was larger, also in favor of the single-fraction schedule, but it was not statistically significant ($4700 versus $6453, difference = $1753, 95% CI on the difference = -$99 to $3604; P =.06). For willingness-to-pay between $5000 and $40 000 per quality-adjusted life year, the single-fraction schedule was statistically significantly more cost-effective than the multiple-fraction schedule (P< or =.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with multiple-fraction radiotherapy, single-fraction radiotherapy provides equal palliation and quality of life and has lower medical and societal costs, at least in The Netherlands. Therefore, single-fraction radiotherapy should be considered as the palliative treatment of choice for cancer patients with painful bone metastases.

Prospective patient-based assessment of effectiveness of palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases

PURPOSE

The primary objective of this report is to prospectively evaluate pain control provided by palliative radiotherapy for all irradiated patients with bone metastases by using their own assessments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective database was set up for all patients referred for palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases. Patients were asked to rate their pain intensity using an 11 categorical point scale (0=lack of pain, 10=worst pain imaginable). Analgesic consumption during the preceding 24 h was recorded and converted into equivalent total daily dose of oral morphine. For those who received radiotherapy, follow-up was conducted via telephone interviews at week 1, 2, 4, 8 and 12 post treatment using the same pain scale and analgesic diary. Radiotherapy outcome was initially assessed by pain score alone. Complete response (CR) was defined as a pain score of 0. Partial response (PR) was defined as a reduction of score > or =2 or a> or =50% reduction of the pre-treatment pain score. We further analyzed outcomes using integrated pain and analgesic scores. Response was defined as either a reduction of pain score > or =2 with at least no increase in analgesics or at least stable pain score with a > or =50% reduction in analgesic intake.

RESULTS

One hundred and five patients were treated with palliative radiotherapy. When response evaluation was by pain score alone, the PR rates at 2, 4, 8 and 12 weeks were 44, 42, 30 and 38%, respectively; while the CR rates were 24, 32, 31 and 29%, respectively. The overall response rate at 12 weeks was 67%. When assessed by the integrated pain and analgesic scores, the response rates were 50, 46, 43 and 43%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The response rate in our patient population is comparable with those reported in clinical trials. This is important when counselling our patients on the expected effectiveness of radiotherapy outside of clinical trials. Our observations confirm the generalizability of the trials conducted to date. While randomized trials still remain the gold standard of research, observational studies can serve as useful adjuncts to randomized trials to confirm the efficacy and guide the design of new controlled trials.

[Gross tumor volume and clinical target volume in radiotherapy: bone metastasis]

Bone is one of the three most favored sites of solid tumor metastasis. Skeletal metastasis may be identified by four clinical imaging methods: plain film radiography, computed tomography scanning, radioisotope scanning, and magnetic resonance imaging. The dose per fraction, total dose, and anatomic distribution of the radiation (dosimetry) are important factors in determining the efficacy and normal tissue tolerance to radiotherapy. Controversies about fractionation of palliative radiotherapy for bone metastasis are steel ongoing. The most commonly used schedules are a single treatment of 8 Gy, 30 Gy in 10 fractions and 20 Gy in 5 fractions. Treatment volumes and safety margins depend on the location and the extent of the bone metastasis, and are also determined by the symptoms felt by the patient.