Cost-effectiveness of adding an electron-beam boost to tangential radiation therapy in patients with negative margins after conservative surgery for early-stage breast cancer

Dosimetric comparison of left sided whole breast irradiation with Tangential wedge beam, electron boosted Tangential wedged beam and asymmetric technique

Background:

Irradiation of the adjacent critical structures is inevitable in breast cancer radiotherapy (RT). Our purpose is to assess the dose distribution across the breast tissue and adjacent organs with our institutional asymmetric technique for left-sided breast cancer compared to the standard tangential wedged beam (TWB) and electron-boosted TWB techniques.

Materials and Methods:

The three RT planning were created for 30 consecutive patients with a focus on proper coverage of the planning target volume (PTV). The irritated doses into the heart, ipsilateral lung, and left anterior descending artery (LAD) were evaluated.

Results:

No significant difference was found in the mean values of relative PTV irradiated to 47.5 Gy, PTV dose and the volume of PTV, and critical organs between the treatments. The mean dose (Dmean) irradiated to the heart and LAD was lowest with the electron-boosted TWB. The Dmean to the heart was comparable between the TWB and asymmetric RT techniques, while the Dmean to LAD was significantly reduced with asymmetric technique versus TWB. The heart volume receiving ≥25 Gy and the Dmean to the left lung were significantly decreased with the asymmetric technique compared with TWB. The mean relative lung volume irradiated to ≥20 Gy was comparable between all techniques. The mean central lung distance was also significantly increased from 18.03 ± 4.5 cm with asymmetric RT to 37.47 ± 5.6 cm with TWB and to 27.67 ± 3.8 cm with electron-boosted TWB techniques.

Conclusion:

The asymmetric technique is useful for patients with breast cancer on the left side, having acceptable PTV coverage and considerably reduced cardiopulmonary doses.

In the Era After the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 'Boost' Study, is the Additional Radiotherapy to the Breast Tumour Bed Still Beneficial for Young Women?

AIMS

The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 22,881-10,882 trial showed significant benefit of a radiotherapy boost (RTB) in women ≤40 years in a pre-hormone therapy (HT) era. We determined how the use of HT and RTB changed in response to clinical guidelines and whether the benefit of routine RTB was still observed in the HT era.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 1996 and 2004, a provincial database identified all women ≤40 years with breast cancer who met the inclusion criteria of the EORTC trial. In total, 411 patients were classified into three eras defined by the guidelines: era 1 (discretionary HT, discretionary RTB); era 2 (routine HT, discretionary RTB); era 3 (routine HT, routine RTB). HT use, RTB use and cumulative incidence of local recurrence were calculated and compared across eras.

RESULTS

HT use increased after the first policy change from 13% to 75% for oestrogen receptor-positive patients (P < 0.01). RTB use also increased from 33% to 76% following the second policy change (P < 0.01). At 10 years, the cumulative incidence of local recurrence was 12% in era 1, 6% in era 2 and 6% in era 3 (era 2 versus era 3, P = 0.92). For patients in the routine HT era (eras 2 and 3 combined) there was no significant difference in local recurrence between RTB and 'no RTB' patients (6% versus 7%, P = 0.81).

CONCLUSIONS

The routine use of HT and RTB increased significantly after new practice guidelines. Introduction of the HT guideline was associated with a 6% improvement in local recurrence at 10 years. No improvement in local recurrence was associated with the introduction of the RTB guideline in the HT era. The routine use of a boost in unselected young women with negative margins should be re-evaluated in the current HT era.

Tumour bed boost radiotherapy for women after breast-conserving surgery

BACKGROUND

Breast-conserving therapy, involving breast-conserving surgery followed by whole-breast irradiation and optionally a boost to the tumour bed, is a standard therapeutic option for women with early-stage breast cancer. A boost to the tumour bed means that an extra dose of radiation is applied that covers the initial tumour site. The rationale for a boost of radiotherapy to the tumour bed is that (i) local recurrence occurs mostly at the site of the primary tumour because remaining microscopic tumour cells are most likely situated there; and (ii) radiation can eliminate these causative microscopic tumour cells. The boost continues to be used in women at high risk of local recurrence, but is less widely accepted for women at lower risk. Reasons for questioning the boost are twofold. Firstly, the boost brings higher treatment costs. Secondly, the potential adverse events are not negligible. In this Cochrane Review, we investigated the effect of the tumour bed boost on local control and side effects.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of tumour bed boost radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery and whole-breast irradiation for the treatment of breast cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (January 1966 to 1 March 2017), Embase (1980 to 1 March 2017), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov on 1 March 2017. We also searched the European Society of Radiotherapy and Oncology Annual Meeting, the St Gallen Oncology Conferences, and the American Society for Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting for abstracts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing the addition and the omission of breast cancer tumour bed boost radiotherapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (IK and CW) performed data extraction and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's 'Risk of bias' tool, resolving any disagreements through discussion. We entered data into Review Manager 5 for analysis and applied GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 5 randomised controlled trials analysing a total of 8325 women.Local control appeared to be better for women receiving a tumour bed boost compared to no tumour bed boost (hazard ratio (HR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 0.75; 5 studies, 8315 women, low-quality evidence). Overall survival did not differ with or without a tumour bed boost (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.14; 2 studies, 6342 women, moderate-quality evidence). Disease-free survival did not differ with or without a tumour bed boost (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.02; 3 studies, 6549 women, low-quality evidence). Late toxicity scored by means of percentage of breast retraction assessment did not differ with or without a tumour bed boost (mean difference 0.38, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.93; 2 studies, 1526 women, very low-quality evidence). Cosmesis scored by a panel was better (i.e. excellent or good compared to fair or poor) in the no-boost group (odds ratio (OR) 1.41, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.85; 2 studies, 1116 women, low-quality evidence). Cosmesis scored by a physician did not differ with or without a tumour bed boost (OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.69; 2 studies, 592 women, very low-quality evidence).We excluded two studies in a sensitivity analysis of local recurrence (because the biological equivalent dose (BED) to the tumour bed was lower, in situ tumours were included, or there was a high risk of selective reporting bias or blinding of outcome assessment bias), which resulted in a HR of 0.62 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.73; 3 studies, 6963 women, high-quality evidence). Subgroup analysis including women older than 40 years of age yielded a HR of 0.65 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; 2 studies, 5058 women, high-quality evidence).We found no data for the outcomes of acute toxicity, quality of life, or costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It appears that local control rates are increased with the boost to the tumour bed, but we found no evidence of a benefit for other oncological outcomes. Subgroup analysis including women older than 40 years of age yielded similarly significant results. Objective percentage of breast retraction assessment appears similar between groups. It appears that the cosmetic outcome is worse with the boost to the tumour bed, but only when measured by a panel, not when assessed by a physician.

A systematic review of health economic evaluation in adjuvant breast radiotherapy: Quality counted by numbers

BACKGROUND

Evolving practice in adjuvant breast radiotherapy inevitably impacts healthcare budgets. This is reflected in a rise of health economic evaluations (HEE) in this domain. The available HEE literature was analysed qualitatively and quantitatively, using available instruments.

METHODS

HEEs published between 1/1/2000 and 31/10/2016 were retrieved through a systematic search in Medline, Cochrane and Embase. A quality-assessment using CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) was translated into a quantitative score and compared with Tufts Medical Centre CEA registry and Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) results.

RESULTS

Twenty cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) and thirteen cost comparisons (CC) were analysed. In qualitative evaluation, valuation or justification of data sources, population heterogeneity and discussion on generalizability, in addition to declaration on funding, were often absent or incomplete. After quantification, the average CHEERS-scores were 74% (CI 66.9-81.1%) and 75.6% (CI 70.7-80.5%) for CEAs and CCs respectively. CEA-scores did not differ significantly from Tufts and QHES-scores.

CONCLUSION

Quantitative CHEERS evaluation is feasible and yields comparable results to validated instruments. HEE in adjuvant breast radiotherapy is of acceptable quality, however, further efforts are needed to improve comprehensive reporting of all data, indispensable for assessing relevance, reliability and generalizability of results.

Making the case for cost-effectiveness research

Cost-effectiveness research is a component of clinical outcomes that addresses both cost and outcomes simultaneously, providing an understanding of what incremental costs, if any, are required for better clinical outcomes. In the current health care climate, these analyses are increasingly performed, and critical, as practitioners must optimize patient care at lower costs. This review discusses cost effectiveness research, its utilization in surgical oncology, and future opportunities provided by its methodologies.

Cost-effectiveness studies in radiation therapy

The field of radiation therapy has made dramatic technical advances over the past 20 years. 3D conformal radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy and proton beam therapy have all been developed in an attempt to improve the therapeutic ratio: higher cure rates with lower toxicity. Unfortunately, although the costs of radiation therapy are certainly increasing, it is unclear whether its clinical benefit has also improved. Cost-effectiveness analyses are designed to formally evaluate the cost of a treatment relative to an associated change in quality-adjusted survival. As the cost of oncologic care is increasing, it is critically important to assess the cost-effectiveness of radiation therapy. This article will describe the issues surrounding the delivery and cost of radiation therapy, and it will summarize the work that has been done to evaluate the use of cost-effectiveness in radiation oncology.

Decision modelling of economic evaluation of intervention programme of breast cancer

OBJECTIVES

Economic appraisal of an intervention is a complex and multivariable problem, with probabilistic issues related not only to clinical outcomes but also to costs and willingness to pay.

METHODS

We provide a comprehensive framework for economic appraisal of a health intervention to prevent beast cancer mortality, involving probabilistic model of costs as well as of aspects of the disease process. The economic appraisal can give a range of probabilities of cost-effectiveness depending on willingness or ability to pay.

RESULTS

We apply the method to the example of polychemotherapy for early breast cancer. Results indicate a 30% probability of cost-effectiveness for a willingness to pay of $ 60,000 per quality-adjusted life-year and around 50% for a threshold of $ 100,000.

CONCLUSION

The comprehensive economic appraisal model is a powerful tool for decision making over a range of economic environments.

Hypofractionated breast radiotherapy: financial and economic consequences

A large amount of clinical evidence has recently accumulated supporting the efficacy and safety of hypofractionated radiotherapy for post-operative breast cancer. These schedules, typically delivering a lower total dose in fewer, but larger than 2 Gy fractions, are more convenient for the patients by limiting the number of treatment attendances. Moreover, the reduced resource use in terms of personnel and machine time is advantageous for radiotherapy departments and translates into lower treatment costs. In order to formally validate this therapeutic approach from a societal perspective, however, cost-effectiveness evaluations weighing long-term outcome against the societal costs incurred until many years after treatment are needed.

Health states of women after conservative surgery and radiation for breast cancer

The aim of the study is to use the EQ-5D instrument to evaluate the long-term health states of women with early stage breast cancer treated by breast-conserving surgery and radiation. A total of 1,050 women treated with conservative surgery and radiation with or without systemic therapy completed 2,480 questionnaires during follow-up visits. The EQ-5D is a standardized and validated instrument for measuring quality of life outcomes. The descriptive system uses 5 dimensions of health with three possible levels of response that combine into 243 (3(5)) possible unique health states that are each assigned a values-based index score from 0 to 1. The visual analog scale (VAS) rates health on a simple vertical line from 0 to 100. Higher scores correspond to better health status. The mean index scores were 0.89 (95% CI: 0.87-0.91) at 5 years, 0.9 (95% CI: 0.86-0.94) at 10 years, and 0.9 (95% CI: 0.83-1.0) at 15 years. There were no significant differences in health states between patients by age when compared with U.S. controls. There was a statistically significant positive correlation between the results of the VAS and descriptive system. Significant trends in health dimensions over 15 years were increased problems with self-care and decreased problems with anxiety/depression, pain/discomfort, and performing usual activities. This study of EQ-5D is unique and demonstrates very high quality of life in patients long-term after breast-conserving surgery and radiation. These health states are comparable to the adult female U.S. population. These data will provide valuable patient utility information for informing decision analyses investigating new treatments in women with breast cancer.

Healthcare rationing by proxy: cost-effectiveness analysis and the misuse of the $50,000 threshold in the US

The application of cost-effectiveness analysis in healthcare has become commonplace in the US, but the validity of this approach is in jeopardy unless the proverbial $US50,000 per QALY benchmark for determining value for money is updated for the 21st century. While the initial aim of this article was to review the arguments for abandoning the $US50,000 threshold, it quickly turned to questioning whether we should maintain a fixed threshold at all. Our consideration of the relevance of thresholds was framed by two important historical considerations. First, cost-effectiveness analysis was developed for a resource allocation exercise where a threshold would be determined endogenously by maximizing a fixed budget across all possible interventions and not for piecemeal evaluation where a threshold needs to be set exogenously. Second, the foundations of the $US50,000 threshold are highly dubious, so it would be unacceptable merely to adjust for inflation or current clinical practice. Upon consideration of both sides of the argument, we conclude that the arguments for abandoning the concept for maintaining a fixed threshold outweigh those for keeping one. Furthermore, we document a variety of reasons why a threshold needs to vary in the US, including variations across payer, over time, in the true budget impact of interventions and in the measurement of the effectiveness of interventions. We conclude that while a threshold may be needed to interpret the results of a cost-effectiveness analysis, that threshold must vary across payers, populations and even procedures.

Ten-year survival and cost following breast cancer recurrence: estimates from SEER-medicare data

OBJECTIVE

A variety of pharmacologic therapies are available or in development for the prevention of breast cancer recurrence. Assessing the value of these treatments is compromised by a paucity of data on the impact of recurrence on economic costs and survival. The purpose of this study was to shed light on these issues.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of linked SEER-Medicare data. All patients in the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registry who were diagnosed with nonmetastatic breast cancer during 1991-1993 were identified, and their subsequent Medicare claims were scanned for evidence of further breast cancer events (local or distant recurrence, contralateral breast cancer). Medicare claims were then scanned from the time of the event through 2002 to assess patterns of survival and costs.

RESULTS

We identified 10,798 patients in SEER who were diagnosed with nonmetastatic breast cancer during 1991-1993, including 1833 who subsequently had another breast cancer event (local recurrence, 958; distant recurrence, 622; contralateral breast cancer, 253). Median survival was 37 months and 8 months among patients with local and distant recurrence, respectively; 53% of patients with contralateral breast cancer remained alive after all the data were censored at 97 months. Expected 10-year costs (2004 US$, discounted 3%) attributable to distant recurrence, local recurrence, and contralateral breast cancer were $11,450 (SE 2056), $19,596 (SE 1754), and $19,183 (SE 4131), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Breast cancer recurrence and contralateral breast cancer lead to substantial increases in costs, amounting to approximately $11,000-19,000 over 10 years depending on type. The impact of these events on survival also varies considerably by type.

Adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: a cost-utility analysis of FEC-D vs. FEC 100

BACKGROUND

Adjuvant 5-flurouracil, epirubicin and cyclophosphamide-docetaxel (FEC-D) has been shown to improve disease-free and overall survival (DFS and OS), compared to FEC 100, for node-positive breast cancer. An economic evaluation was undertaken to examine the cost-utility (CU) of FEC-D relative to FEC 100 given possible differences in cost between the two regimens.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to calculate the cumulative costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained over a 10-year horizon for a hypothetical cohort of 1,000 women with node-positive breast cancer treated with FEC 100 or FEC-D. Event rates, costs, and utilities were derived from the literature. Efficacy outcomes were based primarily on the hazard ratio of DFS for all patients, but separate analyses were also conducted according to age and menopausal status as per the PACS 01 subgroup analysis results. The model took a third-party direct payer perspective and reports results in 2006 Canadian dollars ($). Both costs and benefits were discounted at 3%.

RESULTS

FEC-D is associated with 0.156 QALY gain and a $2,280 incremental cost compared to FEC 100, with a CU of $14,612/QALY gained. Results were robust to model assumptions and input parameters in a sensitivity analysis but were marginal in pre-menopausal and younger women.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjuvant FEC-D is a cost-effective alternative to FEC 100, with a cost-effectiveness ratio well below commonly employed thresholds. The CU according to age and menopausal status should be considered in view of the potential differences in efficacy in these subgroups, if any.

A Computed Tomography-based Protocol vs Conventional Clinical Mark-up for Breast Electron Boost

AIMS

Computed tomography planning of whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT) improves breast coverage and reduces the normal tissue dose. Computed tomography planning may increase tumour bed boost treatment accuracy. The aims of this investigation were (1) to compare the breast boost volume treated with clinical mark-up with the volume delineated with computed tomography planning and (2) to study tumour bed volume changes between the initial planning computed tomography scan and a second computed tomography scan at the time of breast boost mark-up.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Women receiving adjuvant WBRT and an electron boost after breast-conserving surgery were eligible. As per standard practice, WBRT was computed tomography planned while the boost electron portal was clinically defined. Electron field borders were then traced with wire and a second computed tomography scan was carried out in the boost treatment position. Post-surgical radiological abnormalities were contoured to create a tumour bed clinical target volume (CTV) on both scans (CTV1 and CTV2). A 1cm margin to CTV2 defined the planning target volume (PTV). The proportions of the CTV2 and PTV receiving 90% (V90) and 80% (V80) of the dose were calculated. Changes in volume between CTV1 and CTV2 were analysed.

RESULTS

Data from 47 eligible patients were analysed. The mean V90 for the PTV was 61%. Lower electron energy (P<0.001) and small field sizes (P=0.004) were associated with a low V90. The mean CTV decreased by 4.3 cm3 (P=0.014) and was smaller in those with a long surgery to computed tomography interval (P=0.008). On average, the 90% isodose covered 61 cm3 of normal tissue.

CONCLUSIONS

Conventional clinical breast boost planning is inaccurate. Electron boost computed tomography planning together with appropriate surgical clip placement and the use of mammograms and pathological information should provide optimal coverage of the tumour site. The boost could usually be planned from the initial computed tomography scan.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Adjuvant Trastuzumab Regimens in Early HER2/neu–Positive Breast Cancer

Purpose

One-year adjuvant trastuzumab (AT) therapy, with or without anthracyclines, increases disease-free and overall survival in early-stage HER2/neu-positive breast cancer. We sought to evaluate the cost effectiveness of these regimens, which are expensive and potentially toxic.

Methods

We used a Markov health-state transition model to simulate three adjuvant therapy options for a cohort of 49-year-old women with HER2/neu-positive early-stage breast cancer: conventional chemotherapy without trastuzumab; anthracycline-based AT regimens used in the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-31 and North Central Cancer Treatment Group N9831 trials; and the nonanthracycline AT regimen used in the Breast Cancer International Research group 006 trial. The base case used treatment efficacy measures reported in the randomized clinical trials of AT. We measured health outcomes in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs in 2005 United States dollars (US$) and subjected results to probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

Results

In the base case, the anthracycline-based AT arm has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $39,982/QALY, whereas the nonanthracycline AT arm is more expensive and less effective; this result is insensitive to changes in recurrence rates, but if there is no benefit after 4 years, ICERs exceed $100,000/QALY for both AT arms. Results are moderately sensitive to variation in breast cancer survival rates and trastuzumab cost, and less sensitive to variations in cardiac toxicity.

Conclusion

AT has an ICER comparable to those for other widely used interventions. Longer clinical follow-up is warranted to evaluate the long-term efficacy and toxicity of different AT regimens.

Cost Effectiveness of Adjuvant Trastuzumab in Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2–Positive Breast Cancer

Purpose

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 12-month adjuvant trastuzumab therapy in women with high-risk human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) –positive early breast cancer.

Methods

A Markov model tracked quarterly patients’ transitions between five health states: disease free, local relapse, disease free after local relapse, metastatic disease, and death. Patients were allowed to incur symptomatic or asymptomatic transient cardiac dysfunction during trastuzumab administration. Probabilities were derived mainly from the combined report of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-31 and the North Central Cancer Treatment Group N9831 trials (95% node positive) and a meta-analysis by the Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Costs were estimated from the perspective of the Italian and US health care systems. The analysis was run during a 15-year time horizon. A 3% yearly discount rate was applied to both costs and life-years. Second-order Monte-Carlo and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results

Adjuvant trastuzumab increases life expectancy by 1.54 (1.18 discounted) quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). At a cost of €675 and $767 per weekly dose in the Italian and US setting, respectively, trastuzumab achieves its clinical benefit at a cost of €14,861 (95% CI, €3,917 to €44,028) and $18,970 (95% CI, $6,014 to $45,621) per QALY saved. The incremental cost effectiveness was higher than €50,000/QALY (or $60,000/QALY) at time horizons shorter than 7.8 years and for patients older than 76 years or with a 10-year risk of relapse lower than 15%. The results confirmed the cost effectiveness when simulating a Herceptin Adjuvant Trial (HERA) -like scenario at multiway sensitivity analysis.

Conclusion

In a long-term horizon, adjuvant trastuzumab is a cost-effective therapy for patients with HER2-positive, high-risk, early breast cancer.

Placing the boost in breast-conservation radiotherapy: A review of the role, indications and techniques for breast-boost radiotherapy

Randomised trials have established that the addition of a boost dose of radiotherapy to the lumpectomy site after whole-breast adjuvant radiotherapy further improves local control achieved by whole-breast radiotherapy alone. The absolute size of this benefit varies according to the baseline risk of local recurrence. Age is the strongest predictor of benefit. Below the age of 40 years, the absolute benefit of a boost seems to be substantial, and there are no clearly identified groups unlikely to benefit. Above the age of 50 years, the benefit is small, and several additional risk factors for local failure would need to be present to merit boost treatment. These may include tumour size, high grade, high mitotic rate, lymphovascular invasion, extensive and high grade associated with intraduct carcinoma, receptor-positive tumours when avoidance of anti-oestrogen therapy is desired or receptor-negative tumours. Other independent reasonable indications for the use of a boost would be positive margins where further surgery is not indicated. If a boost is indicated, a variety of techniques may be used and toxicity and cosmetic results remain highly acceptable. Overall, there seems to be no substantial differences in boost technique results; however, interstitial techniques may have advantages for deeper targets compared with electrons. Irrespective of technique, accurate localisation will maximise the benefit of a boost. Surgical clips are strongly recommended to facilitate localisation.

Tumor Bed Boost Omission After Negative Re-Excision in Breast-Conservation Treatment

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the necessity of a tumor bed boost after whole-breast radiotherapy for early-stage breast cancer after breast-conserving surgery and negative re-excision.

METHODS

Of patients treated at the Virginia Commonwealth and Tufts Universities with breast-conservation therapy for early-stage breast cancer between 1983 and 1999, 205 required re-excision of the tumor cavity to obtain clear margins and were found to be without residual disease. Adjuvant conventionally fractionated whole-breast radiotherapy was given to a total dose of 50 Gy in 25 fractions. The tumor bed boost was omitted.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 98 months (range, 6-229 months). The tumor histological diagnosis was primarily infiltrating ductal carcinoma (183 cases; 89%). Nodal involvement was documented in 49 cases (24%). There were four documented recurrences at the tumor bed site. Five in-breast recurrences were documented to be in a location removed from the tumor bed. The overall Kaplan-Meier 15-year in-breast control rate was 92.4%, and the freedom from true recurrence rate was 97.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings support the concept that postlumpectomy radiotherapy can be tailored according to the degree of surgical resection. There is an easily identifiable subgroup of patients who can avoid a tumor bed boost, thus resulting in a reduced treatment time and improved cosmesis, while maintaining local control rates that approach 100%. The data suggest that in patients who undergo a negative re-excision, treatment with whole-breast radiotherapy to 50 Gy is a sufficient dose to maximally reduce the risk of local recurrence.

Considerations of Cost-Effectiveness for New Radiation Oncology Technologies

PURPOSE

The additional equipment and personnel costs of supplying image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) technology have caused many to question if the marginal gains in patients' health-related quality of life are worth the additional cost. Novel IGRT technologies, including cone-beam computed tomography and helical tomotherapy, provide the opportunity to study cost and effectiveness for patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This methodologic study proposes to evaluate the cost and effectiveness of treating conventional radiotherapy versus IGRT patients prospectively among several institutions. The cost of treating patients varies among institutions depending on personnel, equipment, and overhead costs, but the nature and quality of services provided are expected to be consistent.

RESULTS

The study will track cost information at a single institution and simultaneously as the median from multiple institutions. Effectiveness measures will include both standard quality-adjusted life-year instruments completed by patients and performance status measures completed by institutional personnel. In addition, disease-specific effectiveness measures will be accommodated in the study. Each participating institution will use the same effectiveness measures to track patients with similar diseases.

CONCLUSION

The resulting cost and effectiveness data will be available to investigators at any point during the study, immediately on the completion of a trial, or when statistical acceptability is achieved. These considerations are being incorporated into a high-level information model under development.

Comparison of three concomitant boost techniques for early-stage breast cancer

PURPOSE

Whole breast radiotherapy (RT) followed by a tumor bed boost typically spans 5-6 weeks of treatment. Interest is growing in RT regimens, such as concomitant boost, that decrease overall treatment time, lessening the time/cost burden to patients and facilities.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Computed tomography (CT) scans from 20 cases were selected for this retrospective, dosimetric study to compare three different techniques of concomitant boost delivery: (1) standard tangents plus an electron boost, (2) intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) tangents using custom compensators plus an electron boost, and (3) IMRT tangents plus a conformal photon boost. The equivalent uniform dose model was used to compare the plans.

RESULTS

The average breast equivalent uniform dose value for the three techniques (standard, IMRT plus electrons, and IMRT plus photons) was 48.6, 47.9, and 48.3, respectively. The plans using IMRT more closely approximated the prescribed dose of 46 Gy to the whole breast. The breast volume receiving >110% of the dose was less with the IMRT tangents than with standard RT (p = 0.037), but no significant difference in the maximal dose or other evaluated parameters was noted.

CONCLUSION

Although the IMRT techniques delivered the prescribed dose with better dose uniformity, the small improvement seen did not support a goal of improved resource use.

Cost-effectiveness of radiation therapy following conservative surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast

PURPOSE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of radiation therapy (RT) in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A Markov model was constructed for a theoretical cohort of 55-year-old women with DCIS over a life-time horizon. Probability estimates for local noninvasive (N-INV), local invasive (INV), and distant recurrences were obtained from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B-17. Utilities for eight nonmetastatic health states were collected from both healthy women and DCIS patients. Direct medical (2002 Medicare fee schedule) and nonmedical costs (time and transportation) of RT were ascertained.

RESULTS

For BCS + RT vs. BCS alone, the estimated N-INV and INV rates at 12 years were 9% and 8% vs. 16% and 18%, respectively. The incremental cost of adding RT was 3300 US dollars despite an initial RT cost of 8700 US dollars due to higher local recurrence-related salvage costs incurred with the BCS alone strategy. An increase of 0.09 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) primarily reflected the lower risk of INV with RT, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 36,700 US dollars/QALY. Sensitivity analyses revealed the ICER to be affected by baseline probability of a local recurrence, relative efficacy of RT in preventing INV, negative impact of an INV on quality of life, and cost of initial RT. Cost of salvage BCS + RT and source of utilities (healthy women vs. DCIS patients) influenced the ICER albeit to a lesser degree.

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of RT following BCS for patients with DCIS should not be withheld because of concerns regarding its cost-effectiveness.

Forward-planned, multiple-segment, tangential fields with concomitant boost in the treatment of breast cancer

We report on the utility of forward-planned, 3-dimensional (3D), multiple-segment tangential fields for radiation treatment of patients with breast cancer. The technique accurately targets breast tissue and the tumor bed and reduces dose inhomogeneity in the target. By decreasing excess dose to the skin and lung, a concomitant boost to the tumor bed can be delivered during the initial treatment, thereby decreasing the overall treatment time by one week. More than 120 breast cancer patients have been treated with this breast conservation technique in our clinic. For each patient, a 3D treatment plan based upon breast and tumor bed volumes delineated on computed tomography (CT) was developed. Segmented tangent fields were iteratively created to reduce "hot spots" produced by traditional tangents. The tumor bed received a concomitant boost with additional conformal photon beams. The final tumor bed boost was delivered either with conformal photon beams or conventional electron beams. All patients received 45 Gy to the breast target, plus an additional 5 Gy to the surgical excision site, bringing the total dose to 50 Gy to the boost target volume in 25 fractions. The final boost to the excision site brought the total target dose to 60 Gy. With minimum follow-up of 4 months and median follow-up of 11 months, all patients have excellent cosmetic results. There has been minimal breast edema and minimal skin changes. There have been no local relapses to date. Forward planning of multi-segment fields is facilitated with 3D planning and multileaf collimation. The treatment technique offers improvement in target dose homogeneity and the ability to confidently concomitantly boost the excision site. The technique also offers the advantage for physics and therapy staff to develop familiarity with multiple segment fields, as a precursor to intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) techniques.

Prone accelerated partial breast irradiation after breast-conserving surgery: preliminary clinical results and dose-volume histogram analysis

PURPOSE

To report the clinical and dose-volume histogram results of the first 47 patients accrued to a protocol of accelerated partial breast irradiation. Patients were treated in the prone position with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Postmenopausal women with Stage T1N0 breast cancer were eligible only after they had first refused to undergo 6 weeks of standard radiotherapy. Planning CT in the prone position was performed on a dedicated table. The postoperative cavity was defined as the clinical target volume, with a 1.5-cm margin added to determine the planning target volume. A total dose of 30 Gy at 6 Gy/fraction was delivered in five fractions within 10 days.

RESULTS

The median age of the patients was 67.5 years (range, 51-88 years). The median tumor diameter was 9 mm (range, 1.3-19 mm). In all patients, the prescribed dose encompassed the planning target volume. The mean volume of the ipsilateral breast receiving 100% of the prescription dose was 26% (range, 10-45%), and the mean volume contained within the 50% isodose surface was 47% (range, 23-75%). The lung and heart were spared by treating in the prone position. Acute toxicity was modest, limited mainly to Grade 1-2 erythema. With a median follow-up of 18 months, only Grade 1 late toxicity occurred, and no patient developed local recurrence.

CONCLUSION

These data suggest that this approach is well tolerated, with only mild acute side effects and sparing of the heart and lung.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of omalizumab in adults and adolescents with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma

BACKGROUND

Omalizumab can reduce hospitalization and emergency department visits and improve quality of life in patients with moderate-to-severe, suboptimally controlled allergic asthma. Given the high cost and modest efficacy of this agent, it is not clear that it is cost-effective if given to a broad population with asthma.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of omalizumab in adults and adolescents with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma.

METHODS

A retrospective economic analysis was performed to determine the cost-effectiveness of omalizumab using 52-week data from 2 randomized controlled clinical trials in adults and adolescents with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma. The analysis was conducted from a third-party payer's perspective, and only direct costs were considered.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios showed that the cost to achieve an additional successfully controlled day was $523, and the daily cost to achieve at least a 0.5-point increase in Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire score was $378 in 2003 dollars.

CONCLUSION

From a pharmacoeconomic standpoint, omalizumab would be better used in allergic asthmatic patients with poorly controlled symptoms despite maximal therapy, given the high cost and modest efficacy of this agent. It could be cost saving if given to nonsmoking patients who are hospitalized 5 or more times or 20 days or longer per year despite maximal asthma therapy.

Benefit and projected cost-effectiveness of anastrozole versus tamoxifen as initial adjuvant therapy for patients with early-stage estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Women who have estrogen receptor (ER)-positive disease with postmenopausal onset and who receive tamoxifen as standard adjuvant treatment constitute the largest subgroup of patients with breast cancer. Recent data from the ATAC ('Arimidex, Tamoxifen Alone or in Combination') randomized trial indicate that anastrozole significantly reduces breast cancer recurrence rates but does not provide any advantage in terms of survival at 4 years posttreatment. Furthermore, anastrozole and tamoxifen were found to have different toxicity profiles. The goals of the current study were to estimate the disease-free survival (DFS) rates and potential survival benefits associated with anastrozole use and to determine whether the incremental cost-effectiveness (ICE) was low enough to warrant an immediate switch to the use of this agent, as the long-term conclusions of the ATAC trial will not be available for several years.

METHODS

A computer simulation model assessed the outcomes of 64-year-old women with ER-positive breast cancer who subsequently received either anastrozole or tamoxifen for 5 years. Daily recurrence risks, as well as the relative risks associated with various treatment-related events, were calculated using data from the ATAC trial. Study endpoints included breast cancer recurrence-free survival, anticipated survival resulting from an anastrozole-induced decrease in systemic disease recurrence rates, and survival adjusted for quality of life and for hip fracture risk over periods of 4, 12, and 20 years.

RESULTS

After 4 years, the projected DFS benefit associated with anastrozole was 14 days, with an ICE of $167,500 per year. Projected 12 and 20 years into the future, DFS benefits increased to 2.9 months and 5.3 months, respectively. The corresponding benefits in terms of overall survival were 0.9 months and 2.0 months, respectively, with the ICE becoming < $100,000 per life year once the projection horizon exceeded 12 years. The inclusion of quality-of-life weightings for nonfatal outcomes modestly favored anastrozole in the short term; however, if anastrozole use is associated with an increased risk of hip fracture, then the long-term benefit associated with this agent is reduced by approximately 25%.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjuvant anastrozole is projected to result in a substantial improvement in DFS for patients with breast cancer. If this DFS benefit were to ultimately lead to a survival benefit, then the ICE of anastrozole use would be acceptable for patients expected to live longer than 12 years. Decision models are useful for generating realistic projections for stakeholders who are considering competing options that impact survival and quality of life and have associated societal costs.

Sentinel lymph node versus axillary lymph node dissection for early-stage breast carcinoma: a comparison using a utility-adjusted number needed to treat analysis

BACKGROUND

The current study was performed to compare the value of sentinel lymph node dissection (SND) and axillary lymph node dissection (AND) in improving the utility-adjusted survival for early-stage breast carcinoma patients.

METHODS

A number needed to treat (NNT) analysis was used to compare SND with AND. In the NNT equation, 1/(S(SND) - S(AND)), S is the 5-year utility-adjusted survival. A literature review was performed to estimate 1) the prevalence of axillary lymph node disease for early-stage breast carcinoma, 2) the sensitivity and specificity of SND and AND, 3) the 5-year overall survival as a function of axillary lymph node involvement, 4) the risk of arm lymphedema as a function of the intervention performed, and 5) the utility correction (Uc; impairment of quality of life) for arm lymphedema.

RESULTS

The NNT method of analysis favored SND over nearly the entire range of parameters with a sign change to a negative value occurring only as Uc becomes very close to unity. This suggests the superiority of the SND approach. Only when there is minimal loss of utility does AND become favored and then only minimally.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with AND, SND improves the utility-adjusted survival in patients with early-stage breast carcinoma. This finding is quite robust and was found to remain constant over a range of values for utility and lymph node prevalence.

Decision-analytic model and cost-effectiveness evaluation of postmastectomy radiation therapy in high-risk premenopausal breast cancer patients

PURPOSE

To present a decision model that describes the clinical and economic outcomes of node-positive breast cancer with and without postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT).

METHODS

A Markov process was constructed to project the natural history of breast cancer following mastectomy in premenopausal node-positive women. Biannual hazards of local and distant recurrence without PMRT were derived from a large meta-analysis of adjuvant systemic therapy trials for breast cancer. The addition of PMRT reduced the risk of disease relapse by an odds ratio of 0.69. Costs of PMRT ($11,600) and recurrent breast cancer ($4,250 to 16,200/year) were estimated from available literature. The model projected number of recurrences, relapse-free and overall survival, and costs to 15 years, using a discount rate of 3%. Cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated per incremental year of life and quality-adjusted year of life gained. One- and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the sensitivity of results to clinical and economic assumptions.

RESULTS

The model projected 15-year relapse-free survival of 52% and 43% with and without PMRT, respectively. Overall survival was increased from 48% to 55% with PMRT, resulting in an incremental 0.29 years of life gained per subject. PMRT increased 15-year costs from $40,800 to $48,100. Cost per year of life gained was $24,900, or $22,600 when survival was adjusted for quality of life. Results of the model were relatively sensitive to radiation therapy cost and breast cancer relapse risk.

CONCLUSION

This analysis suggests that PMRT offers substantial clinical benefits achieved in a cost-effective manner, with an average cost per year of life gained of $24,900. Results of the model were robust under a wide range of clinical and economic parameters.

Breast electron boost planning: comparison of CT and US

PURPOSE

To compare computed tomography (CT) with ultrasonography (US) for depiction of the biopsy cavity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-two consecutive patients who underwent radiation therapy following lumpectomy with a planned electron boost were examined. At the time of simulation for whole-breast radiation therapy, all patients underwent planning CT (CT 1) at 3-mm section intervals. At the time of electron boost simulation, US was performed to define the biopsy cavity. In 17 cases, a second CT examination (CT 2) was performed at the time of electron boost simulation. CT and US studies were reviewed jointly and assigned a cavity visualization score (CVS) of 1 (cavity not visualized) to 5 (all cavity margins clearly defined).

RESULTS

The median CVS at CT 1 was 5; at CT 2, 4; and at US, 4. For patients who underwent all three studies, the median CVS at CT 1 was 5; at CT 2, 4; and at US, 4. Factors related to CVS at CT 1 were homogeneous versus heterogeneous appearance (score, 5 vs 4), surgery-to-CT interval (< or =30 days, 5; 31-60 days, 4; >60 days, 4), and cavity size (>15 cm(3), 5; <15 cm(3), 4). In all cases, cavity volume decreased somewhat during the CT 1-to-CT 2 interval.

CONCLUSION

CT performed at the time of whole-breast simulation can be used to plan electron boost fields, with cavity visualization similar to that at US.