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.

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.

Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS) / Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT): Benefit to Irish patients and Irish Healthcare Economy

Cancer incidence across Europe is projected to rise rapidly over the next decade. This rising cancer incidence is mirrored by increasing use of and indications for stereotactic radiation. This paper seeks to summarize the exponential increase in indications for stereotactic radiotherapy as well as the evolving economic advantages of stereotactic radiosurgery and stereotactic body radiotherapy.

Multi-modal management of acromegaly: a value perspective

PURPOSE

The Acromegaly Consensus Group recently released updated guidelines for medical management of acromegaly patients. We subjected these guidelines to a cost analysis.

METHODS

We conducted a cost analysis of the recommendations based on published efficacy rates as well as publicly available cost data. The results were compared to findings from a previously reported comparative effectiveness analysis of acromegaly treatments. Using decision tree software, two models were created based on the Acromegaly Consensus Group's recommendations and the comparative effectiveness analysis. The decision tree for the Consensus Group's recommendations was subjected to multi-way tornado analysis to identify variables that most impacted the value analysis of the decision tree.

RESULTS

The value analysis confirmed the Consensus Group's recommendations of somatostatin analogs as first line therapy for medical management. Our model also demonstrated significant value in using dopamine agonist agents as upfront therapy as well. Sensitivity analysis identified the cost of somatostatin analogs and growth hormone receptor antagonists as having the most significant impact on the cost effectiveness of medical therapies.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis confirmed the value of surgery as first-line therapy for patients with surgically accessible lesions. Surgery provides the greatest value for management of patients with acromegaly. However, in accordance with the Acromegaly Consensus Group's recent recommendations, somatostatin analogs provide the greatest value and should be used as first-line therapy for patients who cannot be managed surgically. At present, the substantial cost is the most significant negative factor in the value of medical therapies for acromegaly.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy versus intensity-modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer: comparison of toxicity

PURPOSE

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is a technically demanding prostate cancer treatment that may be less expensive than intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Because SBRT may deliver a greater biologic dose of radiation than IMRT, toxicity could be increased. Studies comparing treatment cost to the Medicare program and toxicity are needed.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study by using a national sample of Medicare beneficiaries age ≥ 66 years who received SBRT or IMRT as primary treatment for prostate cancer from 2008 to 2011. Each SBRT patient was matched to two IMRT patients with similar follow-up (6, 12, or 24 months). We calculated the cost of radiation therapy treatment to the Medicare program and toxicity as measured by Medicare claims; we used a random effects model to compare genitourinary (GU), GI, and other toxicity between matched patients.

RESULTS

The study sample consisted of 1,335 SBRT patients matched to 2,670 IMRT patients. The mean treatment cost was $13,645 for SBRT versus $21,023 for IMRT. In the 6 months after treatment initiation, 15.6% of SBRT versus 12.6% of IMRT patients experienced GU toxicity (odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.53; P = .009). At 24 months after treatment initiation, 43.9% of SBRT versus 36.3% of IMRT patients had GU toxicity (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.63; P = .001). The increase in GU toxicity was due to claims indicative of urethritis, urinary incontinence, and/or obstruction.

CONCLUSION

Although SBRT was associated with lower treatment costs, there appears to be a greater rate of GU toxicity for patients undergoing SBRT compared with IMRT, and prospective correlation with randomized trials is needed.

Clinical and economic outcomes of patients with brain metastases based on symptoms: an argument for routine brain screening of those treated with upfront radiosurgery

BACKGROUND

Insurers have started to deny reimbursement for routine brain surveillance with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) after stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for brain metastases in favor of symptom-prompted imaging. The authors investigated the clinical and economic impact of symptomatic versus asymptomatic metastases and related these findings to the use of routine brain surveillance.

METHODS

Between January 2000 and December 2010, 442 patients underwent upfront SRS for brain metastases. In total, 127 asymptomatic patients and 315 symptomatic patients were included. Medical records were used to determine the presenting symptoms, distant and local brain failure, retreatment, and need for hospital and rehabilitative care. Cost-of-care estimates were based on Medicare payment rates as of January 2013.

RESULTS

Symptomatic patients had an increased hazard for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.448) and were more likely to experience neurologic death (42% vs 20%; P < .0001). Relative to asymptomatic patients, symptomatic patients required more craniotomies (43% vs 5%; P < .0001), had more prolonged hospitalization (2 vs 0 days; P < .0001), were more likely to have Radiation Therapy Oncology Group grade 3 and 4 post-treatment symptoms (24% vs 5%; P < .0001), and required $11,957 more on average to manage per patient. Accounting for all-cause mortality rates and the probability of diagnosis at each follow-up period, the authors estimated that insurers would save an average $1326 per patient by covering routine surveillance MRI after SRS to detect asymptomatic metastases.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who presented with symptomatic brain metastases had worse clinical outcomes and cost more to manage than asymptomatic patients. The current findings argue that routine brain surveillance after radiosurgery has clinical benefits and reduces the cost of care.

Funding UK cancer care: time for a level playing field?

Improving cancer survival rates is a UK priority and equity of access to high quality cancer irrespective of geography is a key principle. Surgery, radiation therapy and systemic therapy remain the cornerstone of the multidisciplinary management of cancer. However, costs of cancer care continue to escalate. A recent review (1) estimated the global costs of cancer care caused by death and disability as US $895 billion (excluding indirect medical costs and based on 2008 figures). Approximately 49% of patients are cured by surgery, 40% by radiotherapy alone or in combination with other treatments and 11% by systemic therapy. With > 90,000 patients per annum treated with curative intent by radiotherapy in the UK, one would anticipate that access to modern radiotherapy techniques would have a high priority. However, there are substantial differences in the NHS uptake of new anti-cancer agents and advanced radiation technologies. In this article, these differences are explored and recommendations made for addressing them.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of SBRT versus IMRT: an emerging initial radiation treatment option for organ-confined prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness of 2 external beam radiation therapy techniques for treatment of lowto intermediate-risk prostate cancer: stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and intensitymodulated radiation therapy (IMRT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Markov decision analysis model with probabilistic sensitivity analysis was designed with the various disease states of a 70-year-old patient with organ-confined prostate cancer to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 2 external beam radiation treatment options.

RESULTS

The Monte Carlo simulation revealed that the mean cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for SBRT and IMRT were $22,152 and 7.9 years and $35,431 and 7.9 years, respectively. The sensitivity analysis revealed that if the SBRT cohort experienced a decrease in quality of life of 4% or a decrease in efficacy of 6%, then SBRT would no longer dominate IMRT in cost-effectiveness. In fact, with these relaxed assumptions for SBRT, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of IMRT met the societal willingness to pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with IMRT, SBRT for lowto intermediate-risk prostate cancer has great potential cost savings for our healthcare system payers and may improve access to radiation, increase patient convenience, and boost quality of life for patients. Our model suggests that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of IMRT compared with SBRT is highly sensitive to quality-oflife outcomes, which should be adequately and comparably measured in current and future prostate SBRT studies.

When to wait for more evidence? Real options analysis in proton therapy

PURPOSE

Trends suggest that cancer spending growth will accelerate. One method for controlling costs is to examine whether the benefits of new technologies are worth the extra costs. However, especially new and emerging technologies are often more costly, while limited clinical evidence of superiority is available. In that situation it is often unclear whether to adopt the new technology now, with the risk of investing in a suboptimal therapy, or to wait for more evidence, with the risk of withholding patients their optimal treatment. This trade-off is especially difficult when it is costly to reverse the decision to adopt a technology, as is the case for proton therapy. Real options analysis, a technique originating from financial economics, assists in making this trade-off.

METHODS

We examined whether to adopt proton therapy, as compared to stereotactic body radiotherapy, in the treatment of inoperable stage I non-small cell lung cancer. Three options are available: adopt without further research; adopt and undertake a trial; or delay adoption and undertake a trial. The decision depends on the expected net gain of each option, calculated by subtracting its total costs from its expected benefits.

RESULTS

In The Netherlands, adopt and trial was found to be the preferred option, with an optimal sample size of 200 patients. Increase of treatment costs abroad and costs of reversal altered the preferred option.

CONCLUSION

We have shown that real options analysis provides a transparent method of weighing the costs and benefits of adopting and/or further researching new and expensive technologies.

[Study on medical economic evaluation methods for metastatic brain tumors therapy]

INTRODUCTION

Treatment design for metastatic brain tumors is required to firstly care about the life and function for which the patient hopes because it is terminal care. Therefore, to discuss the value of the therapy, a viewpoint of the QOL and the socioeconomic factors other than the survival rate is important. However, examination that applies these factors to the therapy needs to be carried out more thoroughly. With this in mind, we discuss cost effectiveness of therapy for metastatic brain tumor, through a pilot study on gamma knife therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

We studied 18 patients (mean age 61.6 years old) undergoing therapy for metastatic brain tumors. The health rate QOL was assessed by the profile-type measure SF-36 (Short-Form 36-Item Ver1.2) and the preference-based measure EQ-5D (EuroQoL-5D), before and six months after gamma knife therapy. Cost-utility-analysis (yen/Qaly) was carried out from quality adjusted life years (Qalys) and medical fee claims. In addition, we made a correlation analysis of the irradiation procedure and the gains attained.

RESULTS

The observation by SF-36 for six months was useful for metastatic brain tumor. As a result, the QOL indicators showed increased mental health (MH: p=0.040) and role emotional (RE: p=0.029) with significant difference. In the measurement of EQ-5D, it was added only for one month based on the significant difference (p=0.022) from the pre-therapy QOL. The utilities that were analyzed became 0.052+/-0.175SD (score), and Qalys were 0.135. Because the cost was 721.4+/-5.2SD (thousand yen), the performance of cost-utility-analysis was estimated as 5, 330, 000 (yen/Qaly). In addition, positive correlation (r=0.845/p=0.034) was found between the EQ-5D utility score and the tumor irradiation energy (mJ), etc.

CONCLUSION

We established a new value over and above mere survival rate concerning metastatic brain tumor therapy. The socioeconomics and efficacy of therapy are more difficult to discuss in this disease than in other diseases. We did this by clarifying the measurement and analysis of QOL as compared with the cost factor. We found that quantitatively, the mental health rate involved in the QOL, had improved. We established that it is appropriate to cover this disease by public insurance, because cost-utility-analysis showed that it was under the threshold line. Our study also suggested that, when guessing the QOL of the prognosis, there should be grades of sensitivity according to the irradiation element involved in the therapy.

Socioeconomic costs of open surgery and gamma knife radiosurgery for benign cranial base tumors

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the relative socioeconomic costs of benign cranial base tumors treated with open surgery and gamma knife radiosurgery.

METHODS

In a retrospective study, we studied 174 patients with benign cranial base tumors, less than 3 cm in diameter (or volume less than 30 ml), admitted in the past 5 years. Group A (n = 94) underwent open surgery for removal of the tumors, whereas Group B (n = 80) underwent gamma knife radiosurgery. The socioeconomic costs were evaluated by both direct and indirect cost. The direct costs comprised intensive care unit cost, ward cost, operating room cost, and outpatient visiting cost. The indirect costs included loss of workdays and mortality. The length of hospital stay, the number of lost workdays, surgical complications, mortality, and cost-effectiveness analysis were calculated as well. Student t test and chi test were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

The mean length of hospital stay for open surgery was 18.2 +/- 30.4 days including 5.0 +/- 14.7 days of intensive care unit stay and 13.0 +/- 15.2 days of ward stay, P < 0.01. The mean hospital stay for gamma knife was 2.2 +/- 0.9 days with no need of intensive care unit stay, P < 0.01. The mean loss of workdays for open surgery was 160 +/- 158 days and 8.0 +/- 9.0 days for gamma knife, P < 0.01. The gamma knife cost per hour (1435 US dollars) is higher than the open surgery cost per hour (450 US dollars), P < 0.01. The direct cost for gamma knife (9677 US dollars +/- 6700 US dollars) is higher than that for open surgery (5837 US dollars +/- 6587 US dollars), P < 0.01. Open surgery had more complication rates (31.2%) than gamma knife (3.8%). Open surgery had a mortality rate of 5.3%; there was no mortality for gamma knife. The indirect costs, including loss of workdays and mortality, were significantly higher for open surgery than for gamma knife, P < 0.01. Finally, the socioeconomic cost (34,453 US dollars +/- 97,277 US dollars) is higher for open surgery than for gamma knife (10,044 US dollars +/- 7481 US dollars), P < 0.01. The CEA is significantly higher in gamma knife (3762 US dollars/quality-adjusted life year) than in open surgery (8996 US dollars/quality-adjusted life year), P < 0.01.

CONCLUSION

Most of the socioeconomic loss with open surgery for benign cranial base tumors comes from the indirect costs of workdays lost and mortality. Gamma knife radiosurgery is a worthwhile treatment to our patients and to our society because it may shorten hospital stays and workdays lost and reduce complications, mortality, socioeconomic loss, and achieve better cost-effectiveness.

Radiofrequency neurotomy for lumbar pain

(1) Chronic lumbar (lower back) pain, which affects many Canadians, imposes a large economic burden. (2) Symptoms may occur in the vertebral facet joints of 15% to 40% of patients with lower back pain. (3) Medial branch radiofrequency neurotomy is a minimally invasive outpatient procedure that reduces pain by interrupting the nerve supply to painful facet joints. (4) Four systematic reviews of this procedure offer disparate conclusions. (5) One small well designed observational study has shown positive results, but no equally rigorous randomized controlled trial has been conducted.

A Prospective Cost-Effectiveness Study of Trigeminal Neuralgia Surgery

OBJECTIVES

Approximately 8000 patients with trigeminal neuralgia undergo surgery each year in the United States at an estimated cost exceeding $100 million. We compared 3 commonly performed surgeries (microvascular decompression, glycerol rhizotomy, and stereotactic radiosurgery) to evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of these operations for patients with idiopathic trigeminal neuralgia.

METHODS

Prospective nonrandomized trial at a tertiary referral center from July 1999 to December 2001. One hundred twenty-six consecutive patients underwent 153 operations (microvascular decompression, n=33; glycerol rhizotomy, n=51; stereotactic radiosurgery, n=69). Preoperative characteristics were similar between the groups with respect to sex, pain location, duration of pain, and atypical features. Facial pain outcomes were classified as excellent (no pain, no medications), good (no pain, reduced medications), fair (>50% pain reduction), and poor. The cost per quality adjusted pain-free year was compared between the groups. Mean follow-up was 20.6 months.

RESULTS

Patients having microvascular decompression more commonly achieved and maintained an excellent outcome (85% and 78% at 6 and 24 months) compared with glycerol rhizotomy (61% and 55%, P=0.01) and stereotactic radiosurgery (60% and 52%, P<0.01). No difference was detected between glycerol rhizotomy and stereotactic radiosurgery (P=0.61). The cost per quality adjusted pain-free year was $6,342, $8,174, and $8,269 for glycerol rhizotomy, microvascular decompression, and stereotactic radiosurgery, respectively. Reduction in the average cost of morbidity and additional surgeries to zero did not make either microvascular decompression or stereotactic radiosurgery more cost-effective than glycerol rhizotomy. Both microvascular decompression and stereotactic radiosurgery would be more cost-effective than glycerol rhizotomy if the cost of additional surgeries after glycerol rhizotomy increased 79% and 83%, respectively.

DISCUSSION

This analysis supports the practice of percutaneous surgeries for older patients with medically unresponsive trigeminal neuralgia. At longer follow-up intervals, microvascular decompression is predicted to be the most cost-effective surgery and should be considered the preferred operation for patients if their risk for general anesthesia is acceptable. More data are needed to assess the role that radiosurgery should play in the management of patients with trigeminal neuralgia.

[Brain metastases: a neurosurgical point of view]

The question of accessibility to the recent development of diagnostic and therapeutic tools for brain metastasis patients remains a problem. Advances in neurosurgery, new fields in chemotherapy, radiosurgery and different types of radiation therapy are accompanied by the need of dedicated staff time and materials. The limits of what we can offer to our patients regarding access to treatment and costs have to be clarified through a national consensus. Multimodal strategies must take in account the individual patient as well as accessibility to the different treatment tools. The most important problem remain the ongoing need for radiosurgery and various subtype of new radiotherapy methods.

Evaluating technology for acquisition

Cancer care consumes approximately 8% to 9% of all healthcare spending. The use of technology plays a key role in cancer, with both diagnostic and treatment implications, and technology is a large driver of healthcare spending. Understanding the role of technology and its integration in care may contribute to appropriate selection and utilization of technology, better decision making as to priorities in acquisition, and clinical cost efficiency.

The CyberKnife Stereotactic Radiosurgery System: Description, Installation, and an Initial Evaluation of Use and Functionality

The CyberKnife Stereotactic Radiosurgery System is manufactured by Accuray, Inc. (570 Del Rey Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94085; telephone 1-888/522-3740 or 1-408/522-3740; http://www.accuray.com). It is currently available for purchase (capital cost of US $3.2 million plus US $0.5 to 0.75 million for site setup), or in a revenue-sharing plan (US $0.5 to 0.75 million setup cost). FIGURE

Direct costs of microsurgical management of radiosurgically amenable intracranial pathology in Germany: an analysis of meningiomas, acoustic neuromas, metastases and arteriovenous malformations of less than 3 cm in diameter

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the analysis was to appreciate and compare the effective direct costs of microsurgical treatment of intracranial pathology potentially amenable to radiosurgery as they arose in 1998-99.

METHOD

Treatment costs of 127 microsurgically treated patients harbouring an arteriovenous malformation (AVM), acoustic nEuroma, meningioma or brain metastasis potentially amenable to radiosurgery were reviewed. Costs for the surgical procedure, ICU care, medical and nursing care on the ward, interclinical bills (ICB) for services provided by other departments and the overhead for basic hotel service were added. For comparison Gamma Knife costs were calculated by dividing the global operating cost of the Gamma Knife centre by the number of patients treated in 1999.

FINDINGS

Average hospitalisation time for the entire microsurgical patients was 15,4+/-8,6 days. The patients spent an average of 1,2+/-2,8 days on ICU. Average operating time for all patients, including preparation, was 393+/-118 minutes. Average costs for the microsurgical therapy were Euro10.814+/-6.108. These consisted of Euro1417+/-426 for the surgical procedure, Euro1.188+/-2.658 for ICU care, Euro2.333+/-1.582 for medical and nursing care on the ward, Euro1.671+/-1.433 for interclinical bills and Euro 4.204+/-2.338 for basic hotel service (overhead, Euro273/day). 70% of the microsurgically treated patients needed ancillary inpatient rehabilitation or radiotherapy resulting in an average additional cost for all patients of Euro2.744. Furthermore 20% of the microsurgically treated patients required an unplanned readmission after discharge, resulting in an average additional costs for all patients of Euro1.684. Average overall costs per patient including ancillary therapy and unplanned readmissions amounted to Euro15.242. For comparison, Gamma Knife treatment costs per patient amounted to Euro7.920 in 1999.

INTERPRETATION

The current analysis showed that for established radiosurgical indications the primary costs of microsurgery exceeded the costs of radiosurgery. Differences with regard to additional expenses as a consequence of disability were not addressed in this study. Microsurgical management as well as Gamma Knife radiosurgery have potential for economic improvement.

A review of stereotactic radiosurgery in the management of brain metastases

This review addresses the epidemiology, historical reports, current issues, data and controversies involved in the management of brain metastases. The literature regarding surgery, whole brain radiation therapy, stereotactic radiosurgery or some combination of those treatments is discussed as well as issues of cost-effectiveness. Ongoing prospective randomized trials will further elucidate the optimal management for patients with brain metastases. Until those data are available, clinicians are encouraged to apply the existing data reviewed here in conjunction with best clinical judgment. A brief clinical guide is as follows. Patients with a solitary metastasis in an operable location and symptomatic mass effect should undergo surgery. Patients with poor performance status (KPS < 70) or more than three brain metastases should receive WBRT alone. Patients with 1-3 brain metastases and KPS >or= 70, should receive WBRT + SRS. If the patient refuses WBRT or needs salvage after WBRT, then SRS alone is appropriate. Clinicians should not be too dogmatic and should always apply the best clinical judgment.

[Postoperative morbidity and mortality after microsurgical exclusion of cerebral arteriovenous malformations. Current data and analysis of recent literature]

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Microsurgical exclusion of a cerebral arteriovenous malformation (AVM) can compare favorably with radiosurgery. We sought to assess its rate of morbidity-mortality as it is presently reported in the literature, and to discuss some of its current and worthwhile indications.

METHODS

Through Medline and additional searches by hand, we retrieved studies reporting the clinical and angiographic results after microsurgical excision of an AVM published between january 1990 and december 2000.

RESULTS

a) Postoperative mortality was 3.3% (68/2 452 patients from 25 studies). Permanent postoperative morbidity was 8.6%. Morbidity was never absent varying from 1.5% to 18,7%. The morbidity-mortality rate increased with an increasing Spetzler-Martin's grade, and was related to the location of the AVM. A 4.6% morbidity (from 1.5% to 9.7%) and a zero mortality were reported after microsurgical removal of small lesions of less than 3 cm in diameter. b) Postoperative angiography confirmed a total excision of the AVM in 97% of the cases (1 050/1 076 patients over 11 series), varying from 91% to 100%. c) Permanent morbidity related to pre-surgical embolization varied from 4% to 8.9%. Results from multiple or combined treatment including microsurgery could not be summed up.

CONCLUSIONS

A complete and definitive microsurgical excision of an AVM can be achieved with a high success rate and a low morbidity-mortality rate, according to sound indications and to the neurosurgeon's personal experience. The choice for a best treatment of an AVM is no longer limited to microsurgery; it is a team decision where the neurosurgeon plays a determining role.

The case for radiosurgery

Brain metastases represent a significant health-care problem, with almost 200,000 patient in the Unite States annually suffering from symptomatic parenchymal lesions. Lung, breast, melanoma, renal, and gastrointestinal cancers contribute the majority of lesions that come to clinical attention. Although median survival once brain metastases are diagnosed is less than a year, timely therapy can restore neurological function and can often prevent further neurological complications of cancer for the duration of a patient's survival. Important prognostic features associated with improved survival include the absence of extracranial disease progression, young age, a high pretreatment neurological status, one to three versus more than three lesions, and a long interval from primary disease diagnosis to the development of brain metastases. The need to aggressively treat brain metastases effectively is becoming increasingly important, however, as advances in the treatment of systemic disease result in an increasing number of patients developing brain metastases in the setting of limited systemic disease. For many such patients, surgery provides the best therapy, but results are still not encouraging because even patients with the best prognostic indicators often die within 18 to 24 months. Until Superior treatment modalities are developed, the judicious use of available techniques for treatment of patients with limited systemic disease provides the best opportunities for palliation and extended survival. Perhaps the most significant development in the treatment of patients with brain metastases during the last decade is the increasing use of radiosurgery. For patients with a single lesion, local control and survival rates of radiosurgery compare well with those produced with surgical resection. Radiosurgery remains an important treatment modality and, when used promptly, can reverse neurological deficits, often for the remainder of a patients life. There is compelling evidence to suggest that aggressive local therapy (surgery or radiosurgery) for patients with a single brain metastasis produces superior survival and quality of life compared with treatment with whole brain radiotherapy alone. However, surgery should be restricted to the minority of patients for whom brain metastases represents the life-threatening site of their disease. For an asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic patient with a lesion smaller than 3 cm in diameter, radiosurgery is an excellent alternative to surgery. Although radiosurgery is a noninvasive procedure, the same selection criteria should be considered as for those patients undergoing surgical resection.

Hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy as an alternative to radiosurgery for the treatment of patients with brain metastases

PURPOSE

Modeling studies have demonstrated a potential biologic advantage of fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy for malignant brain tumors as compared to radiosurgery (SRS), even when only a few fractions are utilized. We prospectively evaluated the feasibility, toxicity, efficacy and cost of hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (HSRT) in the treatment of selected radiosurgery-eligible patients with brain metastases.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients with a limited number of brain metastases not involving the brainstem or optic chiasm underwent linac-based HSRT delivered in 3 fractions using a relocatable stereotactic frame. Depth-helmet and reference point measurements were recorded to address treatment accuracy. All patients underwent whole brain radiotherapy to a dose of 30 Gy. Toxicity, response, and survival duration were recorded for each patient. Prognostic factors were assessed by Cox regression analysis. Cost comparisons with a cohort of SRS treated patients were performed.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients with 57 brain metastases were treated with HSRT. Twenty-three and 9 patients underwent HSRT for upfront and salvage treatment, respectively. The median dose delivered was 27 Gy, given in 3 fractions of 9 Gy. From 3328 depth-helmet measurements, the absolute median setup deviation in AP, lateral, and vertical orientations was approximately 1.0 mm. No significant acute toxicity was seen. Late toxicities included seizures in four patients, and radionecrosis in two patients. The median survival duration from treatment was 12 months. KPS (p = 0.039) and RTOG-RPA class (p = 0.039) were identified as significant prognostic factors for survival. HSRT was $4119 less costly than SRS.

CONCLUSION

HSRT, as delivered in this study, is more comfortable for patients and less costly than SRS in the treatment of selected patients with brain metastases. Proper dose selection and radiobiologic/toxicity trade-offs with SRS await further study.

The costs of radiosurgical treatment: comparison between gamma knife and linear accelerator

Radiosurgical treatment can be carried out by means of a Gamma Knife or a Linear Accelerator. The Linear Accelerator may be either a single-purpose appliance, exclusively employed in radiosurgery, or an adapted appliance, which is used primarily for fractioned radiotherapy, and only additionally for radiosurgical purposes. The first alternative will be referred to briefly as a "dedicated Linac", the latter as an "adapted Linac". Cost accounting data for these alternatives will be discussed under three main categories: investment costs, operating costs, and finally staffing costs. Costs are only considered to the extent that this is necessary to facilitate a comprehensive cost comparison. Factors for which the costs remain the same or at least broadly the same will from the outset not be taken into consideration. These include, for instance, the costs of general or special administration, diagnosis, and image processing. The results and conclusions of this study therefore cannot be employed immediately in the evaluation of cost reimbursement schemes of the type carried out by agencies responsible for social insurance. Here, appropriate complete cost analyses especially for this purpose are required. The final comprehensive cost comparison reveals that the adapted Linac is the most favourable alternative with small annual quantities of patients. With larger numbers of patients the Gamma Knife represents the most favourable from a cost accounting angle. The dedicated Linac accordingly does not have a cost advantage for any of the examined numbers of patients. Clearly the lowest treatment costs per patient can be achieved by employing a Gamma Knife and using it to capacity.

Stereotactic radiosurgery for acoustic neuroma: a Canadian perspective

Stereotactically delivered radiation is now an accepted treatment for patients with acoustic neuroma. In some cases, patient preference may be the reason for its selection, while in others neurosurgeons may select it for patients who are elderly or have significant risk factors for conventional surgery. The majority of patients with acoustic neuroma treatment with stereotactic radiosurgery have been treated with the Gamma Knife, with follow ups of over 25 years in some instances. Other radiosurgery modalities utilizing the linear accelerator have been developed and appear promising, but there is no long-term follow up. Canada does not possess a Gamma Knife facility, and its government-funded hospital and medical insurance agencies have made it difficult for patients to obtain reimbursement for Gamma Knife treatments in other countries. We review the literature to date on the various forms of radiation treatment for acoustic neuroma and discuss the current issues facing physicians and patients in Canada who wish to obtain their treatment of choice.

Incidence of tumours suitable for radiosurgery in a developing country like Malaysia: retrospective study done before the decision to start a radiosurgery programme

This is a descriptive epidemiologic study that was done retrospectively for the years 1990-1996. The objective was to determine whether tumours less than 4 cm in diameter are common and thereafter suitable for radiosurgical treatment. The results showed that the incidence of brain tumours less than 4 cm in diameter was 73.3% and about 20% were situated in the eloquent area.

Stereotactic radiosurgery: comparing different technologies

Radiosurgery can be defined as 3-dimensional stereotactic irradiation of small intracranial targets by various radiation techniques. The goal is to deliver, with great accuracy, a large, single fraction dose to a small intracranial target, while minimizing the absorbed dose in the surrounding tissue. This article describes certain technical aspects of radiosurgery and compares the different methods of performing such treatment. The 2 most frequently used types of devices for radiosurgery are units with multiple cobalt sources (e.g., the Gamma Knife) and those based on a linear accelerator. In the former, highly collimated beams of radiation from the cobalt sources intersect at the target. In the latter, the source of a highly collimated beam of high-energy photons directed at the target turns through an arc or set of arcs. The accuracy of target localization, the steepness of fall-off of the radiation dose outside the target and the ability to irradiate an irregularly shaped target are all comparable for these 2 types of devices, despite claims to the contrary.

[Stereotactic radiotherapy: nomenclature of acts]

Acts of neurosurgery, neuroradiology and radiation therapy are not always identified in the French "nomenclature générale des actes professionnels" (NGAP) (general nomenclature of professional acts). Project of a new "nomenclature commune des actes professionnels" (NCAP) (communal nomenclature of professional acts) is described and discussed.

Costs and effects of microsurgery versus radiosurgery in treating acoustic neuroma

This study analyses costs and effects of treating acoustic neuroma patients by using microsurgery compared to radiosurgery. Radiosurgery is the stereotactic application of radiotherapy and an innovative medical technology. Cost and effect estimates of conventional treatment were based on a retrospective study in the Netherlands. Similar data for a comparable group of patients in Sweden were collected for radiosurgery, as this treatment option is currently not available in the Netherlands. Fifty-three acoustic neuroma patients who had been operated on the University Hospital Rotterdam between November 1990 and February 1995 were included. This group was compared with 92 acoustic neuroma patients treated with radiosurgery (Gamma Knife. Stockholm, Sweden) in the same period. Data on health care use were collected from patient files. To obtain data on production losses and quality of life, a questionnaire was sent by mail in February 1995. This booklet consisted of the Health and Labour-questionnaire (HLQ), the Short Form-36 (SF36) and the EuroQol. The response rate was 92%. Direct costs for microsurgery amounted to Dfl. 20.072,- and for radiosurgery to Dfl. 14.272,-. Indirect costs were respectively Dfl. 16.400,- and Dfl. 1.020,-. General health rating was better for radiosurgery than for microsurgery. On the whole, differences in clinical outcomes between the two patient groups were small. Assuming a reasonable occupancy rate of the expensive radiosurgery equipment, we demonstrated that for the short term treating patients with acoustic neuroma with an extra-meatal tumour diameter of less than 3 centimeters, radiosurgery is more cost-effective than microsurgery.

Surgery versus stereotactic radiosurgery for small, operable cerebral arteriovenous malformations: a clinical and cost comparison

OBJECTIVE

Cerebral arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) may cause stroke and death in young patients. For small AVMs, the major curative treatment options are surgery and stereotactic radiosurgery (SR). Although the initial costs and risks of SR are less, there is a latency to cure and ultimately the success rate is lower than with surgery. Thus, these two treatment modalities were compared with respect to clinical outcomes and associated costs by means of a cost-effectiveness analysis.

METHODS

A decision analysis model was developed using Smltree software (J.P. Hollenberg, Roslyn, NY). Probability estimates for cure and complications for both therapies were derived from the literature. Utility values for minor and major stroke were measured in patients with AVMs who were treated at the University of Toronto clinic, using the standard gamble technique. Costs were obtained from several sources, including the case costing systems of several hospitals in Ontario, Canada.

RESULTS

Surgery confers a 0.98 quality-adjusted life year (QALY) advantage over SR, at an additional cost of $6937 per patient. Thus, from a societal perspective, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is $7100 per QALY for a patient treated surgically. The result is sensitive to only two variables: surgical morbidity and surgical mortality. However, the preferred treatment strategy changes to favor SR only at the extreme high end of the possible range for these variables, when the rate of permanent neurological morbidity resulting from surgery exceeds 12% or the surgical mortality rate exceeds 4%.

CONCLUSIONS

In the treatment of small AVMs, surgery confers a large clinical benefit over SR. The reason is that surgery protects the patient from hemorrhage earlier and with greater success than does SR. The associated cost-effectiveness ratio, $7100/QALY, is highly economically attractive. Therefore, surgery achieves important improvements in clinical outcomes and is associated with an excellent ratio of incremental costs per QALY gained.

Cost comparison of radiofrequency modification and ablation of the atrioventricular junction in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Because it is not clear which technique is less expensive, the purpose of this study was to compare the cost of radiofrequency modification and ablation of the atrioventricular (AV) node in drug-refractory patients with atrial fibrillation and an uncontrolled ventricular rate.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The initial nominal charges for a successful procedure were compared in 10 patients with chronic atrial fibrillation who underwent modification of the AV node ($13 109+/-2002) and 14 similar patients who underwent ablation and pacemaker implantation ($28 302+/-2023, P<.001). On the basis of the long-term follow-up of patients who underwent each procedure, it was assumed that 31% of patients selected for the modification procedure would require a permanent pacemaker for inadvertent AV block or because of AV nodal ablation after a failed modification procedure and that the recurrence rate after AV node ablation would be 2%. The annual charges during follow-up were predicted and adjusted for recurrences and the need for additional procedures. The adjusted total charges at 1 year of follow-up were significantly lower for the modification procedure ($19 389+/-2002) than for the ablation procedure ($28 485+/-2023, P<.001). After 10 years of follow-up, the cumulative, adjusted charges for modification were $20 016 (42%) less than for ablation.

CONCLUSIONS

The initial charges generated by AV node modification are significantly lower than for AV node ablation in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation. Even when adjusted for higher failure and recurrence rates, the modification procedure retains a major cost advantage over ablation during long-term follow-up.

A cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of radiosurgery vs. resection for single-brain metastases

PURPOSE

The median survival of well-selected patients with single-brain metastases treated with whole-brain irradiation and resection or radiosurgery is comparable, although a randomized trial of these two modalities has not been performed. In this era of cost containment, it is imperative that health-care professionals make fiscally prudent decisions. The present environment necessitates a critical appraisal of apparently equi-efficacious therapeutic modalities, and it is within this context that we present a comparison of the actual costs of resection and radiosurgery for brain metastases.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Survival and quality of life outcome data for radiation alone or with surgery were obtained from two randomized trials, and radiosurgical results were obtained from a multiinstitutional analysis that specifically evaluated patients meeting surgical criteria. Only linear accelerator radiosurgery data were considered. Cost analysis was performed from a societal view point, and the following parameters were evaluated: actual cost, cost ratios, cost effectiveness, incremental cost effectiveness, cost utility, incremental cost utility, and national cost burden. The computerized billing records for all patients undergoing resection or radiosurgery for single-brain metastases from January 1989 to July 1994 were reviewed. A total of 46 resections and 135 radiosurgery procedures were performed. During the same time period, 454 patients underwent whole-brain radiation alone. An analysis of the entire bill was performed for each procedure, and each itemized cost was assigned a proportionate figure. The relative cost ratios of resection and radiosurgery were compared using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. Cost effectiveness of each modality, defined as the cost per year of median survival, was evaluated. Incremental cost effectiveness, defined as the additional cost per year of incremental gain in median survival, compared to the next least expensive modality, was also determined. To calculate the societal or national impact of these practices, the proportion of patients potentially eligible for aggressive management was estimated and the financial impact was determined using various utilization ratios for radiosurgery and surgery.

RESULTS

Both resection and radiosurgery yielded superior survival and functional independence, compared to whole brain radiotherapy alone, with minor differences in outcome between the two modalities; resection resulted in a 1.8-fold increase in cost, compared to radiosurgery. The latter modality yielded superior cost outcomes on all measures, even when a sensitivity analysis of up to 50% was performed. A reversal estimate indicated that in order for surgery to yield equal cost effectiveness, its cost would have to decrease by 48% or median survival would have to improve by 108%. The average cost per week of survival was $310 for radiotherapy, $524 for resection plus radiation, and $270 for radiosurgery plus radiation.

CONCLUSIONS

For selected patients, aggressive strategies such as resection or radiosurgery are warranted, as they result in improved median survival and functional independence. Radiosurgery appears to be the more cost-effective procedure.

Cost and outcome analysis

The analysis of cost issues has become increasingly important in all fields of medicine. Understanding these economic analyses can make providers more cognizant of the ultimate health, economic, and social outcomes of their treatment decisions. The methodology of cost studies and the surgical costs of treatment of intracranial metastatic tumors warrant review. Costs of surgical and radiosurgical treatment are in the range of that for the care of other serious illnesses, but comparison of the available options is still sensitive to assumptions, and open to varied interpretations.

Radiosurgery in the management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) and large loop excision of the transformation zone-conization (LLETZ-conization) in the management of cervical intraepithelial dysplasia using high-frequency, filtered waveform energy (radiosurgery).

STUDY DESIGN

Two hundred thirteen women attending the outpatient cervical colposcopy clinic with smears consistent with an epithelial abnormality, but macroscopically or colposcopically not consistent with invasive carcinoma, were included in the study. LEEP and LLETZ-conization were performed in 72 and 141 women, respectively. A matched pair group of patients undergoing cold knife conization was used for the comparison with LLETZ-conization. Using LEEP, in 83% a clear resection margin of the biopsy specimen was achieved. In this subset, diagnosis and therapy were achieved in a single visit. No complications, such as hemorrhage, occurred during the operation or postoperative period.

RESULTS

Comparison of LLETZ-conization with the matched-pair group undergoing cold knife conization showed a significantly shorter duration of surgery for LLETZ-conization (mean, 10.8 vs. 16.5 minutes, P < .001). We found no differences concerning posttreatment bleeding complications (2.8% vs. 3.3%) or clear resection margins (92% vs. 86%). Patients undergoing LLETZ-conization needed significantly less analgesic (P < .01).

CONCLUSION

Radiosurgical loop excision is a safe and cost-effective method in the diagnosis and treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.

[Gamma knife versus stereotactic linear accelerator. Utilization, clinical results and cost-benefit relations]

INTRODUCTION

The principles of radiosurgery were developed in 1951 by Leksell. Their technical realization led to the development of the gamma knife and stereotactically modified linear accelerator.

METHODS

In addition to the gamma knife, we present the different principles of convergent beam irradiation (radiosurgery with linear accelerator), the further development to fractionated stereotactic conformal radiotherapy, and the necessary quality-assurance steps.

RESULTS

The greatest uncertainties in the precision of radiosurgery result from medical imaging (CT 0.7 x 0.7 x 1 mm; DSA 1-5 mm; MR angiography < 2 mm). The focusing accuracy of the gamma knife (+/- 0.3 mm) can also be achieved today by linear accelerators using a stereotactic floorstand. For the same indication and the same dosage for the target volume, there are no clinical differences between the gamma knife and the linear accelerator (AVM: 80% complete obliteration; metastases: 85% local tumor control; AN: 90% tumor control). However, there are greater differences in costs. There is no constellation where the gamma knife is just as expensive or more cost-effective than the linear accelerator treatment. The most cost-effective solution is modification of an available linear accelerator, resulting in treatment costs per patient of 9,201.25 DM (50 patients/year).

CONCLUSION

There seem to be no methodological, physical, clinical or cost reasons for using a gamma knife, especially because the trend is going towards fractionated conformation radiotherapy instead of the application of high single doses.