skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Compared With Radiofrequency Ablation for Inoperable Colorectal Liver Metastases

Abstract

Purpose: To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis to determine whether stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is a cost-effective therapy compared with radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for patients with unresectable colorectal cancer (CRC) liver metastases. Methods and Materials: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a Markov model and 1-month cycle over a lifetime horizon. Transition probabilities, quality of life utilities, and costs associated with SBRT and RFA were captured in the model on the basis of a comprehensive literature review and Medicare reimbursements in 2014. Strategies were compared using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, with effectiveness measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). To account for model uncertainty, 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Strategies were evaluated with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained. Results: In base case analysis, treatment costs for 3 fractions of SBRT and 1 RFA procedure were $13,000 and $4397, respectively. Median survival was assumed the same for both strategies (25 months). The SBRT costs $8202 more than RFA while gaining 0.05 QALYs, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $164,660 per QALY gained. In 1-way sensitivity analyses, results were most sensitive to variation of median survival from both treatments. Stereotactic body radiation therapy was economically reasonable if better survivalmore » was presumed (>1 month gain) or if used for large tumors (>4 cm). Conclusions: If equal survival is assumed, SBRT is not cost-effective compared with RFA for inoperable colorectal liver metastases. However, if better local control leads to small survival gains with SBRT, this strategy becomes cost-effective. Ideally, these results should be confirmed with prospective comparative data.« less

Authors:
 [1]; ; ;  [1];  [2];  [3]
  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (United States)
  2. Department of Health Policy and Management, University of Pittsburgh School of Public Health, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (United States)
  3. Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22648733
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics; Journal Volume: 95; Journal Issue: 4; Other Information: Copyright (c) 2016 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE; ABLATION; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; LIVER; NEOPLASMS; RADIOTHERAPY; RADIOWAVE RADIATION; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Citation Formats

Kim, Hayeon, E-mail: kimh2@upmc.edu, Gill, Beant, Beriwal, Sushil, Huq, M. Saiful, Roberts, Mark S., and Smith, Kenneth J. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Compared With Radiofrequency Ablation for Inoperable Colorectal Liver Metastases. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1016/J.IJROBP.2016.02.045.
Kim, Hayeon, E-mail: kimh2@upmc.edu, Gill, Beant, Beriwal, Sushil, Huq, M. Saiful, Roberts, Mark S., & Smith, Kenneth J. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Compared With Radiofrequency Ablation for Inoperable Colorectal Liver Metastases. United States. doi:10.1016/J.IJROBP.2016.02.045.
Kim, Hayeon, E-mail: kimh2@upmc.edu, Gill, Beant, Beriwal, Sushil, Huq, M. Saiful, Roberts, Mark S., and Smith, Kenneth J. 2016. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Compared With Radiofrequency Ablation for Inoperable Colorectal Liver Metastases". United States. doi:10.1016/J.IJROBP.2016.02.045.
@article{osti_22648733,
title = {Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Compared With Radiofrequency Ablation for Inoperable Colorectal Liver Metastases},
author = {Kim, Hayeon, E-mail: kimh2@upmc.edu and Gill, Beant and Beriwal, Sushil and Huq, M. Saiful and Roberts, Mark S. and Smith, Kenneth J.},
abstractNote = {Purpose: To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis to determine whether stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is a cost-effective therapy compared with radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for patients with unresectable colorectal cancer (CRC) liver metastases. Methods and Materials: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a Markov model and 1-month cycle over a lifetime horizon. Transition probabilities, quality of life utilities, and costs associated with SBRT and RFA were captured in the model on the basis of a comprehensive literature review and Medicare reimbursements in 2014. Strategies were compared using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, with effectiveness measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). To account for model uncertainty, 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Strategies were evaluated with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained. Results: In base case analysis, treatment costs for 3 fractions of SBRT and 1 RFA procedure were $13,000 and $4397, respectively. Median survival was assumed the same for both strategies (25 months). The SBRT costs $8202 more than RFA while gaining 0.05 QALYs, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $164,660 per QALY gained. In 1-way sensitivity analyses, results were most sensitive to variation of median survival from both treatments. Stereotactic body radiation therapy was economically reasonable if better survival was presumed (>1 month gain) or if used for large tumors (>4 cm). Conclusions: If equal survival is assumed, SBRT is not cost-effective compared with RFA for inoperable colorectal liver metastases. However, if better local control leads to small survival gains with SBRT, this strategy becomes cost-effective. Ideally, these results should be confirmed with prospective comparative data.},
doi = {10.1016/J.IJROBP.2016.02.045},
journal = {International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics},
number = 4,
volume = 95,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 7
}
  • Purpose: To performed a systematic review and pooled analysis to compare clinical outcomes of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for the treatment of medically inoperable stage I non-small cell lung cancer. Methods and Materials: A comprehensive literature search for published trials from 2001 to 2012 was undertaken. Pooled analyses were performed to obtain overall survival (OS) and local tumor control rates (LCRs) and adverse events. Regression analysis was conducted considering each study's proportions of stage IA and age. Results: Thirty-one studies on SBRT (2767 patients) and 13 studies on RFA (328 patients) were eligible. The LCR (95%more » confidence interval) at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years for RFA was 77% (70%-85%), 48% (37%-58%), 55% (47%-62%), and 42% (30%-54%) respectively, which was significantly lower than that for SBRT: 97% (96%-98%), 92% (91%-94%), 88% (86%-90%), and 86% (85%-88%) (P<.001). These differences remained significant after correcting for stage IA and age (P<.001 at 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years; P=.04 at 5 years). The effect of RFA was not different from that of SBRT on OS (P>.05). The most frequent complication of RFA was pneumothorax, occurring in 31% of patients, whereas that for SBRT (grade ≥3) was radiation pneumonitis, occurring in 2% of patients. Conclusions: Compared with RFA, SBRT seems to have a higher LCR but similar OS. More studies with larger sample sizes are warranted to validate such findings.« less
  • Purpose: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has been proposed for the palliation of painful vertebral bone metastases because higher radiation doses may result in superior and more durable pain control. A phase III clinical trial (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0631) comparing single fraction SBRT with single fraction external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) in palliative treatment of painful vertebral bone metastases is now ongoing. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis to compare these strategies. Methods and Materials: A Markov model, using a 1-month cycle over a lifetime horizon, was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of SBRT (16 or 18 Gy in 1 fraction)more » with that of 8 Gy in 1 fraction of EBRT. Transition probabilities, quality of life utilities, and costs associated with SBRT and EBRT were captured in the model. Costs were based on Medicare reimbursement in 2014. Strategies were compared using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). To account for uncertainty, 1-way, 2-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Strategies were evaluated with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained. Results: Base case pain relief after the treatment was assumed as 20% higher in SBRT. Base case treatment costs for SBRT and EBRT were $9000 and $1087, respectively. In the base case analysis, SBRT resulted in an ICER of $124,552 per QALY gained. In 1-way sensitivity analyses, results were most sensitive to variation of the utility of unrelieved pain; the utility of relieved pain after initial treatment and median survival were also sensitive to variation. If median survival is ≥11 months, SBRT cost <$100,000 per QALY gained. Conclusion: SBRT for palliation of vertebral bone metastases is not cost-effective compared with EBRT at a $100,000 per QALY gained WTP threshold. However, if median survival is ≥11 months, SBRT costs ≤$100,000 per QALY gained, suggesting that selective SBRT use in patients with longer expected survival may be the most cost-effective approach.« less
  • Purpose: The standard management of medically inoperable Stage I non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) conventionally has been fractionated three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT). The relatively poor local control rate and inconvenience associated with this therapy have prompted the development of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), a technique that delivers very high doses of irradiation typically over 3 to 5 sessions. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has also been investigated as a less costly, single-day therapy that thermally ablates small, peripheral tumors. The cost-effectiveness of these three techniques has never been compared. Methods and Materials: We developed a Markov model to describe health states ofmore » 65-year-old men with medically inoperable NSCLC after treatment with 3D-CRT, SBRT, and RFA. Given their frail state, patients were assumed to receive supportive care after recurrence. Utility values, recurrence risks, and costs were adapted from the literature. Sensitivity analyses were performed to model uncertainty in these parameters. Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for SBRT over 3D-CRT was $6,000/quality-adjusted life-year, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for SBRT over RFA was $14,100/quality-adjusted life-year. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the results were robust across a range of tumor sizes, patient utility values, and costs. This result was confirmed with probabilistic sensitivity analyses that varied local control rates and utilities. Conclusion: In comparison to 3D-CRT and RFA, SBRT was the most cost-effective treatment for medically inoperable NSCLC over a wide range of treatment and disease assumptions. On the basis of efficacy and cost, SBRT should be the primary treatment approach for this disease.« less
  • The objective of this study was to analyze long-term results of radiofrequency thermal ablation (RFA) for colorectal metastases (MTS), in order to evaluate predictors for adverse events, technique effectiveness, and survival. One hundred ninety-nine nonresectable MTS (0.5-8 cm; mean, 2.9 cm) in 122 patients underwent a total of 166 RFA sessions, percutaneously or during surgery. The technique was 'simple' or 'combined' with vascular occlusion. The mean follow-up time was 24.2 months. Complications, technique effectiveness, and survival rates were statistically analyzed. Adverse events occurred in 8.1% of lesions (major complication rate: 1.1%), 7.1% with simple and 16.7% with combined technique (pmore » = 0.15). Early complete response was obtained in 151 lesions (81.2%), but 49 lesions (26.3%) recurred locally after a mean of 10.4 months. Sustained complete ablation was achieved in 66.7% of lesions {<=}3 cm versus 33.3% of lesions >3 cm (p < 0.0001). Survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 91%, 54%, and 33%, respectively, from the diagnosis of MTS and 79%, 38%, and 22%, respectively, from RFA. Mean survival time from RFA was 31.5 months, 36.2 in patients with main MTS {<=}3 cm and 23.2 in those with at least one lesion >3 cm (p = 0.006). We conclude that 'simple' RFA is safe and successful for MTS {<=}3 cm, contributing to prolong survival when patients can be completely treated.« less
  • Purpose. To analyze the factors associated with favorable survival in patients with inoperable colorectal lung metastases treated with percutaneous image-guided radiofrequency ablation. Methods. Between 2002 and 2011, a total of 398 metastases were ablated in 122 patients (87 male, median age 68 years, range 29-90 years) at 256 procedures. Percutaneous CT-guided cool-tip radiofrequency ablation was performed under sedation/general anesthesia. Maximum tumor size, number of tumors ablated, number of procedures, concurrent/prior liver ablation, previous liver or lung resection, systemic chemotherapy, disease-free interval from primary resection to lung metastasis, and survival from first ablation were recorded prospectively. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed, andmore » factors were compared by log rank test. Results. The initial number of metastases ablated was 2.3 (range 1-8); the total number was 3.3 (range 1-15). The maximum tumor diameter was 1.7 (range 0.5-4) cm, and the number of procedures was 2 (range 1-10). The major complication rate was 3.9 %. Overall median and 3-year survival rate were 41 months and 57 %. Survival was better in patients with smaller tumors-a median of 51 months, with 3-year survival of 64 % for tumors 2 cm or smaller versus 31 months and 44 % for tumors 2.1-4 cm (p = 0.08). The number of metastases ablated and whether the tumors were unilateral or bilateral did not affect survival. The presence of treated liver metastases, systemic chemotherapy, or prior lung resection did not affect survival. Conclusion. Three-year survival of 57 % in patients with inoperable colorectal lung metastases is better than would be expected with chemotherapy alone. Patients with inoperable but small-volume colorectal lung metastases should be referred for ablation.« less