Pract Radiat Oncol. 2022 Jan 16:S1879-8500(22)00002-9. doi: 10.1016/j.prro.2021.12.012. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: We analyze the cost-effectiveness of standard palliative external beam radiation (EBRT, 8 Gy in 1 fraction), stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT, 24 Gy in 2 fractions), and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for painful spinal metastases. Single-fraction SBRT (delivering 24 Gy) is also assessed.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: A Markov state transition model was constructed. Key model parameters were derived from prospective clinical trial data. Strategies were compared using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), with effectiveness in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained. Costs included both hospital and professional costs using 2020 Medicare reimbursement.
RESULTS: The base case demonstrated that 2-fraction SBRT was not cost-effective compared to single-fraction EBRT, with an ICER of $194,145/QALY gained. RFA was a dominated treatment strategy (more costly and less effective) in this model. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that EBRT was favored in 66% of model iterations. If median survival were improved after SBRT, two-fraction SBRT became cost-effective, with ICER of $80,394, $57,062, and $47,038 for 3, 6, and 9-month improvements in survival. Because two-fraction SBRT data reported 18% of patients with indeterminant pain response at 3 months, and two-fraction SBRT is infrequently used in clinical practice, single-fraction SBRT data was also assessed. Single-fraction SBRT delivering 24 Gy was cost-effective compared to single-fraction EBRT, with an ICER of $92,833/QALY gained.
CONCLUSIONS: For appropriately chosen patients, single-fraction SBRT is more cost-effective than conventional EBRT or RFA. Conventional EBRT remains a cost-effective treatment for patients with poor expected survival.
PMID:35045365 | DOI:10.1016/j.prro.2021.12.012
