Cost-effectiveness analysis of neurocognitive-sparing treatments for brain metastases

Samuel T. Savitz, Ronald C. Chen, David J. Sher

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND Decisions regarding how to treat patients who have 1 to 3 brain metastases require important tradeoffs between controlling recurrences, side effects, and costs. In this analysis, the authors compared novel treatments versus usual care to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio from a payer's (Medicare) perspective. METHODS Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using a microsimulation of a Markov model for 60 one-month cycles. The model used 4 simulated cohorts of patients aged 65 years with 1 to 3 brain metastases. The 4 cohorts had a median survival of 3, 6, 12, and 24 months to test the sensitivity of the model to different prognoses. The treatment alternatives evaluated included stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) with 3 variants of salvage after recurrence (whole-brain radiotherapy [WBRT], hippocampal avoidance WBRT [HA-WBRT], SRS plus WBRT, and SRS plus HA-WBRT). The findings were tested for robustness using probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS Traditional radiation therapies remained cost-effective for patients in the 3-month and 6-month cohorts. In the cohorts with longer median survival, HA-WBRT and SRS plus HA-WBRT became cost-effective relative to traditional treatments. When the treatments that involved HA-WBRT were excluded, either SRS alone or SRS plus WBRT was cost-effective relative to WBRT alone. The deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these results. CONCLUSIONS HA-WBRT and SRS plus HA-WBRT were cost-effective for 2 of the 4 cohorts, demonstrating the value of controlling late brain toxicity with this novel therapy. Cost-effectiveness depended on patient life expectancy. SRS was cost-effective in the cohorts with short prognoses (3 and 6 months), whereas HA-WBRT and SRS plus HA-WBRT were cost-effective in the cohorts with longer prognoses (12 and 24 months).

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)4231-4239
Number of pages9
JournalCancer
Volume121
Issue number23
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2015

Fingerprint

Radiosurgery
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Neoplasm Metastasis
Brain
Radiotherapy
Costs and Cost Analysis
Therapeutics
Recurrence
Survival
Medicare
Life Expectancy

Keywords

  • cognition disorders
  • computer-assisted radiotherapy
  • cost-effectiveness analysis
  • image-guided radiotherapy
  • secondary brain neoplasm

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research

Cite this

Cost-effectiveness analysis of neurocognitive-sparing treatments for brain metastases. / Savitz, Samuel T.; Chen, Ronald C.; Sher, David J.

In: Cancer, Vol. 121, No. 23, 01.12.2015, p. 4231-4239.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Savitz, Samuel T. ; Chen, Ronald C. ; Sher, David J. / Cost-effectiveness analysis of neurocognitive-sparing treatments for brain metastases. In: Cancer. 2015 ; Vol. 121, No. 23. pp. 4231-4239.
@article{8a54f37d44d9424087901a4dedb80e36,
title = "Cost-effectiveness analysis of neurocognitive-sparing treatments for brain metastases",
abstract = "BACKGROUND Decisions regarding how to treat patients who have 1 to 3 brain metastases require important tradeoffs between controlling recurrences, side effects, and costs. In this analysis, the authors compared novel treatments versus usual care to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio from a payer's (Medicare) perspective. METHODS Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using a microsimulation of a Markov model for 60 one-month cycles. The model used 4 simulated cohorts of patients aged 65 years with 1 to 3 brain metastases. The 4 cohorts had a median survival of 3, 6, 12, and 24 months to test the sensitivity of the model to different prognoses. The treatment alternatives evaluated included stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) with 3 variants of salvage after recurrence (whole-brain radiotherapy [WBRT], hippocampal avoidance WBRT [HA-WBRT], SRS plus WBRT, and SRS plus HA-WBRT). The findings were tested for robustness using probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS Traditional radiation therapies remained cost-effective for patients in the 3-month and 6-month cohorts. In the cohorts with longer median survival, HA-WBRT and SRS plus HA-WBRT became cost-effective relative to traditional treatments. When the treatments that involved HA-WBRT were excluded, either SRS alone or SRS plus WBRT was cost-effective relative to WBRT alone. The deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these results. CONCLUSIONS HA-WBRT and SRS plus HA-WBRT were cost-effective for 2 of the 4 cohorts, demonstrating the value of controlling late brain toxicity with this novel therapy. Cost-effectiveness depended on patient life expectancy. SRS was cost-effective in the cohorts with short prognoses (3 and 6 months), whereas HA-WBRT and SRS plus HA-WBRT were cost-effective in the cohorts with longer prognoses (12 and 24 months).",
keywords = "cognition disorders, computer-assisted radiotherapy, cost-effectiveness analysis, image-guided radiotherapy, secondary brain neoplasm",
author = "Savitz, {Samuel T.} and Chen, {Ronald C.} and Sher, {David J.}",
year = "2015",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/cncr.29642",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "121",
pages = "4231--4239",
journal = "Cancer",
issn = "0008-543X",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",
number = "23",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cost-effectiveness analysis of neurocognitive-sparing treatments for brain metastases

AU - Savitz, Samuel T.

AU - Chen, Ronald C.

AU - Sher, David J.

PY - 2015/12/1

Y1 - 2015/12/1

N2 - BACKGROUND Decisions regarding how to treat patients who have 1 to 3 brain metastases require important tradeoffs between controlling recurrences, side effects, and costs. In this analysis, the authors compared novel treatments versus usual care to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio from a payer's (Medicare) perspective. METHODS Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using a microsimulation of a Markov model for 60 one-month cycles. The model used 4 simulated cohorts of patients aged 65 years with 1 to 3 brain metastases. The 4 cohorts had a median survival of 3, 6, 12, and 24 months to test the sensitivity of the model to different prognoses. The treatment alternatives evaluated included stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) with 3 variants of salvage after recurrence (whole-brain radiotherapy [WBRT], hippocampal avoidance WBRT [HA-WBRT], SRS plus WBRT, and SRS plus HA-WBRT). The findings were tested for robustness using probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS Traditional radiation therapies remained cost-effective for patients in the 3-month and 6-month cohorts. In the cohorts with longer median survival, HA-WBRT and SRS plus HA-WBRT became cost-effective relative to traditional treatments. When the treatments that involved HA-WBRT were excluded, either SRS alone or SRS plus WBRT was cost-effective relative to WBRT alone. The deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these results. CONCLUSIONS HA-WBRT and SRS plus HA-WBRT were cost-effective for 2 of the 4 cohorts, demonstrating the value of controlling late brain toxicity with this novel therapy. Cost-effectiveness depended on patient life expectancy. SRS was cost-effective in the cohorts with short prognoses (3 and 6 months), whereas HA-WBRT and SRS plus HA-WBRT were cost-effective in the cohorts with longer prognoses (12 and 24 months).

AB - BACKGROUND Decisions regarding how to treat patients who have 1 to 3 brain metastases require important tradeoffs between controlling recurrences, side effects, and costs. In this analysis, the authors compared novel treatments versus usual care to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio from a payer's (Medicare) perspective. METHODS Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using a microsimulation of a Markov model for 60 one-month cycles. The model used 4 simulated cohorts of patients aged 65 years with 1 to 3 brain metastases. The 4 cohorts had a median survival of 3, 6, 12, and 24 months to test the sensitivity of the model to different prognoses. The treatment alternatives evaluated included stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) with 3 variants of salvage after recurrence (whole-brain radiotherapy [WBRT], hippocampal avoidance WBRT [HA-WBRT], SRS plus WBRT, and SRS plus HA-WBRT). The findings were tested for robustness using probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS Traditional radiation therapies remained cost-effective for patients in the 3-month and 6-month cohorts. In the cohorts with longer median survival, HA-WBRT and SRS plus HA-WBRT became cost-effective relative to traditional treatments. When the treatments that involved HA-WBRT were excluded, either SRS alone or SRS plus WBRT was cost-effective relative to WBRT alone. The deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these results. CONCLUSIONS HA-WBRT and SRS plus HA-WBRT were cost-effective for 2 of the 4 cohorts, demonstrating the value of controlling late brain toxicity with this novel therapy. Cost-effectiveness depended on patient life expectancy. SRS was cost-effective in the cohorts with short prognoses (3 and 6 months), whereas HA-WBRT and SRS plus HA-WBRT were cost-effective in the cohorts with longer prognoses (12 and 24 months).

KW - cognition disorders

KW - computer-assisted radiotherapy

KW - cost-effectiveness analysis

KW - image-guided radiotherapy

KW - secondary brain neoplasm

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84948572014&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84948572014&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/cncr.29642

DO - 10.1002/cncr.29642

M3 - Article

C2 - 26372146

AN - SCOPUS:84948572014

VL - 121

SP - 4231

EP - 4239

JO - Cancer

JF - Cancer

SN - 0008-543X

IS - 23

ER -