Search

Background and Purpose: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) comparing an adaptive radiotherapy (ART) strategy, based on weekly replanning, aiming to correct the parotid gland overdose during treatment and expecting therefore to decrease xerostomia, when compared to a standard IMRT., Materials and Methods: We conducted the ARTIX trial, a randomized, parallel-group, multicentric study comparing a systematic weekly replanning ART to a standard IMRT. The primary endpoint was the frequency of xerostomia at 12 months, measured by stimulating salivary flow with paraffin. The CEA was designed alongside the ARTIX trial which was linked to the French national health data system (SNDS). For each patient, healthcare consumptions and costs were provided by the SNDS. The reference case analysis was based on the primary endpoint of the trial. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed., Results: Of the 129 patients randomly assigned between 2013 and 2018, only 2 records were not linked to the SNDS, which provides a linkage proportion of 98.4%. All of the other 127 records were linked with good to very good robustness. On the intent-to-treat population at 12 months, mean total costs per patient were €41,564 (SD 23,624) and €33,063 (SD 16,886) for ART and standard IMRT arms, respectively (p = 0.033). Incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) was €162,444 per xerostomia avoided. At 24 months, ICER was €194,521 per xerostomia avoided. For both progression-free and overall survival, ART was dominated by standard IMRT., Conclusion: The ART strategy was deemed to be not cost-effective compared with standard IMRT for patients with locally advanced oropharyngeal cancer., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Interim analysis of the DOSISPHERE-01 study demonstrated a strong improvement in response and overall survival (OS) on using 90 Y-loaded glass microspheres with personalized dosimetry compared with standard dosimetry in patients with nonoperable locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. This report sought to provide a long-term analysis of OS. Methods: In this phase II study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02582034), treatment was randomly assigned (1:1) with the goal to deliver either at least 205 Gy (if possible >250-300 Gy) to the index lesion in the personalized dosimetry approach (PDA) or 120 ± 20 Gy to the treated volume in the standard dosimetry approach (SDA). The 3-mo response of the index lesion was the primary endpoint, with OS being one of the secondary endpoints. This report is a post hoc long-term analysis of OS. Results: Overall, 60 hepatocellular carcinoma patients with at least 1 lesion larger than 7 cm and more than 30% of hepatic reserve were randomized (intent-to-treat population: PDA, n = 31; SDA, n = 29), with 56 actually treated (modified intent-to-treat population: n = 28 in each arm). The median follow-up for long-term analysis was 65.8 mo (range, 2.1-73.1 mo). Median OS was 24.8 mo and 10.7 mo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.51; 95% CI, 0.29-0.9; P = 0.02) for PDA and SDA, respectively, in the modified intent-to-treat population. Median OS was 22.9 mo for patients with a tumor dose of at least 205 Gy, versus 10.3 mo for those with a tumor dose of less than 205 Gy (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.22-0.81; P = 0.0095), and was 22.9 mo for patients with a perfused liver dose of 150 Gy or higher, versus 10.3 mo for those with a perfused liver dose of less than 150 Gy (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.23-0.75; P = 0.0033). Lastly, median OS was not reached in patients who were secondarily resected ( n = 11, 10 in the PDA group and 1 in the SDA group), versus 10.8 mo in those without secondary resection ( n = 45) (HR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.065-0.43; P = 0.0002). Only resected patients displayed favorable long-term OS rates, meaning an OS of more than 50% at 5 y. Conclusion: After longer follow-up, personalized dosimetry sustained a meaningful improvement in OS, which was dramatically improved for patients who were accurately downstaged toward resection, including most portal vein thrombosis patients., (© 2024 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.)

Backgound and Aims: In advanced, liver-only intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA), selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) has been suggested as promising in nonrandomized studies. We aimed to compare data from patients with advanced, liver-only iCCA treated in the first line in clinical trials with either chemotherapy alone or the combination with SIRT., Approach and Results: We collected individual patients' data from the ABC-01, ABC-02, ABC-03, BINGO, AMEBICA, and MISPHEC prospective trials. Data from patients with liver-only iCCA treated in chemotherapy-only arms of the first 5 trials were compared with data from patients treated with SIRT and chemotherapy in MISPHEC. Emulated target trial paradigm and Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (IPTW methods) using the propensity score were used to minimize biases. We compared 41 patients treated with the combination with 73 patients treated with chemotherapy alone, the main analysis being in 43 patients treated with cisplatin-gemcitabine or gemcitabine-oxaliplatin. After weighting, overall survival was significantly higher in patients treated with SIRT: median 21.7 months (95% CI: 14.1; not reached) versus 15.9 months(95% CI: 9.8; 18.9), HR = 0.59 (95% CI: 0.34; 0.99), p = 0.049. Progression-free survival was significantly improved: median 14.3 months (95% CI: 7.8; not reached) versus 8.4 months (95% CI: 5.9; 12.1), HR = 0.52 (95% CI: 0.31; 0.89), p < 0.001. Results were confirmed in most sensitivity analyses., Conclusions: This analysis derived from prospective clinical trials suggests that SIRT combined with chemotherapy might improve outcomes over chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced, liver-only iCCA. Randomized controlled evidence is needed to confirm these findings., (Copyright © 2023 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)