Search

Abstract Introduction A series of health economic evaluations (HEE) has analysed the efficiency of new fractionation schedules and techniques for adjuvant breast radiotherapy. This overview assembles the available evidence and evaluates to what extent HEE-results can be compared. Methods Based on a systematic literature review of HEEs from 1/1/2000 to 30/10/2016, all cost comparison (CC) and cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) comparing different adjuvant breast radiotherapy approaches were analysed. Costs were extracted and converted to Euro 2016 and costs per QALY were summarized in cost-effectiveness planes. Results Twenty-four publications are withheld, comparing different fractionation schedules and/or irradiation techniques or evaluating the value of adding radiotherapy. Normofractionation and intensity-modulated, interstitial or intraluminal techniques are important cost-drivers. Highest reimbursements are observed in the US, but may overestimate the real cost. Hypofractionation is cost-effective compared to normofractionation, the results of partial breast irradiation are less unequivocal. Intra-operative and external beam approaches seem the most cost-effective for favourable risk groups, but whole breast irradiation is superior in terms of health effect and omission of radiotherapy in terms of costs. Conclusion Hypofractionation may be considered the most relevant comparator for new strategies in adjuvant breast radiotherapy, with omission of radiotherapy as an interesting alternative in the very favourable subcategories, especially for partial breast techniques. Although comparison of CC and CEA is hampered by the variability in clinical and economic settings, HEE-based evidence can guide decision-making to tailor-made strategies, allocating the optimal treatment in terms of effectiveness as well as efficiency to the right indication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose To investigate, in a prospective phase 1 to 2 trial, the safety and feasibility of delivering external beam radiation therapy in 5 fractions to the breast or thoracic wall, including boost and/or lymph nodes if needed, to women aged ≥65 years with breast cancer. Methods and Materials Ninety-five patients aged ≥65 years, referred for adjuvant radiation therapy, were treated in 5 fractions over 12 days with a total dose of 28.5 Gy/5.7 Gy to the breast or thoracic wall and, if indicated, 27 Gy/5.4 Gy to the lymph node regions and 32.5 Gy/6.5 Gy to 34.5 Gy/6.9 Gy to the tumor bed. The primary endpoint was clinically relevant dermatitis (grade ≥2). Results Mean follow-up time was 5.6 months, and mean age was 73.6 years. Clinically relevant dermatitis was observed in 11.6% of patients and only occurred in breast irradiation with boost (17.5% grade 2-3 vs 0% in the no-boost group). Although doses were high, treatment delivery with intensity modulated radiation therapy was swift, except for complex treatments, including lymph nodes for which single-arc volumetric modulated arc therapy was needed to reduce beam-on time. Conclusion Accelerated radiation therapy in 5 fractions was technically feasible and resulted in low acute toxicity. Clinically relevant erythema was only observed in patients receiving a boost, but still at an acceptable rate. Although the follow-up is still short, the results on acute toxicity after accelerated radiation therapy were encouraging. A 5-fraction schedule is well tolerated in the elderly and may lower the threshold for radiation therapy in this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: A large amount of clinical evidence has recently accumulated supporting the efficacy and safety of hypofractionated radiotherapy for post-operative breast cancer. These schedules, typically delivering a lower total dose in fewer, but larger than 2 Gy fractions, are more convenient for the patients by limiting the number of treatment attendances. Moreover, the reduced resource use in terms of personnel and machine time is advantageous for radiotherapy departments and translates into lower treatment costs. In order to formally validate this therapeutic approach from a societal perspective, however, cost-effectiveness evaluations weighing long-term outcome against the societal costs incurred until many years after treatment are needed. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Purpose: To investigate the financial implications of radiotherapy (RT) to the internal mammary and medial supraclavicular lymph node chain (IM-MS) in postoperative breast cancer. Methods and Materials: A cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis were performed, using Markov models, comparing the early and delayed costs and effects of IM-MS during a 20-year time span from a societal viewpoint. The outcome estimates were based on Level I evidence from postoperative RT literature and the cost estimates on the standard practice of the Leuven University Hospitals, with the RT costs derived from an activity-based costing program developed in the department. Results: On the basis of the assumptions of the model and seen during a 20-year time span, primary treatment including IM-MS RT results in a cost savings (approximately €10,000) compared with a strategy without RT. Because IM-MS RT also results in better clinical effectiveness and greater quality of life, the treatment with IM-MS dominates the approach without IM-MS. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these results in all tested circumstances. Although threshold values were found for the cost of IM-MS, the cost at relapse, and the quality of life after treatment, these were substantially different from the baseline estimates, indicating that it is very unlikely that omitting IM-MS would become superior. Conclusion: This ex-ante cost evaluation of IM-MS RT showed that the upfront costs of locoregional RT are easily compensated for by avoiding the costs of treating locoregional and distant relapse at a later stage. The cost-sparing effect of RT should, however, be evaluated for a sufficiently long time span and is most specifically found in tumors with a rather slow natural history and a multitude of available systemic treatments at relapse, such as breast cancer. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

• Patients treated in 5 fractions show less deterioration of physical well-being 2–4 weeks after radiotherapy than patients treated in 15 fractions. • One year after radiotherapy, the 5 fractions schedule results in more patients reporting a clinically important improvement in pain, arm and breast symptoms. • One year after radiotherapy, the 5 fractions schedule results in a better future perspective. In breast cancer patients, duration of illness and treatment have a negative impact on the quality of life. The duration of radiotherapy can be shortened by reducing the number of treatment fractions. In this study, the impact of an accelerated breast irradiation schedule in 5 fractions over 10 to 12 days on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was investigated and compared to a standard hypofractionation schedule of 15 fractions. The study population was composed of 530 patients treated in 15 fractions and 196 patients treated in 5 fractions. Patients were included in different trials evaluating HRQoL. Radiotherapy-related items of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and BR23 and Breast-Q questionnaires were evaluated by comparing baseline scores to scores at 2–4 weeks and 1 year after radiotherapy. Clinically important improvements and deteriorations of HRQoL were compared between the 2 radiation schedules. Patients treated in 5 fractions show less deterioration of physical well-being 2–4 weeks after radiotherapy. One year after radiotherapy, the 5 fractions schedule results in more patients reporting a clinically important improvement in pain, arm and breast symptoms and future perspective. Radiotherapy in 5 fractions over 10–12 days results in more improvement and less deterioration of HRQoL than a 15 fractions schedule over 3 weeks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Evolving practice in adjuvant breast radiotherapy inevitably impacts healthcare budgets. This is reflected in a rise of health economic evaluations (HEE) in this domain. The available HEE literature was analysed qualitatively and quantitatively, using available instruments. Methods HEEs published between 1/1/2000 and 31/10/2016 were retrieved through a systematic search in Medline, Cochrane and Embase. A quality-assessment using CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) was translated into a quantitative score and compared with Tufts Medical Centre CEA registry and Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) results. Results Twenty cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) and thirteen cost comparisons (CC) were analysed. In qualitative evaluation, valuation or justification of data sources, population heterogeneity and discussion on generalizability, in addition to declaration on funding, were often absent or incomplete. After quantification, the average CHEERS-scores were 74% (CI 66.9–81.1%) and 75.6% (CI 70.7–80.5%) for CEAs and CCs respectively. CEA-scores did not differ significantly from Tufts and QHES-scores. Conclusion Quantitative CHEERS evaluation is feasible and yields comparable results to validated instruments. HEE in adjuvant breast radiotherapy is of acceptable quality, however, further efforts are needed to improve comprehensive reporting of all data, indispensable for assessing relevance, reliability and generalizability of results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To evaluate the long-term impact of locoregional breast radiotherapy (RT) on pulmonary function tests (PFTs). Methods and Materials: This study included 75 women who underwent postoperative locoregional breast RT. PFTs were performed before RT and 3, 6, and 12 months and 8 to 10 years after RT. By use of univariate and multivariate analyses, the impact of treatment- and patient-related factors on late changes in PFTs was evaluated. Results: During the first year after RT, all PFTs significantly worsened at 3 to 6 months after RT (p < 0.05). At 12 months, forced vital capacity (FVC), vital capacity (VC), and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) recovered almost to baseline values, whereas total lung capacity (TLC) and diffusion capacity of carbon monoxide (DLCO) recovered only slightly and were still found to be decreased compared with baseline (p < 0.05). At 8 to 10 years after RT, mean reductions in FEV1 of 4% (p = 0.03) and in VC, DLCO, and TLC of 5%, 9%, and 11% (all p < 0.0001), respectively, were observed compared with pre-RT values. On multivariate analysis, tamoxifen use negatively affected TLC at 8 to 10 years after RT (p = 0.033), whereas right-sided irradiation was associated with a late reduction in FEV1 (p = 0.027). For FEV1 and DLCO, an early decrease was predictive for a late decrease (p = 0.003 and p = 0.0009, respectively). Conclusions: The time course of PFT changes after locoregional RT for breast cancer follows a biphasic pattern. An early reduction in PFTs at 3 to 6 months with a partial recovery at 12 months after RT is followed by a late, more important PFT reduction up to 8 to 10 years after RT. Tamoxifen use may have an impact on this late decline in PFTs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]