Search

Importance: Evolving breast cancer treatments have led to improved outcomes but carry a substantial financial burden. The association of treatment costs with the cost-effectiveness of screening mammography is unknown., Objective: To determine the cost-effectiveness of population-based breast cancer screening in the context of current treatment standards., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this economic evaluation, the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer/Statistics Canada OncoSim-Breast microsimulation model was used to estimate the impact of various screening schedules in terms of clinical outcomes and treatment costs. Breast cancer treatment costs were derived from activity-based costing published in 2023 specific to a publicly funded health system in Ontario, Canada. A single birth cohort of individuals assigned female at birth in 1975 was modeled until death or age 99 years (whichever came first)., Exposures: Five screening scenarios were modeled: no screening, biennial (ages 50-74 years and 40-74 years), hybrid (biennial ages 40-49 years and annual ages 50-74 years), and annual screening (ages 40-74 years)., Main Outcomes and Measures: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for deaths averted, life-years (LYs) gained, and incremental cost-utility ratios for quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained were determined for screening scenarios. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by varying screening participation rates and reducing recall rates to 5% and the estimated mortality benefits of screening., Results: Earlier initiation of breast cancer screening at age 40 years (vs age 50 years) was associated with improved clinical outcomes (deaths averted, LYs saved, and QALYs gained) and reduced health care spending on breast cancer treatment. From a health system perspective, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for biennial screening at ages 40 to 74 years compared with biennial screening at ages 50 to 74 years were cost saving, with CAD$49 759 saved per death averted, $1558 per LY saved, and $2007 saved per QALY gained. Annual screening at ages 40 to 74 years was cost-effective while achieving the best breast cancer outcomes, with costs of $25 501 per death averted, $1100 per LY saved, and $1447 per QALY gained compared with the current Canadian standard of biennial screening at ages 50 to 74 years., Conclusions and Relevance: In this economic analysis, although screening costs increased according to the number of lifetime screens, they were completely or largely offset by reduced breast cancer therapy costs. Digital mammography was a highly cost-effective tool to reduce breast cancer mortality. These results have important policy implications for all single-payer health systems and call for greater investment in screening programs.

Purpose: To compare health-related quality of life (QoL) in urinary, bowel, and sexual domains after combined external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and either low-dose rate (LDR) or high-dose rate (HDR) prostate brachytherapy (BT)., Methods and Materials: Eligible men with intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer treated with combined pelvic EBRT and BT were randomly assigned to either HDR (15 Gy) or LDR (110 Gy) boost. International Prostate Symptom Score, Index of Erectile Function, and Expanded Prostate Cancer Composite were collected at baseline, 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, every 6 months to 3 years and then annually along with prostate-specific antigen/testosterone. Fisher's exact test compared categorical variables and the Mann-Whitney U test Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) domain scores., Results: From January 2014 to December 2019, a random number generator assigned 195 men: 108 to HDR and 87 to LDR. Median age was 71 years. Risk group was high in 57% and unfavorable intermediate in 43%. Androgen deprivation (used in 74%) began with 3 months neoadjuvant and continued for median 12 months. Baseline EPIC scores were similar for the LDR/HDR cohorts: 89 and 88 respectively for Genito-urinary; 92 and 93 for Gastro-intestinal. EPIC urinary scores decreased at 1 month for HDR but recovered promptly to a steady state by 6 months. LDR scores reached a nadir at 3 months with slow recovery to 18 months, after which urinary QoL was similar for HDR and LDR. Bowel QOL scores fell in both cohorts reaching respective nadirs at 12 months. HDR patients recovered close to baseline and maintained higher scores than LDR patients to 5 years. The decline for LDR patients remained more than the minimum clinically important difference out to 5 years., Conclusions: The patient experience for combined EBRT and prostate BT is improved with HDR BT. Urinary QoL improves over time to be equivalent between the 2 modalities after 18 months, but LDR patients report lasting bowel symptoms., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Breast cancer (BC) treatment is rapidly evolving with new and costly therapeutics. Existing costing models have a limited ability to capture current treatment costs. We used an Activity-Based Costing (ABC) method to determine a per-case cost for BC treatment by stage and molecular subtype., Methods: ABC was used to proportionally integrate multidisciplinary evidence-based patient and provider treatment options for BC, yielding a per-case cost for the total duration of treatment by stage and molecular subtype. Diagnostic imaging, pathology, surgery, radiation therapy, systemic therapy, inpatient, emergency, home care and palliative care costs were included., Results: BC treatment costs were higher than noted in previous studies and varied widely by molecular subtype. Cost increased exponentially with the stage of disease. The per-case cost for treatment (2023C$) for DCIS was C$ 14,505, and the mean costs for all subtypes were C$ 39,263, C$ 76,446, C$ 97,668 and C$ 370,398 for stage I, II, III and IV BC, respectively. Stage IV costs were as high as C$ 516,415 per case. When weighted by the proportion of molecular subtype in the population, case costs were C$ 31,749, C$ 66,758, C$ 111,368 and C$ 289,598 for stage I, II, III and IV BC, respectively. The magnitude of cost differential was up to 10.9 times for stage IV compared to stage I, 4.4 times for stage III compared to stage I and 35.6 times for stage IV compared to DCIS., Conclusion: The cost of BC treatment is rapidly escalating with novel therapies and increasing survival, resulting in an exponential increase in treatment costs for later-stage disease. We provide real-time, case-based costing for BC treatment which will allow for the assessment of health system economic impacts and an accurate understanding of the cost-effectiveness of screening.

Background: Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is the standard treatment for limited intracranial metastases. With the advent of frameless treatment delivery, fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (FSRT) has become more commonly implemented given superior control and toxicity rates for larger lesions. We reviewed our institutional experience of FSRT to brain metastases without size restriction., Methods: We performed a retrospective review of our institutional database of patients treated with FSRT for brain metastases. Clinical and dosimetric details were abstracted. All patients were treated in 3 or 5 fractions using LINAC-based FSRT, did not receive prior cranial radiotherapy, and had at least 6 months of MRI follow-up. Overall survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Local failure and radionecrosis cumulative incidence rates were estimated using a competing risks model with death as the competing risk. Univariable and multivariable analyses using Fine and Gray's proportional subdistribution hazards regression model were performed to determine covariates predictive of local failure and radionecrosis., Results: We identified 60 patients and 133 brain metastases treated at our institution from 2016 to 2020. The most common histologies were lung (53%) and melanoma (25%). Most lesions were >1 cm in diameter (84.2%) and did not have previous surgical resection (88%). The median duration of imaging follow-up was 9.8 months. The median survival for the whole cohort was 20.5 months. The local failure at 12 months was 17.8% for all lesions, 22.1% for lesions >1 cm, and 13.7% for lesions ≤1 cm (p = 0.36). The risk of radionecrosis at 12 months was 7.1% for all lesions, 13.2% for lesions >1 cm, and 3.2% for lesions ≤1 cm (p = 0.15)., Conclusions: FSRT is safe and effective in the treatment of brain metastases of any size with excellent local control and toxicity outcomes. Prospective evaluation against single-fraction SRS is warranted for all lesion sizes., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Yan, Zalay, Kennedy, Owen, Purzner, Taslimi, Purzner, Alkins, Moideen, Fung and Moraes.)

External beam radiotherapy is an effective curative treatment option for localized prostate cancer, the most common cancer in men worldwide. However, conventionally fractionated courses of curative external beam radiotherapy are usually 8-9 weeks long, resulting in a substantial burden to patients and the health-care system. This problem is exacerbated in low-income and middle-income countries where health-care resources might be scarce and patient funds limited. Trials have shown a clinical equipoise between hypofractionated schedules of radiotherapy and conventionally fractionated treatments, with the advantage of drastically shortening treatment durations with the use of hypofractionation. The hypofractionated schedules are supported by modern consensus guidelines for implementation in clinical practice. Furthermore, several economic evaluations have shown improved cost effectiveness of hypofractionated therapy compared with conventional schedules. However, these techniques demand complex infrastructure and advanced personnel training. Thus, a number of practical considerations must be borne in mind when implementing hypofractionation in low-income and middle-income countries, but the potential gain in the treatment of this patient population is substantial., (© 2021. Springer Nature Limited.)

Objective: In contrast to traditional views of incurability, patients with oligometastatic disease present with an opportunity for disease eradication with aggressive treatment. There is mounting evidence in support of the role of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in oligometastatic prostate cancer (OMPC)., Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE were queried for prospective cohort studies reporting the outcomes of metachronous OMPC treated with SBRT. The primary outcome was overall local control. Secondary outcomes included androgen deprivation therapy-free survival (ADTFS), biochemical recurrence free survival (BCFS), and progression-free survival (PFS). When appropriate, these endpoints were combined in a meta-analysis., Results: We screened 356 abstracts and identified 10 studies to include in our analysis, with a total of 653 patients and 1,111 lesions. The maximum number of lesions included in any single study ranged from 3 to 5. PET-CT staging occurred in 92.4% of all patients. SBRT dose varied, with BED 1.5 ranging from 152 to 408. Only one Grade 3 bone toxicity was observed. Meta-analysis reported an overall local control rate of 97% (95% CI, 94-100). Median ADTFS was 24.7 months (95% CI, 20.1-29.2 months). Two-year BCFS, PFS, and ADTFS were 33% (95% CI, 11-55), 39% (95% CI, 24-54), and 52% (95%CI, 41-62), respectively. Patients treated with SBRT were half as likely to experience PSA progression than those on observation when looking at randomized control trial data alone., Conclusion: SBRT appears to be effective in controlling overall disease burden in metachronous OMPC patients and is associated with minimal significant toxicity. The current prospective literature is scarce, and further prospective data are needed to guide treatment recommendations., Advances in Knowledge: This study provides a comprehensive summary of the prospective evidence reporting the outcomes of SBRT in the management of OMPC patients. We quantify the rates of local control, biochemical-free recurrence, progression-free survival, and ADT-free survival through meta-analysis.

The 9th International Thymic Malignancy Interest Group's (ITMIG) Annual Meeting was held in Seoul, South Korea in October 2018, and in this article, we discuss three of the cases presented and review the radiology imaging and pathology slides. The first two cases involve thymic carcinoma: the first reviews systemic therapy recommendations for non-resectable recurrence and the second case the optimal treatment recommendations after incomplete resection. The third case discusses treatment recommendations for recurrent thymoma after complete resection., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/med.2020.01.01). ACR serves as an unpaid Associate Editor of Mediastinum from May 2017 to Apr 2019 and from Jul 2019 to Jun 2021. MM and CBF serves as an unpaid editorial board member of Mediastinum from May 2017 to Apr 2019 and Jul 2019 - Jun 2021. EMM reports honorarium for lecture from Bristoll-Meyers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Merck Sharp and Dohme, outside the submitted work. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (2020 Mediastinum. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Radiation treatment planning (RTP) is a unique skill that requires interdisciplinary collaboration among radiation oncologists (ROs), dosimetrists, and medical physicists (MP) to train and assess residents. With the adoption of competency-based medical education (CBME) in Canada, it is essential residency program curricula focuses on developing competencies in RTP to facilitate entrustment. Our study investigates how radiation oncology team members' perspectives on RTP education align with requirements of the CBME approach, and its implications for improving residency training., Methods and Materials: This qualitative research study took place in the Department of Oncology at a midsize academic institution. Through convenience sampling, focus groups were conducted with radiation oncologists (n = 11), dosimetrists (n = 7), medical physicists (n = 7), and residents (n = 7). Thematic design was adopted to analyze the transcripts through open coding resulting in 3 overarching themes., Results: The results identified existing strengths and weaknesses of the residency program and future opportunities to redesign the curriculum and assessment process within a CBME model. Three overarching themes emerged from the analysis: (1) the strengths of RTP in the CBME environment; (2) challenges of RTP in CBME; and (3) opportunities for change. Stakeholders were optimistic CBME will help enrich resident learning with the increased frequency and quality of competency-based assessments. Participants suggested building a library of cases and developing computer-based learning resources to provide a safe environment to develop skills in contouring, dosimetry, and plan evaluation, in accordance with CBME training., Conclusions: This study identified future opportunities to redesign the RTP curriculum and assessment process within a CBME model. The need for innovative teaching and learning strategies, including case libraries, computer-based learning, and quality assessments, were highlighted in designing an innovative RTP planning curriculum., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/med.2019.11.01). ACR serves as an unpaid Associate Editor of Mediastinum from May 2017 to Apr 2019 and from Jul 2019 to Jun 2021. MM and CBF serves as an unpaid editorial board member of Mediastinum from May 2017 to Apr 2019 and Jul 2019 - Jun 2021. MS serves as an unpaid editorial board member of Mediastinum from Jun 1, 2019 to May 31, 2021. BW serves as an unpaid editorial board member of Mediastinum from Feb 2018 to Jan 2020. EMM reports honorarium for lecture from Bristoll-Meyers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Merck Sharp and Dohme, outside the submitted work. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.