Peters Max, Piena Marjanne A, Steuten Lotte M G, van der Voort van Zyp Jochem R N, Moerland Marinus A, van Vulpen Marco
Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands; Both authors contributed equally to this research.
University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands; Both authors contributed equally to this research.
J Contemp Brachytherapy. 2016 Dec;8(6):484-491. doi: 10.5114/jcb.2016.64808. Epub 2016 Dec 27.
Focal salvage (FS) iodine 125 (I) brachytherapy could be an effective treatment for locally radiorecurrent prostate cancer (PCa). Toxicity is often reduced compared to total salvage (TS) while cancer control can be maintained, which could increase cost-effectiveness. The current study estimates the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of FS compared to TS.
A decision analytic Markov model was developed, which compares costs and QALYs associated with FS and TS. A 3-year time horizon was adopted with six month cycles, with a hospital perspective on costs. Probabilities for genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity and their impact on health-related quality of life (SF-36) were derived from clinical studies in the University Medical Center Utrecht (UMCU). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis, using 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations, was performed to quantify the joint decision uncertainty up to the recommended maximum willingness-to-pay threshold of €80,000/QALY.
Focal salvage dominates TS as it results in less severe toxicity and lower treatment costs. Decision uncertainty is small, with a 97-100% probability for FS to be cost-effective compared to TS (€0-€80,000/QALY). Half of the difference in costs between FS and TS was explained by higher treatment costs of TS, the other half by higher incidence of severe toxicity. One-way sensitivity analyses show that model outcomes are most sensitive to utilities and probabilities for severe toxicity.
Focal salvage I brachytherapy dominates TS, as it has lower treatment costs and leads to less toxicity in our center. Larger comparative studies with longer follow-up are necessary to assess the exact influence on (biochemical disease free) survival and toxicity.
局部挽救性(FS)碘125(I)近距离放射治疗可能是局部放射性复发前列腺癌(PCa)的有效治疗方法。与全挽救性(TS)治疗相比,其毒性通常会降低,同时可维持癌症控制,这可能会提高成本效益。本研究估计了FS与TS相比每质量调整生命年(QALY)的增量成本。
建立了一个决策分析马尔可夫模型,比较了FS和TS的成本及QALY。采用3年时间范围,周期为6个月,从医院角度考虑成本。泌尿生殖系统(GU)和胃肠道(GI)毒性的概率及其对健康相关生活质量(SF - 36)的影响来自乌得勒支大学医学中心(UMCU)的临床研究。进行了概率敏感性分析,使用10000次蒙特卡洛模拟,以量化联合决策不确定性,直至推荐的最大支付意愿阈值80000欧元/QALY。
局部挽救性治疗优于全挽救性治疗,因为它导致的毒性较轻且治疗成本较低。决策不确定性较小,与全挽救性治疗相比,局部挽救性治疗具有成本效益的概率为97 - 100%(0 - 80000欧元/QALY)。FS和TS之间成本差异的一半是由TS较高的治疗成本解释的,另一半是由严重毒性的较高发生率解释的。单向敏感性分析表明,模型结果对效用和严重毒性概率最为敏感。
局部挽救性I近距离放射治疗优于全挽救性治疗,因为在我们中心它具有较低的治疗成本且毒性较小。需要进行更大规模、随访时间更长的比较研究,以评估对(无生化疾病)生存率和毒性的确切影响。