Nataniel H Lester-Coll1,2, David J Sher3. 1. Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA. nataniel.lester-coll@yale.edu. 2. Therapeutic Radiology, Smilow Cancer Hospital, 20 York Street, Lower Level, Box 21, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA. nataniel.lester-coll@yale.edu. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review aims to summarize and appraise published cost-effectiveness studies on stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). RECENT FINDINGS: We performed a Medline search of cost-effectiveness studies of SRS, SBRT, and other cancer treatment modalities such as surgery and systemic therapy from 2006 to 2016. We included studies that used both modeling and retrospective review techniques. We excluded studies of benign disease. We defined a strategy whose incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is ≤$50,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) as "clearly cost-effective," a strategy whose ICER is ≤$100,000/QALY as "probably cost-effective," and a strategy ≤$200,000/QALY as "possibly cost-effective." We appraised modeling studies by determining whether or not they conform to the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Good Research Practices (ISPOR) in modeling task force good research practices in model transparency and validation. We identified 24 studies that met inclusion criteria. Treatment sites included brain, bone, liver, lung, pancreas, and prostate. SRS and SBRT were clearly cost-effective strategies in 17 studies, probably cost-effective in 3 studies, and possibly cost-effective in 2 studies. Of the 16 modeling studies,15 conformed to transparency best practices; however, only 6 studies performed rigorous validation as described by the ISPOR guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: SRS and SBRT are likely to be cost-effective management strategies across a large variety of treatment sites and techniques. However, rigorous model validation techniques are lacking in these modeling studies.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review aims to summarize and appraise published cost-effectiveness studies on stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). RECENT FINDINGS: We performed a Medline search of cost-effectiveness studies of SRS, SBRT, and other cancer treatment modalities such as surgery and systemic therapy from 2006 to 2016. We included studies that used both modeling and retrospective review techniques. We excluded studies of benign disease. We defined a strategy whose incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is ≤$50,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) as "clearly cost-effective," a strategy whose ICER is ≤$100,000/QALY as "probably cost-effective," and a strategy ≤$200,000/QALY as "possibly cost-effective." We appraised modeling studies by determining whether or not they conform to the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Good Research Practices (ISPOR) in modeling task force good research practices in model transparency and validation. We identified 24 studies that met inclusion criteria. Treatment sites included brain, bone, liver, lung, pancreas, and prostate. SRS and SBRT were clearly cost-effective strategies in 17 studies, probably cost-effective in 3 studies, and possibly cost-effective in 2 studies. Of the 16 modeling studies,15 conformed to transparency best practices; however, only 6 studies performed rigorous validation as described by the ISPOR guidelines. CONCLUSIONS:SRS and SBRT are likely to be cost-effective management strategies across a large variety of treatment sites and techniques. However, rigorous model validation techniques are lacking in these modeling studies.
Authors: Varun Puri; Traves D Crabtree; Steven Kymes; Martin Gregory; Jennifer Bell; Jeffrey D Bradley; Clifford Robinson; G Alexander Patterson; Daniel Kreisel; Alexander S Krupnick; Bryan F Meyers Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2011-12-09 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Marsha L Haley; Peter C Gerszten; Dwight E Heron; Yue-Fang Chang; Dave S Atteberry; Steven A Burton Journal: J Neurosurg Spine Date: 2011-02-11
Authors: Joe Y Chang; Suresh Senan; Marinus A Paul; Reza J Mehran; Alexander V Louie; Peter Balter; Harry J M Groen; Stephen E McRae; Joachim Widder; Lei Feng; Ben E E M van den Borne; Mark F Munsell; Coen Hurkmans; Donald A Berry; Erik van Werkhoven; John J Kresl; Anne-Marie Dingemans; Omar Dawood; Cornelis J A Haasbeek; Larry S Carpenter; Katrien De Jaeger; Ritsuko Komaki; Ben J Slotman; Egbert F Smit; Jack A Roth Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-05-13 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Eric L Chang; Jeffrey S Wefel; Kenneth R Hess; Pamela K Allen; Frederick F Lang; David G Kornguth; Rebecca B Arbuckle; J Michael Swint; Almon S Shiu; Moshe H Maor; Christina A Meyers Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2009-10-02 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Tatsuya J Arai; Donghan M Yang; James W Campbell; Tsuicheng Chiu; Xinyi Cheng; Strahinja Stojadinovic; Peter Peschke; Ralph P Mason Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2021-03-26 Impact factor: 8.013