Search

Objectives: To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) versus radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in the non-surgical management of early stage renal cell carcinoma (RCC) according to Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) criteria in the Canadian healthcare system., Methods: A Markov state transition model was constructed for initial local treatment with RFA or SBRT for early stage, kidney confined, medically inoperable RCC in a hypothetical cohort. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICER) were then calculated to compare the two treatments. The analysis was conducted over 5-year time horizon from the perspective of a publicly funded health system in Canada. Secondary analyses were conducted to assess the effect of small versus large size (< 4 cm vs. > 4 cm) RCC on ICERs. Multiple one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis were conducted. Discounting of 1.5% per year was applied., Results: Over 5 years, SBRT economically dominated RFA with a gain of 4.103 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and a cost of $16,097, compared with 3.607 QALYs at a cost of $18,324 for RFA. The ICER was $4490 CAD less per QALY for SBRT in the base case analysis (BCE). In patients with small tumors (T1a), SBRT compared with RFA was more effective and marginally more costly, resulting in an ICER of $2207 CAD per QALY gained, while for larger tumors (T1b), SBRT was less costly and more effective than RFA, resulting in an ICER of -$22904. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated significant variability in the cost-effectiveness of SBRT versus RFA when parameters were varied, with rates of distant metastasis following RFA or SBRT having the greatest implications on ICERs., Conclusion: Overall, SBRT used as a primary treatment for RCC shows promising effectiveness at an overall reduction in cost compared with RFA in the Canadian healthcare system. The use of SBRT appears to be cost-effective for larger tumors as well as smaller tumors. The validity of these conclusions are highly sensitive to the accuracy of local and distant progression rates reported in previous studies, and may be adjusted as the available data on SBRT and RFA continues to evolve and mature., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Abstract: Aims: The Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology-Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (CARO-SBRT) Task Force was established in 2010. The aim was to define the scope of practice guidelines for the profession to ensure safe practice specific for the most common sites of lung, liver and spine SBRT. Materials and methods: A group of Canadian SBRT experts were charged by our national radiation oncology organisation (CARO) to define the basic principles and technologies for SBRT practice, to propose the minimum technological requirements for safe practice with a focus on simulation and image guidance and to outline procedural considerations for radiation oncology departments to consider when establishing an SBRT programme. Results: We recognised that SBRT should be considered as a specific programme within a radiation department, and we provide a definition of SBRT according to a Canadian consensus. We outlined the basic requirements for safe simulation as they pertain to spine, lung and liver tumours, and the fundamentals of image guidance. The roles of the radiation oncologist, medical physicist and dosimetrist have been detailed such that we strongly recommend the development of SBRT-specific teams. Quality assurance is a key programmatic aspect for safe SBRT practice, and we outline the basic principles of appropriate quality assurance specific to SBRT. Conclusion: This CARO scope of practice guideline for SBRT is specific to liver, lung and spine tumours. The task force recommendations are designed to assist departments in establishing safe and robust SBRT programmes. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is an emerging technique for spinal tumours that is a natural succession to brain radiosurgery. The spine is an ideal site for SBRT due to its relative immobility and the potential clinical benefits of high dose delivery, particularly to optimise local control and avoid disease progression that can result in spinal cord compression. However, the proximity of the tumour to the spinal cord, with the potential for radiation myelopathy if the dose is delivered inaccurately or if the spinal cord dose limit is set too high, demands technical accuracy with radiation myelopathy a feared complication. Spine SBRT has been delivered with either a robotic-based linac system such as the Cyberknife, or with linac-based systems equipped with a multileaf collimator and image guidance system. Regardless of the technology, spine SBRT demands sophisticated treatment planning and delivery. This case-based technical review outlines the SBRT apparatus, planning and treatment delivery in use at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prostate stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) regimens differ in time, dose, and fractionation. We report an update of a multicentre, Canadian randomized phase II study to investigate the impact of overall treatment time on quality of life (QOL), efficacy, and toxicity., Methods: Men with intermediate risk prostate cancer were randomized to 40 Gy in 5 fractions delivered every other day (EOD) versus once per week (QW). Primary outcome was proportion of patients experiencing a minimally clinically important change (MCIC) in acute bowel QOL using EPIC. Secondary outcomes were toxicity, biochemical failure (BF), other QOL domains, and the rate of salvage therapy., Findings: 152 men from 3 centers were randomized; the median follow-up was 62 months. Results are described for EOD versus QW. Acute bowel and urinary QOL was reported previously. Late changes in QOL were not significantly different between the two arms. There were 1 (1.3%) vs 3 (2.7%) late grade 3 + GI toxicities (p = 0.36) and 5 (6.7%) vs 2 (2.7%) late grade 3 GU toxicities (p = 0.44). Two and 5 patients had BF (5-year failure rate 3.0 vs 7.2%, p = 0.22); 0 and 4 patients received salvage therapy (p = 0.04). 5-Year OS and CSS was 95.8% and 98.6% with no difference between arms (p = 0.49, p = 0.15). 3 patients in the QW arm developed metastases., Interpretation: Although we previously reported that weekly prostate SABR had better bowel and urinary QOL compared to EOD, the updated results show no difference in late toxicity, QOL, BF, or PSA kinetics. Patients should be counseled that QW SABR reduces short-term toxicity compared to QW SABR., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is an emerging therapy for primary renal cell carcinoma. The authors assessed safety, efficacy, and survival in a multi-institutional setting. Outcomes between single-fraction and multifraction SABR were compared., Methods: Individual patient data sets from 9 International Radiosurgery Oncology Consortium for Kidney institutions across Germany, Australia, the United States, Canada, and Japan were pooled. Toxicities were recorded using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0. Patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics were stratified according to the number of radiotherapy fractions (single vs multiple). Survival outcomes were examined using Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional-hazards regression., Results: Of 223 patients, 118 received single-fraction SABR, and 105 received multifraction SABR. The mean patient age was 72 years, and 69.5% of patients were men. There were 83 patients with grade 1 and 2 toxicity (35.6%) and 3 with grade 3 and 4 toxicities (1.3%). The rates of local control, cancer-specific survival, and progression-free survival were 97.8%, 95.7%, and 77.4%, respectively, at 2 years; and they were 97.8%, 91.9%, and 65.4%, respectively, at 4 years. On multivariable analysis, tumors with a larger maximum dimension and the receipt of multifraction SABR were associated with poorer progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 1.16 [P < .01] and 1.13 [P = .02], respectively) and poorer cancer-specific survival (hazard ratio, 1.28 [P < .01] and 1.33 [P = .01], respectively). There were no differences in local failure between the single-fraction cohort (n = 1) and the multifraction cohort (n = 2; P = .60). The mean ( ± standard deviation) estimated glomerular filtration rate at baseline was 59.9 ± 21.9 mL per minute, and it decreased by 5.5 ± 13.3 mL per minute (P < .01)., Conclusions: SABR is well tolerated and locally effective for treating patients who have primary renal cell carcinoma and has an acceptable impact on renal function. An interesting observation is that patients who receive single-fraction SABR appear to be less likely to progress distantly or to die of cancer. Cancer 2018;124:934-42. © 2017 American Cancer Society., (© 2017 American Cancer Society.)