In vivo dosimetry in cancer patients undergoing intraoperative radiation therapy
Anna Petoukhova,
Roland Snijder,
Thomas Vissers
et al.
Abstract:In vivo dosimetry (IVD) is an important tool in external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) to detect major errors by assessing differences between expected and delivered dose and to record the received dose by individual patients. Also, in intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT), IVD is highly relevant to register the delivered dose. This is especially relevant in low-risk breast cancer patients since a high dose of IORT is delivered in a single fraction. In contrast to EBRT, online treatment planning based on intraope… Show more
“…Tumor treating fields (TTF) is a non-invasive tumor physical therapy, demonstrating significant therapeutic efficacy, convenience, and minimal adverse reactions in recurrent glioblastoma ( Kirson et al, 2004 ). Further, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommended TTF for treating recurrent and newly diagnosed glioblastoma in 2013 and 2016, respectively ( Petoukhova et al, 2023 ; Swartz et al, 2023 ). Preclinical research focusing on NSCLC suggests that TTF induces immunogenic death of tumor cell, enhances antigen presentation of dendritic cells and leukocyte chemotaxis, and synergizes with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors to inhibit tumor growth ( Giladi et al, 2014 ; Giladi et al, 2015 ; Karanam et al, 2017 ; Shteingauz et al, 2018 ; Voloshin et al, 2020 ).…”
Background: Tumor treating fields (TTF) was first approved for treatment of glioblastoma. Recently, the LUNAR study demonstrated that TTF + standard therapy (ST) extended survival in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This primary objective of this study is to analyze the cost-effectiveness of this treatment from the United States healthcare payers’ perspective.Methods: A 3-health-state Markov model was established to compare the cost-effectiveness of TTF + ST and that of ST alone. Clinical data were extracted from the LUNAR study, supplemented by additional cost and utility data obtained from publications or online sources. One-way sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and scenario analysis were conducted. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained was set to $150,000. The main results include total costs, QALYs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental net monetary benefit (INMB). Subgroup analyses were conducted for two types of ST, including immune checkpoint inhibitor, and docetaxel.Results: During a 10-year time horizon, the costs of TTF + ST and ST alone were $431,207.0 and $128,125.9, and the QALYs were 1.809 and 1.124, respectively. The ICER of TTF + ST compared to ST was $442,732.7 per QALY, and the INMB was -$200,395.7 at the WTP threshold. The cost of TTF per month was the most influential factor in cost-effectiveness, and TTF + ST had a 0% probability of being cost-effective at the WTP threshold compared with ST alone.Conclusion: TTF + ST is not a cost-effective treatment for advanced NSCLC patients who progressed after platinum-based therapy from the perspective of the United States healthcare payers.
“…Tumor treating fields (TTF) is a non-invasive tumor physical therapy, demonstrating significant therapeutic efficacy, convenience, and minimal adverse reactions in recurrent glioblastoma ( Kirson et al, 2004 ). Further, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommended TTF for treating recurrent and newly diagnosed glioblastoma in 2013 and 2016, respectively ( Petoukhova et al, 2023 ; Swartz et al, 2023 ). Preclinical research focusing on NSCLC suggests that TTF induces immunogenic death of tumor cell, enhances antigen presentation of dendritic cells and leukocyte chemotaxis, and synergizes with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors to inhibit tumor growth ( Giladi et al, 2014 ; Giladi et al, 2015 ; Karanam et al, 2017 ; Shteingauz et al, 2018 ; Voloshin et al, 2020 ).…”
Background: Tumor treating fields (TTF) was first approved for treatment of glioblastoma. Recently, the LUNAR study demonstrated that TTF + standard therapy (ST) extended survival in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This primary objective of this study is to analyze the cost-effectiveness of this treatment from the United States healthcare payers’ perspective.Methods: A 3-health-state Markov model was established to compare the cost-effectiveness of TTF + ST and that of ST alone. Clinical data were extracted from the LUNAR study, supplemented by additional cost and utility data obtained from publications or online sources. One-way sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and scenario analysis were conducted. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained was set to $150,000. The main results include total costs, QALYs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental net monetary benefit (INMB). Subgroup analyses were conducted for two types of ST, including immune checkpoint inhibitor, and docetaxel.Results: During a 10-year time horizon, the costs of TTF + ST and ST alone were $431,207.0 and $128,125.9, and the QALYs were 1.809 and 1.124, respectively. The ICER of TTF + ST compared to ST was $442,732.7 per QALY, and the INMB was -$200,395.7 at the WTP threshold. The cost of TTF per month was the most influential factor in cost-effectiveness, and TTF + ST had a 0% probability of being cost-effective at the WTP threshold compared with ST alone.Conclusion: TTF + ST is not a cost-effective treatment for advanced NSCLC patients who progressed after platinum-based therapy from the perspective of the United States healthcare payers.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.