Multicentre randomised controlled trial examining the cost-effectiveness of contrast-enhanced high field magnetic resonance imaging in women with primary breast cancer scheduled for wide local excision (COMICE)

Turnbull, LW; Brown, S. R.; Olivier, C; Harvey, Ian; Brown, Jeremy; Drew, Phil; Hanby, Andrew; Manca, Alessandra; Napp, Vicky; Sculpher, Mark; Walker, Lisa; Walker, S

doi:10.3310/hta14010

Cited by 83 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 49 publications

(72 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The criteria for the values that they selected in their analysis were that they would ideally be based on EQ-5D scores, would ideally have been derived from UK patients and these patients would ideally reflect the younger age range of patients in the TARGIT-A trial. The values that they selected, from studies by Turnbull et al 87 and Lidgren et al, 88 were as follows:…”

Section: Utilities and Quality-adjusted Life-yearsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An international randomised controlled trial to compare TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy (TARGIT) with conventional postoperative radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery for women with early-stage breast cancer (the TARGIT-A trial)

Vaidya

Wenz

Bulsara

et al. 2016

Health Technol Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundBased on our laboratory work and clinical trials we hypothesised that radiotherapy after lumpectomy for breast cancer could be restricted to the tumour bed. In collaboration with the industry we developed a new radiotherapy device and a new surgical operation for delivering single-dose radiation to the tumour bed – the tissues at highest risk of local recurrence. We named it TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy (TARGIT). From 1998 we confirmed its feasibility and safety in pilot studies.ObjectiveTo compare TARGIT within a risk-adapted approach with whole-breast external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) over several weeks.DesignThe TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy Alone (TARGIT-A) trial was a pragmatic, prospective, international, multicentre, non-inferiority, non-blinded, randomised (1 : 1 ratio) clinical trial. Originally, randomisation occurredbeforeinitial lumpectomy (prepathology) and, if allocated TARGIT, the patient received it during the lumpectomy. Subsequently, the postpathology stratum was added in which randomisation occurredafterinitial lumpectomy, allowing potentially easier logistics and a more stringent case selection, but which needed a reoperation to reopen the wound to give TARGIT as a delayed procedure. The risk-adapted approach meant that, in the experimental arm, if pre-specified unsuspected adverse factors were found postoperatively after receiving TARGIT, EBRT was recommended. Pragmatically, this reflected how TARGIT would be practised in the real world.SettingThirty-three centres in 11 countries.ParticipantsWomen who were aged ≥ 45 years with unifocal invasive ductal carcinoma preferably ≤ 3.5 cm in size.InterventionsTARGIT within a risk-adapted approach and whole-breast EBRT.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome measure was absolute difference in local recurrence, with a non-inferiority margin of 2.5%. Secondary outcome measures included toxicity and breast cancer-specific and non-breast-cancer mortality.ResultsIn total, 3451 patients were recruited between March 2000 and June 2012. The following values are 5-year Kaplan–Meier rates for TARGIT compared with EBRT. There was no statistically significant difference in local recurrence between TARGIT and EBRT. TARGIT was non-inferior to EBRT overall [TARGIT 3.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.1% to 5.1% vs. EBRT 1.3%, 95% CI 0.7% to 2.5%;p = 0.04; Pnon-inferiority = 0.00000012] and in the prepathology stratum (n = 2298) when TARGIT was given concurrently with lumpectomy (TARGIT 2.1%, 95% CI 1.1% to 4.2% vs. EBRT 1.1%, 95% CI 0.5% to 2.5%;p = 0.31; Pnon-inferiority = 0.0000000013). With delayed TARGIT postpathology (n = 1153), the between-group difference was larger than 2.5% and non-inferiority was not established for this stratum (TARGIT 5.4%, 95% CI 3.0% to 9.7% vs. EBRT 1.7%, 95% CI 0.6% to 4.9%;p = 0.069; Pnon-inferiority = 0.06640]. The local recurrence-free survival was 93.9% (95% CI 90.9% to 95.9%) when TARGIT was given with lumpectomy compared with 92.5% (95% CI 89.7% to 94.6%) for EBRT (p = 0.35). In a planned subgroup analysis, progesterone receptor (PgR) status was found to be the only predictor of outcome: hormone-responsive patients (PgR positive) had similar 5-year local recurrence with TARGIT during lumpectomy (1.4%, 95% CI 0.5% to 3.9%) as with EBRT (1.2%, 95% CI 0.5% to 2.9%;p = 0.77). Grade 3 or 4 radiotherapy toxicity was significantly reduced with TARGIT. Overall, breast cancer mortality was much the same between groups (TARGIT 2.6%, 95% CI 1.5% to 4.3% vs. EBRT 1.9%, 95% CI 1.1% to 3.2%;p = 0.56) but there were significantly fewer non-breast-cancer deaths with TARGIT (1.4%, 95% CI 0.8% to 2.5% vs. 3.5%, 95% CI 2.3% to 5.2%;p = 0.0086), attributable to fewer deaths from cardiovascular causes and other cancers, leading to a trend in reduced overall mortality in the TARGIT arm (3.9%, 95% CI 2.7% to 5.8% vs. 5.3%, 95% CI 3.9% to 7.3%;p = 0.099]. Health economic analyses suggest that TARGIT was statistically significantly less costly than EBRT, produced similar quality-adjusted life-years, had a positive incremental net monetary benefit that was borderline statistically significantly different from zero and had a probability of > 90% of being cost-effective. There appears to be little uncertainty in the point estimates, based on deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. If TARGIT were given instead of EBRT in suitable patients, it might potentially reduce costs to the health-care providers in the UK by £8–9.1 million each year. This does not include environmental, patient and societal costs.LimitationsThe number of local recurrences is small but the number of events for local recurrence-free survival is not as small (TARGIT 57 vs. EBRT 59); occurrence of so few events (< 3.5%) also implies that both treatments are effective and any difference is unlikely to be large. Not all 3451 patients were followed up for 5 years; however, more than the number of patients required to answer the main trial question (n = 585) were followed up for > 5 years.ConclusionsFor patients with breast cancer (women who are aged ≥ 45 years with hormone-sensitive invasive ductal carcinoma that is up to 3.5 cm in size), TARGIT concurrent with lumpectomy within a risk-adapted approach is as effective as, safer than and less expensive than postoperative EBRT.Future workThe analyses will be repeated with longer follow-up. Although this may not change the primary result, the larger number of events may confirm the effect on overall mortality and allow more detailed subgroup analyses. The TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy Boost (TARGIT-B) trial is testing whether or not a tumour bed boost given intraoperatively (TARGIT) boost is superior to a tumour bed boost given as part of postoperative EBRT.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN34086741 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00983684.FundingUniversity College London Hospitals (UCLH)/University College London (UCL) Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre, UCLH Charities, Ninewells Cancer Campaign, National Health and Medical Research Council and German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). From September 2009 this project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 73. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

show abstract

Section: Utilities and Quality-adjusted Life-yearsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An international randomised controlled trial to compare TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy (TARGIT) with conventional postoperative radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery for women with early-stage breast cancer (the TARGIT-A trial)

Vaidya

Wenz

Bulsara

et al. 2016

Health Technol Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Full data extraction of all the included studies is shown in Appendix 8. The nine studies provided data for five out of the seven health states potentially relevant for the independent model: disease free after WLE (one study), 126 WLE + WB-EBRT (three studies), [127][128][129] disease free after local recurrence (one study), 132 mastectomy and reconstruction (two studies), 130,131 and distant recurrence/ metastatic breast cancer (three studies). 132,133,134 No EQ-5D data were identified for the health states WLE + INTRABEAM or WLE + INTRABEAM + WB-EBRT.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…132,133,134 No EQ-5D data were identified for the health states WLE + INTRABEAM or WLE + INTRABEAM + WB-EBRT. Out of the nine studies, two studies each were based in the UK, 126,128 the USA, 127,129 and Sweden, 131,132 one study each was based in Canada 130 and Germany, 134 and the remaining study was based on a RCT conducted across the UK and USA. EQ-5D…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The INTRABEAM® Photon Radiotherapy System for the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation

Picot

Copley

Colquitt

et al. 2015

Health Technol Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundInitial treatment for early breast cancer is usually either breast-conserving surgery (BCS) or mastectomy. After BCS, whole-breast external beam radiotherapy (WB-EBRT) is the standard of care. A potential alternative to post-operative WB-EBRT is intraoperative radiation therapy delivered by the INTRABEAM®Photon Radiotherapy System (Carl Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany) to the tissue adjacent to the resection cavity at the time of surgery.ObjectiveTo assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of INTRABEAM for the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer during surgical removal of the tumour.Data sourcesElectronic bibliographic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library, were searched from inception to March 2014 for English-language articles. Bibliographies of articles, systematic reviews, clinical guidelines and the manufacturer’s submission were also searched. The advisory group was contacted to identify additional evidence.MethodsSystematic reviews of clinical effectiveness, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness were conducted. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts for eligibility. Inclusion criteria were applied to full texts of retrieved papers by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. Data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer, and differences in opinion were resolved through discussion at each stage. Clinical effectiveness studies were included if they were carried out in patients with early operable breast cancer. The intervention was the INTRABEAM system, which was compared with WB-EBRT, and study designs were randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Controlled clinical trials could be considered if data from available RCTs were incomplete (e.g. absence of data on outcomes of interest). A cost–utility decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the costs, benefits and cost-effectiveness of INTRABEAM compared with WB-EBRT for early operable breast cancer.ResultsOne non-inferiority RCT, TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy Alone (TARGIT-A), met the inclusion criteria for the review. The review found that local recurrence was slightly higher following INTRABEAM than WB-EBRT, but the difference did not exceed the 2.5% non-inferiority margin providing INTRABEAM was given at the same time as BCS. Overall survival was similar with both treatments. Statistically significant differences in complications were found for the occurrence of wound seroma requiring more than three aspirations (more frequent in the INTRABEAM group) and for a Radiation Therapy Oncology Group toxicity score of grade 3 or 4 (less frequent in the INTRABEAM group). Cost-effectiveness base-case analysis indicates that INTRABEAM is less expensive but also less effective than WB-EBRT because it is associated with lower total costs but fewer total quality-adjusted life-years gained. However, sensitivity analyses identified four model parameters that can cause a switch in the treatment option that is considered cost-effective.LimitationsThe base-case result from the model is subject to uncertainty because the disease progression parameters are largely drawn from the single available RCT. The RCT median follow-up of 2 years 5 months may be inadequate, particularly as the number of participants with local recurrence is low. The model is particularly sensitive to this parameter.Conclusions and implicationsA significant investment in INTRABEAM equipment and staff training (clinical and non-clinical) would be required to make this technology available across the NHS. Longer-term follow-up data from the TARGIT-A trial and analysis of registry data are required as results are currently based on a small number of events and economic modelling results are uncertain.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006720.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. Note that the economic model associated with this document is protected by intellectual property rights, which are owned by the University of Southampton. Anyone wishing to modify, adapt, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, dismantle or create derivative work based on the economic model must first seek the agreement of the property owners.

show abstract

“…The 2010 UK COMICE trial put the loss in quality of life from surgery in 1625 women with a low risk breast cancer at 5% after 12 months. 12 The five year follow-up to the PRIME trial showed that the quality of life losses after surgery were unchanged after five years. 13 Overall, our assumption of a permanent 6% loss in quality of life from surgery does not seem unreasonable, but more robust estimates are needed.…”

Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Possible net harms of breast cancer screening: updated modelling of Forrest report

2012

Br Dent J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To assess the claim in a Cochrane review that mammographic breast cancer screening could be doing more harm than good by updating the analysis in the Forrest report, which led to screening in the United Kingdom.Design Development of a life table model, which replicated Forrest's results before updating and extending them with data from relevant systematic reviews, trials, and other models based on purposive literature searches.Participants Women aged 50 and over invited for breast cancer screening.Main outcome measures Quality adjusted life years (QALYs), combining life years gained from screening with losses of quality of life from false positive diagnoses and surgery.

show abstract

Multicentre randomised controlled trial examining the cost-effectiveness of contrast-enhanced high field magnetic resonance imaging in women with primary breast cancer scheduled for wide local excision (COMICE)

Cited by 83 publications

References 49 publications

An international randomised controlled trial to compare TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy (TARGIT) with conventional postoperative radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery for women with early-stage breast cancer (the TARGIT-A trial)

An international randomised controlled trial to compare TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy (TARGIT) with conventional postoperative radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery for women with early-stage breast cancer (the TARGIT-A trial)

The INTRABEAM® Photon Radiotherapy System for the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation

Possible net harms of breast cancer screening: updated modelling of Forrest report

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About