Development and Evaluation of a Real-World Outcomes-Based Tool to Support Informed Clinical Decision Making in the Palliative Treatment of Patients With Metastatic NSCLC

PURPOSE: To develop and evaluate a tool for patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer and their thoracic oncologists (TOs) that provides insight into real-world effectiveness of systemic treatments to support informed clinical decision making in the palliative setting. METHODS: A participatory design approach was used to acquire insights from patients and TOs into preferences regarding the content and design of the web-based tool. Implementation was investigated by means of an adoption and usage rate. The appreciation of the tool was evaluated through a telephone survey with patients and a questionnaire for TOs. RESULTS: From clinical data of 2,989 patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer diagnosed in one of the Santeon hospitals, an interface was developed to show treatments plus both real-world outcomes and clinical trial results after selecting patient characteristics (patients like me). This prototype of the tool was finalized after discussion in a focus group with four TOs and semi-structured interviews with six patients. The tool was implemented and used by TOs in three of six Santeon hospitals (50% adoption rate). The tool was used in 48 patients (29% usage rate), of which 17 participated in the telephone survey. Ten TOs responded to the questionnaire. The responses varied from positive reactions on the clear overview of treatment outcomes to statements that the tool rarely changed treatment decisions. Overall, the majority of patients and TOs scored the tool as of added value (71% and 83%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Our real-world data tool in metastatic lung cancer was appreciated in clinical practice by both patients and TOs. However, the efficacy of the implementation can be improved

Cost-effectiveness of stereotactic body radiation therapy versus video assisted thoracic surgery in medically operable stage I non-small cell lung cancer: A modeling study

Objectives: Stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) can be treated with either Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) or Video Assisted Thoracic Surgery (VATS) resection. To support decision making, not only the impact on survival needs to be taken into account, but also on quality of life, costs and cost-effectiveness. Therefore, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing SBRT to VATS resection with respect to quality adjusted life years (QALY) lived and costs in operable stage I NSCLC. Materials and methods: Patient level and aggregate data from eight Dutch databases were used to estimate costs, health utilities, recurrence free and overall survival. Propensity score matching was used to minimize selection bias in these studies. A microsimulation model predicting lifetime outcomes after treatment in stage I NSCLC patients was used for the cost-effectiveness analysis. Model outcomes for the two treatments were overall survival, QALYs, and total costs. We used a Dutch health care perspective with 1.5 % discounting for health effects, and 4 % discounting for costs, using 2018 cost data. The impact of model parameter uncertainty was assessed with deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results: Patients receiving either VATS resection or SBRT were estimated to live 5.81 and 5.86 discounted QALYs, respectively. Average discounted lifetime costs in the VATS group were €29,269 versus €21,175 for SBRT. Difference in 90-day excess mortality between SBRT and VATS resection was the main driver for the difference in QALYs. SBRT was dominant in at least 74 % of the probabilistic simulations. Conclusion: Using a microsimulation model to combine available evidence on survival, costs, and health utilities in a cost-effectiveness analysis for stage I NSCLC led to the conclusion that SBRT dominates VATS resection in the majority of simulations

Development and evaluation of a real-world outcomes-based tool to support informed clinical decision making in the palliative treatment of patients with metastatic nsclc

PURPOSE To develop and evaluate a tool for patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer and their thoracic oncologists (TOs) that provides insight into real-world effectiveness of systemic treatments to support informed clinical decision making in the palliative setting. METHODS A participatory design approach was used to acquire insights from patients and TOs into preferences regarding the content and design of the web-based tool. Implementation was investigated by means of an adoption and usage rate. The appreciation of the tool was evaluated through a telephone survey with patients and a questionnaire for TOs. RESULTS From clinical data of 2,989 patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer diagnosed in one of the Santeon hospitals, an interface was developed to show treatments plus both real-world outcomes and clinical trial results after selecting patient characteristics (patients like me). This prototype of the tool was finalized after discussion in a focus group with four TOs and semi-structured interviews with six patients. The tool was implemented and used by TOs in three of six Santeon hospitals (50% adoption rate). The tool was used in 48 patients (29% usage rate), of which 17 participated in the telephone survey. Ten TOs responded to the questionnaire. The responses varied from positive reactions on the clear overview of treatment outcomes to statements that the tool rarely changed treatment decisions. Overall, the majority of patients and TOs scored the tool as of added value (71% and 83%, respectively). CONCLUSION Our real-world data tool in metastatic lung cancer was appreciated in clinical practice by both patients and TOs. However, the efficacy of the implementation can be improved

Differences in Longitudinal Health Utility between Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy and Surgery in Stage I Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

INTRODUCTION: There is an ongoing debate on the optimal treatment for stage I NSCLC, with increasing evidence for comparable health outcomes after surgery and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). For clinical decision making, the experienced quality of life, summarized as health utility, is of importance to choosing between treatments. In this study, we evaluated differences in longitudinal health utility in stage I NSCLC in the first year after surgical resection versus after SBRT before any recurrence of disease. We also assessed the impact of potential prognostic variables on health utility. METHODS: Prospectively collected databases containing data on patients with stage I NSCLC treated with either SBRT or surgery were pooled from two large hospitals in the Netherlands. Quality of life data were measured by the Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 questionnaire at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months after treatment. Health utility (measured using the European Quality of Life Five-Dimension questionnaire) was calculated from the Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 questionnaire by using a mapping algorithm. Propensity score matching was used to adjust for selection bias. Treatment effects were estimated for the matched patients by using a longitudinal mixed model approach. RESULTS: After correction for Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score, sex, and age, the difference in 1-year averaged health utility between the SBRT and surgery groups was 0.026 (95% confidence interval: 0.028-0.080). Differences in health utility decreased over time. CONCLUSIONS: A small but not statistically significant difference in health utility was found between patients with stage I NSCLC treated with surgery and those treated with SBRT. Current analysis strengthens existing evidence that SBRT is an equivalent treatment option for early-stage NSCLC. Comparative cost-effectiveness remains to be determined

Development and evaluation of a real-world outcomes-based tool to support informed clinical decision making in the palliative treatment of patients with metastatic nsclc

PURPOSE To develop and evaluate a tool for patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer and their thoracic oncologists (TOs) that provides insight into real-world effectiveness of systemic treatments to support informed clinical decision making in the palliative setting. METHODS A participatory design approach was used to acquire insights from patients and TOs into preferences regarding the content and design of the web-based tool. Implementation was investigated by means of an adoption and usage rate. The appreciation of the tool was evaluated through a telephone survey with patients and a questionnaire for TOs. RESULTS From clinical data of 2,989 patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer diagnosed in one of the Santeon hospitals, an interface was developed to show treatments plus both real-world outcomes and clinical trial results after selecting patient characteristics (patients like me). This prototype of the tool was finalized after discussion in a focus group with four TOs and semi-structured interviews with six patients. The tool was implemented and used by TOs in three of six Santeon hospitals (50% adoption rate). The tool was used in 48 patients (29% usage rate), of which 17 participated in the telephone survey. Ten TOs responded to the questionnaire. The responses varied from positive reactions on the clear overview of treatment outcomes to statements that the tool rarely changed treatment decisions. Overall, the majority of patients and TOs scored the tool as of added value (71% and 83%, respectively). CONCLUSION Our real-world data tool in metastatic lung cancer was appreciated in clinical practice by both patients and TOs. However, the efficacy of the implementation can be improved

Cost-effectiveness of stereotactic body radiation therapy versus video assisted thoracic surgery in medically operable stage I non-small cell lung cancer: A modeling study

OBJECTIVES: Stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) can be treated with either Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) or Video Assisted Thoracic Surgery (VATS) resection. To support decision making, not only the impact on survival needs to be taken into account, but also on quality of life, costs and cost-effectiveness. Therefore, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing SBRT to VATS resection with respect to quality adjusted life years (QALY) lived and costs in operable stage I NSCLC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patient level and aggregate data from eight Dutch databases were used to estimate costs, health utilities, recurrence free and overall survival. Propensity score matching was used to minimize selection bias in these studies. A microsimulation model predicting lifetime outcomes after treatment in stage I NSCLC patients was used for the cost-effectiveness analysis. Model outcomes for the two treatments were overall survival, QALYs, and total costs. We used a Dutch health care perspective with 1.5 % discounting for health effects, and 4 % discounting for costs, using 2018 cost data. The impact of model parameter uncertainty was assessed with deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Patients receiving either VATS resection or SBRT were estimated to live 5.81 and 5.86 discounted QALYs, respectively. Average discounted lifetime costs in the VATS group were €29,269 versus €21,175 for SBRT. Difference in 90-day excess mortality between SBRT and VATS resection was the main driver for the difference in QALYs. SBRT was dominant in at least 74 % of the probabilistic simulations. CONCLUSION: Using a microsimulation model to combine available evidence on survival, costs, and health utilities in a cost-effectiveness analysis for stage I NSCLC led to the conclusion that SBRT dominates VATS resection in the majority of simulations

Life-prolonging treatment restrictions and outcomes in patients with cancer and COVID-19: an update from the Dutch Oncology COVID-19 Consortium

AIM OF THE STUDY: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic significantly impacted cancer care. In this study, clinical patient characteristics related to COVID-19 outcomes and advanced care planning, in terms of non-oncological treatment restrictions (e.g. do-not-resuscitate codes), were studied in patients with cancer and COVID-19. METHODS: The Dutch Oncology COVID-19 Consortium registry was launched in March 2020 in 45 hospitals in the Netherlands, primarily to identify risk factors of a severe COVID-19 outcome in patients with cancer. Here, an updated analysis of the registry was performed, and treatment restrictions (e.g. do-not-intubate codes) were studied in relation to COVID-19 outcomes in patients with cancer. Oncological treatment restrictions were not taken into account. RESULTS: Between 27th March 2020 and 4th February 2021, 1360 patients with cancer and COVID-19 were registered. Follow-up data of 830 patients could be validated for this analysis. Overall, 230 of 830 (27.7%) patients died of COVID-19, and 60% of the remaining 600 patients with resolved COVID-19 were admitted to the hospital. Patients with haematological malignancies or lung cancer had a higher risk of a fatal outcome than other solid tumours. No correlation between anticancer therapies and the risk of a fatal COVID-19 outcome was found. In terms of end-of-life communication, 50% of all patients had restrictions regarding life-prolonging treatment (e.g. do-not-intubate codes). Most identified patients with treatment restrictions had risk factors associated with fatal COVID-19 outcome. CONCLUSION: There was no evidence of a negative impact of anticancer therapies on COVID-19 outcomes. Timely end-of-life communication as part of advanced care planning could save patients from prolonged suffering and decrease burden in intensive care units. Early discussion of treatment restrictions should therefore be part of routine oncological care, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic