Screening for distant metastases in patients with ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence: the impact of different imaging modalities on distant recurrence-free interval

Purpose In patients with ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR), the detection of distant disease determines whether the intention of the treatment is curative or palliative. Therefore, adequate preoperative staging is imperative for optimal treatment planning. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of conventional imaging techniques, including chest X-ray and/or CT thorax-(abdomen), liver ultrasonography(US), and skeletal scintigraphy, on the distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI) in patients with IBTR, and to compare conventional imaging with 18F-FDG PET-CT or no imaging at all. Methods This study was exclusively based on the information available at time of diagnoses of IBTR. To adjust for differences in baseline characteristics between the three imaging groups, a propensity score (PS) weighted method was used. Results Of the 495 patients included in the study, 229 (46.3%) were staged with conventional imaging, 89 patients (19.8%) were staged with 18F-FDG PET-CT, and in 168 of the patients (33.9%) no imaging was used (N=168). After a follow-up of approximately 5 years, 14.5% of all patients developed a distant recurrence as frst event after IBTR. After adjusting for the PS weights, the Cox regression analyses showed that the diferent staging methods had no signifcant impact on the DRFI. Conclusions This study showed a wide variation in the use of imaging modalities for staging IBTR patients in the Netherlands. After using PS weighting, no statistically signifcant impact of the diferent imaging modalities on DRFI was shown. Based on these results, it is not possible to recommend staging for distant metastases using 18F-FDG PET-CT over conventional imaging technique

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery versus active surveillance for oesophageal cancer: A stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial

Background: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) plus surgery is a standard treatment for locally advanced oesophageal cancer. With this treatment, 29% of patients have a pathologically complete response in the resection specimen. This provides the rationale for investigating an active surveillance approach. The aim of this study is to assess the (cost-)effectiveness of active surveillance vs. standard oesophagectomy after nCRT for oesophageal cancer. Methods: This is a phase-III multi-centre, stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial. A total of 300 patients with clinically complete response (cCR, i.e. no local or disseminated disease proven by histology) after nCRT will be randomised to show non-inferiority of active surveillance to standard oesophagectomy (non-inferiority margin 15%, intra-correlation coefficient 0.02, power 80%, 2-sided α 0.05, 12% drop-out). Patients will undergo a first clinical response evaluation (CRE-I) 4-6 weeks after nCRT, consisting of endoscopy with bite-on-bite biopsies of the primary tumour site and other suspected lesions. Clinically complete responders will undergo a second CRE (CRE-II), 6-8 weeks after CRE-I. CRE-II will include 18F-FDG-PET-CT, followed by endoscopy with bite-on-bite biopsies and ultra-endosonography plus fine needle aspiration of suspected lymph nodes and/or PET- positive lesions. Patients with cCR at CRE-II will be assigned to oesophagectomy (first phase) or active surveillance (second phase of the study). The duration of the first phase is determined randomly over the 12 centres, i.e., stepped-wedge cluster design. Patients in the active surveillance arm will undergo diagnostic evaluations similar to CRE-II at 6/9/12/16/20/24/30/36/48 and 60 months after nCRT. In this arm, oesophagectomy will be offered only to patients in whom locoregional regrowth is highly suspected or proven, without distant dissemination. The main study parameter is overall survival; secondary endpoints include percentage of patients who do not undergo surgery, quality of life, clinical irresectability (cT4b) rate, radical resection rate, postoperative complications, progression-free survival, distant dissemination rate, and cost-effectiveness. We hypothesise that active surveillance leads to non-inferior survival, improved quality of life and a reduction in costs, compared to standard oesophagectomy. Discussion: If active surveillance and surgery as needed after nCRT leads to non-inferior survival compared to standard oesophagectomy, this organ-sparing approach can be implemented as a standard of care

Costs of radium-223 and the pharmacy preparation 177Lu-PSMA-I&T for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in Dutch hospitals

The radiopharmaceuticals radium-223 and the pharmacy preparation 177Lu-PSMA-I&T are reimbursed in the Netherlands for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treatment. Although shown to be life-prolonging in patients with mCRPC, the treatment procedures associated with these radiopharmaceuticals can be challenging for both patients and hospitals. This study investigates the costs of mCRPC treatment in Dutch hospitals for currently reimbursed radiopharmaceuticals with a demonstrated overall survival benefit. A cost model that calculated the direct medical per-patient costs of radium-223 and 177Lu-PSMA-I&T was developed, following clinical trial regimens. The model considered six 4-weekly administrations (i.e. ALSYMPCA regimen) of radium-223. Regarding 177Lu-PSMA-I&T, the model used both the VISION regimen (i.e. five 6-weekly administrations) and the SPLASH regimen (i.e. four 8-weekly administrations). Based on health insurance claims, we also estimated the coverage a hospital would receive for providing treatment. No fitting health insurance claim for 177Lu-PSMA-I&T is currently available; therefore, we calculated a break-even value for a potential health insurance claim that would exactly counterbalance the per-patient costs and coverage. Radium-223 administration is associated with per-patient costs of €30,905, and these costs are fully covered by the coverage a hospital receives. The per-patient costs of 177Lu-PSMA-I&T range between €35,866 and €47,546 per administration period, depending on the regimen. Current healthcare insurance claims do not fully cover the costs of providing 177Lu-PSMA-I&T: hospitals must pay €4,414–€4,922 for each patient out of their own budget. The break-even value for the potential insurance claim covering 177Lu-PSMA-I&T administration with a VISION (SPLASH) regimen is €1,073 (€1,215). This study shows that, without consideration of the treatment effect, radium-223 treatment for mCRPC leads to lower per-patient costs than treatment with 177Lu-PSMA-I&T. The detailed overview of the costs associated with radiopharmaceutical treatment provided by this study is relevant for both hospitals and healthcare insurers. Prostate cancer is the most common form of cancer among men in the Netherlands, and its treatment is increasingly expensive. Given the limited hospital budget, it is important to consider costs in the treatment of prostate cancer. Radiopharmaceuticals are one of the multiple treatment options for metastatic prostate cancer. The current study looked at the costs of two radiopharmaceuticals, radium-223 and 177Lu-PSMA-I&T, while using multiple treatment regimens. The cost of radium-223 treatment is €30,905 per patient and is fully covered by insurance. The cost of 177Lu-PSMA-I&T treatment ranges from €35,866 to €47,546 per patient and is partially paid from the budget of the hospitals considering current reimbursement amounts. The study shows that, without consideration of the treatment effects, radium-223 treatment for prostate cancer leads to lower per-patient costs than treatment with 177Lu-PSMA-I&T. The detailed overview of the costs associated with radiopharmaceutical treatment provided by this study is relevant for both hospitals and healthcare insurers to manage prostate cancer treatment costs