Cost Effectiveness of External Beam Radiation Therapy versus Percutaneous Image-Guided Cryoablation for Palliation of Uncomplicated Bone Metastases

Eric M. Chang, Narek Shaverdian, Nina Capiro, Michael L. Steinberg, Ann C. Raldow

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of incorporating cryoablation in the treatment regimens for uncomplicated bone metastases using radiation therapy (RT) in single-fraction RT (SFRT) or multiple-fraction RT (MFRT) regimens. Materials and Methods: A Markov model was constructed using 1-month cycles over a lifetime horizon to compare the cost effectiveness of multiple strategies, including RT followed by RT (RT-RT) for recurrent pain, RT followed by cryoablation (RT-ablation), and cryoablation followed by RT (ablation-RT). RT-RT consisted of 8 Gy in 1 fraction/8 Gy in 1 fraction (SFRT-SFRT) and 30 Gy in 10 fractions/20 Gy in 5 fractions (MFRT-MFRT). Probabilities and utilities were extracted from a search of the medical literature. Costs were calculated from a payer perspective using 2017 Medicare reimbursement in an outpatient setting. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated using strategies evaluated for willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). To account for model uncertainty, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: In the base case analysis, SFRT-ablation was cost effective relative to SFRT-SFRT at $96,387/QALY. MFRT-ablation was cost effective relative to MFRT-MFRT at $85,576/QALY. Ablation-SFRT and ablation-MFRT were not cost effective with ICERs >$100,000/QALY. In one-way sensitivity analyses, results were highly sensitive to variation in multiple model parameters, including median survival (base: 9 months), with SFRT-SFRT favored at median survival ≤8.7 months. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis examining SFRT-based regimens showed that SFRT-ablation was preferred in 36.9% of simulations at WTP of $100,000/QALY. Conclusions: Cryoablation is a potentially cost-effective alternative to reirradiation with RT for recurrent of pain following RT; however, no strategy incorporating initial cryoablation was cost effective.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1221-1232
Number of pages12
JournalJournal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology
Volume31
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2020
Externally publishedYes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Cost Effectiveness of External Beam Radiation Therapy versus Percutaneous Image-Guided Cryoablation for Palliation of Uncomplicated Bone Metastases'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this