Testing the Assessment of New Radiation Oncology Technology and Treatments framework using the evaluation of post-prostatectomy radiotherapy techniques

• Published in: Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology 2016-02, Vol.60 (1), p.129-137
• Main Authors: Duchesne, Gillian M, Haworth, Annette, Bone, Eric, Carter, Hannah, Ebert, Martin A, Gagliardi, Frank, Gibbs, Adrian, Hornby, Colin, Martin, Andrew, Sidhom, Mark, Wood, Maree, Jackson, Michael
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Australia - epidemiology; Dosimetry; framework evaluation; Humans; IMRT versus 3DCRT; Incidence; Male; modelled outcomes; New Zealand - epidemiology; post-prostatectomy radiotherapy; Prostatectomy - economics; Prostatectomy - mortality; Prostatic Neoplasms - economics; Prostatic Neoplasms - mortality; Prostatic Neoplasms - therapy; Quality of Life; Radiation Injuries - mortality; Radiation Injuries - prevention & control; Radiation therapy; Radiotherapy Dosage; Radiotherapy, Adjuvant - economics; Radiotherapy, Adjuvant - mortality; Radiotherapy, Adjuvant - utilization; safety; Survival Analysis; Survival Rate; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 1754-9477; 1754-9485
• DOI: 10.1111/1754-9485.12390

Introduction We tested the ability of the Assessment of New Radiation Oncology Technology and Treatments framework to determine the clinical efficacy and safety of intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) compared with 3‐dimensional radiation therapy (3DCRT) for post‐prostatectomy radiation therapy (PPRT) to support its timely health economic evaluation. Methods Treatment plans produced using FROGG guidelines provided dosimetry parameters for both techniques at 64 Gy and 70 Gy and were also used to model early and late outcome probabilities. Clinical parameters were derived from early toxicity and quality of life patient data, systematic literature review and expert opinion. Dosimetry parameters were correlated with the measures of clinical efficacy and safety. Results Data from two patient cohorts (29 and 27 respectively) were collected within the project timeframe, providing evidence for acute toxicity and quality of life, and dosimetric comparisons. Relative rates of tumour control probability (TCP) and normal tissue control probability (NTCP) modelling were readily derived from the planning exercise and demonstrated advantages in uncomplicated TCP for IMRT over 3DCRT, predominantly due to normal tissue sparing. The safety of IMRT delivery was demonstrated with TCP uncompromised by IMRT protocol violations, which achieved rectal sparing only by reducing minimum target dose and coverage. Conclusion Sources of desk‐top and patient‐based evidence were successfully used to demonstrate potential improved clinical efficacy and safety of applying dose escalation using IMRT instead of 3DCRT in PPRT.