ESTRO 2024 - Abstract Book

S2828

Interdisciplinary - Health economics & health services research

ESTRO 2024

27. ZOU, L. et al. Design and Preliminary Experience of a Tele-Radiotherapy System for a Medical Alliance in China. Telemedicine Journal and E-Health: The Official Journal of the American Telemedicine Association, v. 26, n. 2, p. 235 – 243, 1 fev. 2020.

1867

Proffered Paper

Can the ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale Describe the Value of Radiotherapy?

Timothy P Hanna 1 , Jesmin Shafiq 2 , Fabio Ynoe de Moraes 1 , Ajay Aggarwal 3,4,5 , Yolande Lievens 6

1 Queen's University, Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Kingston, Canada. 2 Collaboration for Cancer Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CCORE), Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Liverpool, Australia. 3 Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Trust, Department of Clinical Oncology, London, United Kingdom. 4 King's College London, Institute of Cancer Policy, London, United Kingdom. 5 London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London, United Kingdom. 6 Ghent University Hospital and Ghent University, Radiation Oncology, Ghent, Belgium

Purpose/Objective:

To inform the development of a radiotherapy value framework, we undertook a case study, to score radiotherapy benefit using the European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS). We considered two scenarios where: (1) radiotherapy is compared to no radiotherapy (2) new radiotherapy techniques are compared to standard of practice radiotherapy. The latter represents the most pressing scenario for a value framework, to evaluate the benefit of incremental gains in clinical radiation oncology. The former provides information on the value of net new investment in radiotherapy in under-resourced settings.

Material/Methods:

Evidence-based indications for external beam radiotherapy were identified based on previous reviews of guidelines and literature by the Collaboration for Cancer Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CCORE) for cancers of the breast, lung, prostate and cervix [1-3]. Curative and palliative indications were included. Five-year overall survival and local control benefits from CCORE systematic reviews were utilized for curative indications. Local control and biochemical control were assumed equivalent to progression-free survival for scoring. Benefits were based on the highest evidence level from systematic review. Real-world evidence defining comparative incremental benefits were utilized where no randomized clinical trial data existed. Meta-analysis was utilized to pool multiple sources of the same evidence level. Benefits were compared against MCBS version 1.1 for solid tumors [4]. The scale provides five evaluation forms to assess clinical benefit across various scenarios, including new curative therapies, non-curative therapies with different endpoints, and orphan diseases or high unmet need. Each form is tailored to specific aspects of clinical benefit assessment (for curative indications, scale range A to C; best score A and for palliative indications, scale range 1-5; best score 5).

Results: