PDF herunterladen
Semin intervent Radiol 2021; 38(04): 482-487
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1735570
Review Article

Quality of Life and Cost Considerations: Y-90 Radioembolization

Stephen J. Williams
1   Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
,
William S. Rilling
1   Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
,
Sarah B. White
1   Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Objective Transarterial radioembolization (TARE) offers a minimally invasive and safe treatment option for primary and metastatic hepatic malignancies. The benefits of TARE are manifold including prolonged overall survival, low associated morbidities, and improved time to progression allowing prolonged treatment-free intervals. The rapid development of new systemic therapies including immunotherapy has radically changed the treatment landscape for primary and metastatic liver cancer. Given the current climate, it is critical for interventional oncologists to understand the benefits of TARE relative to these other therapies. Therefore, this report aims to review quality-of-life outcomes and the cost comparisons of TARE as compared with systemic therapies.

Keywords

transarterial radioembolization - health-related quality of life - yttrium 90 - hepatocellular carcinoma - transarterial chemoembolization - interventional radiology


Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
07. Oktober 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Meropol NJ, Weinfurt KP, Burnett CB. et al. Perceptions of patients and physicians regarding phase I cancer clinical trials: implications for physician-patient communication. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21 (13) 2589-2596
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 2 Xing M, Kokabi N, Camacho JC, Kim HS. Prospective longitudinal quality of life and survival outcomes in patients with advanced infiltrative hepatocellular carcinoma and portal vein thrombosis treated with yttrium-90 radioembolization. BMC Cancer 2018; 18 (01) 75
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 3 Toro A, Pulvirenti E, Palermo F, Di Carlo I. Health-related quality of life in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after hepatic resection, transcatheter arterial chemoembolization, radiofrequency ablation or no treatment. Surg Oncol 2012; 21 (01) e23-e30
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 4 Gandhi S, Khubchandani S, Iyer R. Quality of life and hepatocellular carcinoma. J Gastrointest Oncol 2014; 5 (04) 296-317
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 5 Ware Jr JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item Short-Form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30 (06) 473-483
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 6 Jensen MP, Chen C, Brugger AM. Interpretation of visual analog scale ratings and change scores: a reanalysis of two clinical trials of postoperative pain. J Pain 2003; 4 (07) 407-414
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 7 Salem R, Gilbertsen M, Butt Z. et al. Increased quality of life among hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with radioembolization, compared with chemoembolization. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; 11 (10) 1358-1365.e1
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 8 Salem R, Hassan S, Lewandowski RJ. et al. Quality of life after radioembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma using a digital patient-reported outcome tool. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2020; 31 (02) 311-314.e1
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 9 Vilgrain V, Pereira H, Assenat E. et al; SARAH Trial Group. Efficacy and safety of selective internal radiotherapy with yttrium-90 resin microspheres compared with sorafenib in locally advanced and inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma (SARAH): an open-label randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2017; 18 (12) 1624-1636
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 10 Chow PKH, Gandhi M, Tan SB. et al; Asia-Pacific Hepatocellular Carcinoma Trials Group. SIRveNIB: selective internal radiation therapy versus sorafenib in Asia-Pacific patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2018; 36 (19) 1913-1921
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 11 Llovet JM, Ricci S, Mazzaferro V. et al; SHARP Investigators Study Group. Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2008; 359 (04) 378-390
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 12 Loffroy R, Ronot M, Greget M. et al; CIRT-FR Principal Investigators. Short-term safety and quality of life outcomes following radioembolization in primary and secondary liver tumours: a multi-centre analysis of 200 patients in France. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2021; 44 (01) 36-49
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 13 Cramer B, Xing M, Kim HS. Prospective longitudinal quality of life assessment in patients with neuroendocrine tumor liver metastases treated with 90Y radioembolization. Clin Nucl Med 2016; 41 (12) e493-e497
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 14 McDougall JA, Furnback WE, Wang BCM, Mahlich J. Understanding the global measurement of willingness to pay in health. J Mark Access Health Policy 2020; 8 (01) 1717030
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 15 Murray CJ, Evans DB, Acharya A, Baltussen RM. Development of WHO guidelines on generalized cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ 2000; 9 (03) 235-251
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 16 Zhang P, Yang Y, Wen F. et al. Cost-effectiveness of sorafenib as a first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 27 (07) 853-859
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 17 Rostambeigi N, Dekarske AS, Austin EE, Golzarian J, Cressman EN. Cost effectiveness of radioembolization compared with conventional transarterial chemoembolization for treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2014; 25 (07) 1075-1084
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 18 Ljuboja D, Ahmed M, Ali A. et al. Time-driven activity-based costing in interventional oncology: cost measurement and cost variability for hepatocellular carcinoma therapies. J Am Coll Radiol 2021; S1546–1440 (21) 00294-00295
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 19 Gabr A, Ali R, Al Asadi A. et al. Technical aspects and practical approach toward same-day Y90 radioembolization in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol 2019; 22 (02) 93-99
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 20 Gates VL, Marshall KG, Salzig K, Williams M, Lewandowski RJ, Salem R. Outpatient single-session yttrium-90 glass microsphere radioembolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2014; 25 (02) 266-270
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 21 Cahalane A, Liu R, Shah S, Ganguli S. Abstract No. 551 comparison of 2- and 1-day hepatic Y-90 radioembolization protocols using time-driven activity-based costing analysis. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2018; 29 (04)
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 22 Pollock RF, Colaone F, Guardiola L, Shergill S, Brennan VK. A cost analysis of SIR-Spheres yttrium-90 resin microspheres versus tyrosine kinase inhibitors in the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in France, Italy, Spain and the UK. J Med Econ 2020; 23 (06) 593-602
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 23 Rognoni C, Ciani O, Sommariva S, Tarricone R. Real-world data for the evaluation of transarterial radioembolization versus sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Value Health 2017; 20 (03) 336-344
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 24 Vogel A, Cervantes A, Chau I. et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2019; 30 (05) 871-873
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 25 Carr BI, Carroll S, Muszbek N, Gondek K. Economic evaluation of sorafenib in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 25 (11) 1739-1746
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 26 Muszbek N, Shah S, Carroll S. et al. Economic evaluation of sorafenib in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma in Canada. Curr Med Res Opin 2008; 24 (12) 3559-3569
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 27 Marqueen KE, Kim E, Ang C, Mazumdar M, Buckstein M, Ferket BS. Cost-effectiveness analysis of selective internal radiotherapy with yttrium-90 versus sorafenib in locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. JCO Oncol Pract 2021; 17 (02) e266-e277
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 28 Chiang CL, Chan SK, Lee SF, Choi HC. First-line atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13 (05) 931
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 29 Soto-Perez-de-Celis E, Aguiar PN, Cordón ML, Chavarri-Guerra Y, Lopes GL. Cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib in the second-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2019; 17 (06) 669-675
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 30 Chiang CL, Chan SK, Lee SF, Wong IO, Choi HC. Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab as a second-line therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma. JAMA Netw Open 2021; 4 (01) e2033761
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 31 Parikh ND, Singal AG, Hutton DW. Cost effectiveness of regorafenib as second-line therapy for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer 2017; 123 (19) 3725-3731
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 32 Ghodadra A, Xing M, Zhang D, Kim HS. Yttrium-90 radioembolization is cost effective in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a SEER Medicare population study. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2019; 30 (03) 293-297
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 33 Pennington B, Akehurst R, Wasan H. et al. Cost-effectiveness of selective internal radiation therapy using yttrium-90 resin microspheres in treating patients with inoperable colorectal liver metastases in the UK. J Med Econ 2015; 18 (10) 797-804
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 34 Uri I, Grozinsky-Glasberg S. Current treatment strategies for patients with advanced gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs). Clin Diabetes Endocrinol 2018; 4: 16
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 35 Rustgi SD, Oh A, Yang JY. et al. Initiation of somatostatin analogues for neuroendocrine tumor patients: a cost-effectiveness analysis. BMC Cancer 2021; 21 (01) 597
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 36 Fazio N, Buzzoni R, Delle Fave G. et al. Everolimus in advanced, progressive, well-differentiated, non-functional neuroendocrine tumors: RADIANT-4 lung subgroup analysis. Cancer Sci 2018; 109 (01) 174-181
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 37 Chua A, Perrin A, Ricci JF, Neary MP, Thabane M. Cost-effectiveness of everolimus for the treatment of advanced neuroendocrine tumours of gastrointestinal or lung origin in Canada. Curr Oncol 2018; 25 (01) 32-40 [published correction appears in Curr Oncol 2018;25(4):e354–e355]
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 38 Mujica-Mota R, Varley-Campbell J, Tikhonova I. et al. Everolimus, lutetium-177 DOTATATE and sunitinib for advanced, unresectable or metastatic neuroendocrine tumours with disease progression: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess 2018; 22 (49) 1-326
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar