Purpose To assess the cost-effectiveness of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) versus radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for patients with inoperable localized hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who are eligible for both SBRT and RFA. Materials and Methods A decision-analytic Markov model was developed for patients with inoperable, localized HCC who were eligible for both RFA and SBRT to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the following treatment strategies: (a) SBRT as initial treatment followed by SBRT for local progression (SBRT-SBRT), (b) RFA followed by RFA for local progression (RFA-RFA), (c) SBRT followed by RFA for local progression (SBRT-RFA), and (d) RFA followed by SBRT for local progression (RFA-SBRT). Probabilities of disease progression, treatment characteristics, and mortality were derived from published studies. Outcomes included health benefits expressed as discounted quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs in U.S. dollars, and cost-effectiveness expressed as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the robustness of the findings. Results In the base case, SBRT-SBRT yielded the most QALYs (1.565) and cost $197 557. RFA-SBRT yielded 1.558 QALYs and cost $193 288. SBRT-SBRT was not cost-effective, at $558 679 per QALY gained relative to RFA-SBRT. RFA-SBRT was the preferred strategy, because RFA-RFA and SBRT-RFA were less effective and more costly. In all evaluated scenarios, SBRT was preferred as salvage therapy for local progression after RFA. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY gained, RFA-SBRT was preferred in 65.8% of simulations. Conclusion SBRT for initial treatment of localized, inoperable HCC is not cost-effective. However, SBRT is the preferred salvage therapy for local progression after RFA. (©) RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.
View details for DOI 10.1148/radiol.2016161509
View details for PubMedID 28045603