Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients diagnosed with multiple brain metastases often survive for less than 2 years, and clinicians must carefully evaluate the impact of interventions on quality of life. Three types of radiation treatment are widely accepted for patients with multiple brain metastases: Whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT), hippocampal avoidance whole-brain radiation therapy (HA-WBRT), and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). WBRT, the standard option, is less costly than its newer alternatives but causes more severe adverse effects such as memory loss. To determine whether the cost-effectiveness ratio of HA-WBRT and SRS are superior to WBRT, we used published data to simulate cases of multiple brain metastases. METHODS: We designed a Markov model using data from previously published studies to simulate the disease course of patients with 5 to 15 brain metastases and determine the cost-effectiveness of HA-WBRT and SRS relative to WBRT. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated and compared against a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life year. RESULTS: SRS met the threshold for cost-effectiveness, with ICERs ranging $41 198-$54 852 for patients with 5 to 15 brain metastases; however, HA-WBRT was not cost-effective, with an ICER of $163 915 for all simulated patients. Model results were robust to sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: We propose that SRS, but not HA-WBRT, should be offered to patients with multiple brain metastases as a treatment alternative to standard WBRT. Incorporating these findings into clinical practice will help promote patient-centered care and decrease national healthcare expenditures, thereby addressing issues around health equity and access to care.