ABSTRACT
The results from randomized clinical trials are often adopted slowly. This practice potentially prevents many people from benefiting from more effective care. Provide a framework for analyzing clinical trial results to determine whether and when early adoption of novel interventions is appropriate. The framework includes the evaluation of three components: confidence in trial results, impact of early, and late adoption if trial results are reversed or sustained. The adverse impact of early adoption, and the opportunity cost of late adoption are determined using Markov modeling to simulate the impact of early and late adoption in terms of quality of life years and resources gained or lost. We applied the framework to the TARGIT-A randomized clinical trial comparing intraoperative radiation (IORT) to standard external beam radiation (EBRT) and considered these results in the context of trials comparing endocrine therapy with and without radiation therapy in postmenopausal women. Confidence in the TARGIT-A trial 4 year results is high because the peak hazard for local recurrence in the trial is between 2 and 3 years. This is consistent with most trials, and no second peak has been observed in similar patient populations, suggesting that the TARGIT-A trial results are stable. The interventions offer approximately equivalent life expectancy. If IORT local recurrences rate were as high as 10 % at 10 years (which is higher than expected), we would project only 0.002 fewer expected life years (less than 1 day) compared to EBRT if IORT is adopted early. However, there is a $1.7 billion opportunity cost of waiting an additional 5 years to adopt IORT in low risk, hormone-receptor-positive, postmenopausal women. EBRT costs an additional $1467 in indirect costs per patient. Applying an evaluative framework for the adoption of clinical trial results to the TARGIT-A IORT therapy trial results in the assessment that the trial results are stable, early adoption would lead to minimal adverse impact, and substantially less resource use. Both IORT and no radiation are reasonable strategies to adopt.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms/therapy , Decision Support Techniques , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/methods , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Animals , Breast Neoplasms/economics , Female , Humans , Intraoperative Care/economics , Intraoperative Care/methods , Markov Chains , Middle Aged , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/drug therapy , Postmenopause , Quality of Life , Radiotherapy, Adjuvant/economics , Radiotherapy, Adjuvant/methods , United StatesABSTRACT
During the last few years a tremendous amount of media attention has been focused on prostate cancer. This increased visibility has been the direct result of the prostate specific antigen test, which has led to a doubling of the number of new cases detected in just 4 years. With this visibility has come controversy about which treatment is the most effective or whether this disease should be treated aggressively at all. The formation and rapid expansion of the prostate cancer support group movement are reviewed, and the positive and negative impacts of media coverage on present and future patients are assessed. My personal case is reviewed briefly to make a specific point about the hazards of watchful waiting. Other issues, such as mass screening, Prostate Cancer Awareness Week and expenditures for prostate cancer research, are examined in some detail.
