The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ablative therapies in the management of liver metastases: systematic review and economic evaluation

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ablative therapies in the management of liver metastases: systematic review and economic evaluation
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ablative therapies in the management of liver metastases: systematic review and economic evaluation
Background: Many deaths from cancer are caused by metastatic burden. Prognosis and survival rates vary, but survival beyond 5 years of patients with untreated metastatic disease in the liver is rare. Treatment for liver metastases has largely been surgical resection, but this is feasible in only approximately 20–30% of people. Non-surgical alternatives to treat some liver metastases can include various forms of ablative therapies and other targeted treatments.

Objectives: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the different ablative and minimally invasive therapies for treating liver metastases.

Data sources: Electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library were searched from 1990 to September 2011. Experts were consulted and bibliographies checked.

Review methods: Systematic reviews of the literature were undertaken to appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ablative therapies and minimally invasive therapies used for people with liver metastases. Studies were any prospective study with sample size greater than 100 participants. A probabilistic model was developed for the economic evaluation of the technologies where data permitted.

Results: The evidence assessing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ablative and other minimally invasive therapies was limited. Nine studies of ablative therapies were included in the review; each had methodological shortcomings and few had a comparator group. One randomised controlled trial (RCT) of microwave ablation versus surgical resection was identified and showed no improvement in outcomes compared with resection. In two prospective case series studies that investigated the use of laser ablation, mean survival ranged from 41 to 58 months. One cohort study compared radiofrequency ablation with surgical resection and five case series studies also investigated the use of radiofrequency ablation. Across these studies the median survival ranged from 44 to 52 months. Seven studies of minimally invasive therapies were included in the review. Two RCTs compared chemoembolisation with chemotherapy only. Overall survival was not compared between groups and methodological shortcomings mean that conclusions are difficult to make. Two case series studies of laser ablation following chemoembolisation were also included; however, these provide little evidence of the use of these technologies in combination. Three RCTs of radioembolisation were included. Significant improvements in tumour response and time to disease progression were demonstrated; however, benefits in terms of survival were equivocal. An exploratory survival model was developed using data from the review of clinical effectiveness. The model includes separate analyses of microwave ablation compared with surgery and radiofrequency ablation compared with surgery and one of radioembolisation in conjunction with hepatic artery chemotherapy compared with hepatic artery chemotherapy alone. Microwave ablation was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £3664 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, with microwave ablation being associated with reduced cost but also with poorer outcome than surgery. Radiofrequency ablation compared with surgical resection for solitary metastases < 3 cm was associated with an ICER of –£266,767 per QALY gained, indicating that radiofrequency ablation dominates surgical resection. Radiofrequency ablation compared with surgical resection for solitary metastases ? 3 cm resulted in poorer outcomes at lower costs and a resultant ICER of £2538 per QALY gained. Radioembolisation plus hepatic artery chemotherapy compared with hepatic artery chemotherapy was associated with an ICER of £37,303 per QALY gained.

Conclusions: There is currently limited high-quality research evidence upon which to base any firm decisions regarding ablative therapies for liver metastases. Further trials should compare ablative therapies with surgery, in particular. A RCT would provide the most appropriate design for undertaking any further evaluation and should include a full economic evaluation, but the group to be randomised needs careful selection.

Source of funding: Funding for this study was provided by the Health Technology Assessment programme of the National Institute for Health Research.
1366-5278
1-283
Loveman, Emma
06ff1bf1-0189-4330-b22d-f5a917e9871d
Jones, Jeremy
270b303b-6bad-4be7-8ea0-63d0e8015c91
Clegg, Andrew J.
838091f5-39df-4dbe-a369-675b26f2301b
Picot, Joanna
324d6f20-a105-49fd-9fb0-88791be84ada
Colquitt, Jillian
741c69a3-d9e0-4f10-b457-e496541e7915
Mendes, Diana
91a0d0d9-07a6-4ec5-b146-a0cd8fc78cd1
Breen, David J.
04431c91-cb72-4c39-90e6-c77f1138ff8b
Moore, Emily
959da193-7807-4516-9536-fd612c208175
George, Steve
500f095d-093b-400b-b290-1125cf59b026
Poston, Graeme
786bec44-049d-4d7a-9ac8-5e8a24e525c3
Cunningham, David
c40c8fe4-7eac-4b98-aaa5-b866da1e32ab
Ruters, Theo
60f27636-2e62-4ecd-8502-f68132d229e0
Primrose, John
d85f3b28-24c6-475f-955b-ec457a3f9185
Loveman, Emma
06ff1bf1-0189-4330-b22d-f5a917e9871d
Jones, Jeremy
270b303b-6bad-4be7-8ea0-63d0e8015c91
Clegg, Andrew J.
838091f5-39df-4dbe-a369-675b26f2301b
Picot, Joanna
324d6f20-a105-49fd-9fb0-88791be84ada
Colquitt, Jillian
741c69a3-d9e0-4f10-b457-e496541e7915
Mendes, Diana
91a0d0d9-07a6-4ec5-b146-a0cd8fc78cd1
Breen, David J.
04431c91-cb72-4c39-90e6-c77f1138ff8b
Moore, Emily
959da193-7807-4516-9536-fd612c208175
George, Steve
500f095d-093b-400b-b290-1125cf59b026
Poston, Graeme
786bec44-049d-4d7a-9ac8-5e8a24e525c3
Cunningham, David
c40c8fe4-7eac-4b98-aaa5-b866da1e32ab
Ruters, Theo
60f27636-2e62-4ecd-8502-f68132d229e0
Primrose, John
d85f3b28-24c6-475f-955b-ec457a3f9185

Loveman, Emma, Jones, Jeremy, Clegg, Andrew J., Picot, Joanna, Colquitt, Jillian, Mendes, Diana, Breen, David J., Moore, Emily, George, Steve, Poston, Graeme, Cunningham, David, Ruters, Theo and Primrose, John (2014) The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ablative therapies in the management of liver metastases: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technology Assessment, 18 (7), 1-283. (doi:10.3310/hta18070). (PMID:24484609)

Record type: Article

Abstract

Background: Many deaths from cancer are caused by metastatic burden. Prognosis and survival rates vary, but survival beyond 5 years of patients with untreated metastatic disease in the liver is rare. Treatment for liver metastases has largely been surgical resection, but this is feasible in only approximately 20–30% of people. Non-surgical alternatives to treat some liver metastases can include various forms of ablative therapies and other targeted treatments.

Objectives: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the different ablative and minimally invasive therapies for treating liver metastases.

Data sources: Electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library were searched from 1990 to September 2011. Experts were consulted and bibliographies checked.

Review methods: Systematic reviews of the literature were undertaken to appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ablative therapies and minimally invasive therapies used for people with liver metastases. Studies were any prospective study with sample size greater than 100 participants. A probabilistic model was developed for the economic evaluation of the technologies where data permitted.

Results: The evidence assessing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ablative and other minimally invasive therapies was limited. Nine studies of ablative therapies were included in the review; each had methodological shortcomings and few had a comparator group. One randomised controlled trial (RCT) of microwave ablation versus surgical resection was identified and showed no improvement in outcomes compared with resection. In two prospective case series studies that investigated the use of laser ablation, mean survival ranged from 41 to 58 months. One cohort study compared radiofrequency ablation with surgical resection and five case series studies also investigated the use of radiofrequency ablation. Across these studies the median survival ranged from 44 to 52 months. Seven studies of minimally invasive therapies were included in the review. Two RCTs compared chemoembolisation with chemotherapy only. Overall survival was not compared between groups and methodological shortcomings mean that conclusions are difficult to make. Two case series studies of laser ablation following chemoembolisation were also included; however, these provide little evidence of the use of these technologies in combination. Three RCTs of radioembolisation were included. Significant improvements in tumour response and time to disease progression were demonstrated; however, benefits in terms of survival were equivocal. An exploratory survival model was developed using data from the review of clinical effectiveness. The model includes separate analyses of microwave ablation compared with surgery and radiofrequency ablation compared with surgery and one of radioembolisation in conjunction with hepatic artery chemotherapy compared with hepatic artery chemotherapy alone. Microwave ablation was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £3664 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, with microwave ablation being associated with reduced cost but also with poorer outcome than surgery. Radiofrequency ablation compared with surgical resection for solitary metastases < 3 cm was associated with an ICER of –£266,767 per QALY gained, indicating that radiofrequency ablation dominates surgical resection. Radiofrequency ablation compared with surgical resection for solitary metastases ? 3 cm resulted in poorer outcomes at lower costs and a resultant ICER of £2538 per QALY gained. Radioembolisation plus hepatic artery chemotherapy compared with hepatic artery chemotherapy was associated with an ICER of £37,303 per QALY gained.

Conclusions: There is currently limited high-quality research evidence upon which to base any firm decisions regarding ablative therapies for liver metastases. Further trials should compare ablative therapies with surgery, in particular. A RCT would provide the most appropriate design for undertaking any further evaluation and should include a full economic evaluation, but the group to be randomised needs careful selection.

Source of funding: Funding for this study was provided by the Health Technology Assessment programme of the National Institute for Health Research.

Text
FullReport-hta18070.pdf - Version of Record
Download (6MB)

More information

e-pub ahead of print date: January 2014
Published date: February 2014
Organisations: Faculty of Medicine, Clinical Trials Unit

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 361809
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/361809
ISSN: 1366-5278
PURE UUID: 3c116784-e951-40a9-87a6-d170cbac99b5
ORCID for Joanna Picot: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0001-5987-996X
ORCID for John Primrose: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-2069-7605

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 06 Feb 2014 13:07
Last modified: 18 Feb 2021 16:43

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Emma Loveman
Author: Jeremy Jones
Author: Andrew J. Clegg
Author: Joanna Picot ORCID iD
Author: Diana Mendes
Author: David J. Breen
Author: Emily Moore
Author: Steve George
Author: Graeme Poston
Author: David Cunningham
Author: Theo Ruters
Author: John Primrose ORCID iD

University divisions

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×