OBJECTIVES : To systematically evaluate the status of economics evaluation of SBRT in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma, so as to provide basis for government pricing and medical insurance decision-making.

METHODS : PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang data and Sino-med databases were searched to collect the economics studies of SBRT in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma from inception to December 31, 2018. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and conducted descriptive analysis of basic characteristics, methods of economic evaluation and main results as well as quality and uniformity of reporting.

RESULTS : a total of 5 studies were included. Among them, the uniformity of reporting was relatively acceptable, with a median score of 90%. Four studies used Markov model, one for a single cost-effectiveness study. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) for sorafenib compared to SBRT was NT$3,788,238 perquality-adjusted life year gained (cost/QALY) in patients of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. The ICER for proton beam therapy compared to SBRT was NT$ 213,354 in patients of inoperable advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. The ICER for SBRT compared to RFA was $164660 for patients of unresectable colorectal cancer (CRC) liver metastases, $56301 for patients of early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma, and $558679 for patients of inoperable localized hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

CONCLUSIONS : SBRT has cost-effectiveness compared to sorafenib and RFA in just only study respectively, this needs to be verified by further economic evaluations based on randomized controlled trials or cohort studies as well as health economic evaluations.