Safety-net versus private hospital setting for brain metastasis patients treated with radiosurgery alone: Disparities in follow-up care and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) alone is an increasingly accepted treatment for brain metastases, but it requires adherence to frequently scheduled follow-up neuroimaging because of the risk of distant brain metastasis. The effect of disparities in access to follow-up care on outcomes after SRS alone is unknown. METHODS: This retrospective study included 153 brain metastasis patients treated consecutively with SRS alone from 2010 through 2016 at an academic medical center and a safety-net hospital (SNH) located in Los Angeles, California. Outcomes included neurologic symptoms, hospitalization, steroid use and dependency, salvage SRS, salvage whole-brain radiotherapy, salvage neurosurgery, and overall survival. RESULTS: Ninety-three of the 153 patients were private hospital (PH) patients, and 60 were SNH patients. The median follow-up time was 7.7 months. SNH patients received fewer follow-up neuroimaging studies (1.5 vs 3; P = .008). In a multivariate analysis, the SNH setting was a significant risk factor for salvage neurosurgery (hazard ratio [HR], 13.65; P < .001), neurologic symptoms (HR, 3.74; P = .002), and hospitalization due to brain metastases (HR, 6.25; P < .001). More clinical visits were protective against hospitalizations due to brain metastases (HR, 0.75; P = .002), whereas more neuroimaging studies were protective against death (HR, 0.65; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: SNH patients with brain metastases treated with SRS alone had fewer follow-up neuroimaging studies and were at higher risk for neurologic symptoms, hospitalization for brain metastases, and salvage neurosurgery in comparison with PH patients. Clinicians should consider the practice setting and patient access to follow-up care when they are deciding on the optimal strategy for the treatment of brain metastases. Cancer 2018;124:167-75. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Use of Salvage Surgery or Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Multiply Recurrent Skull Base Chordomas: A Single-Institution Experience and Review of the Literature.

Introduction Chordomas are locally destructive neoplasms characterized by appreciable recurrence rates after initial multimodality treatment. We examined the outcome of salvage treatment in recurrent/progressive skull base chordomas. Methods This is a retrospective review of recurrent/progressive skull base chordomas at a tertiary urban academic medical center. The outcomes evaluated were overall survival, progression-free survival (PFS), and incidence of new toxicity. Results Eighteen consecutive patients who underwent ≥1 course of treatment (35.3% salvage surgery, 23.5% salvage radiation, and 41.2% both) were included. The median follow-up was 98.6 months (range 16-215 months). After initial treatment, the median PFS was 17.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.9-22.6 months). Following initial therapy, age ≥ 40 had improved PFS on univariate analysis ( p = 0.03). All patients had local recurrence, with 15 undergoing salvage surgical resections and 16 undergoing salvage radiation treatments (mostly stereotactic radiosurgery [SRS]). The median PFS was 59.2 months (95% CI: 4.0-99.3 months) after salvage surgery, 58.4 months (95% CI: 25.9-195 months) after salvage radiation, and 58.4 months (95% CI: 25.9.0-98.4 months) combined. Overall survival for the total cohort was 98.7% ± 1.7% at 2 years and 92.8% ± 5.5% at 5 years. Salvage treatments were well-tolerated with two patients (11%) reporting tinnitus and one patient each (6%) reporting headaches, visual field deficits, hearing loss, anosmia, dysphagia, or memory loss. Conclusion Refractory skull base chordomas present a challenging treatment dilemma. Repeat surgical resection or SRS seems to provide adequate salvage therapy that is well-tolerated when treated at a tertiary center offering multimodality care.

Industry Funding Is Correlated With Publication Productivity of US Academic Radiation Oncologists.

PURPOSE: Industry payments to physicians are financial conflicts of interest and may influence research findings and medical decisions. We aim to (1) characterize industry payments within radiation oncology; and (2) explore the potential correlation between receiving disclosed industry payments and academic productivity. MATERIALS/METHODS: CMS database was used to extract 2015 industry payments. For academic radiation oncologists, research productivity was characterized by h- and m-indices, as well as receipt of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, which is not an industry payment. Logistic regression models were used to determine whether publication metrics (m-index, h-index) and other study characteristics such as gender, PhD status, NIH institution funding status, were associated with the endpoints, research and general payments. Associations between the amount of payments (if any) and publication metrics were further studied using linear regression models. RESULTS: A total of 22,543 individual payments totaling $25,532,482 to 2,995 radiation oncologists were included. Among the 1,189 academic radiation oncologists, 75% received less than $167; on the other hand, 10 (<1%) individuals received $6,425,728 (51%) of payments. On multiple logistic regression, research payments were significantly associated with the m-index, odds ratio 2.86 (95% confidence interval, 1.84-4.45, p-value <0.0001); as well as with the h-index, odds ratio 1.03 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.05, p-value <0.0001). The linear regression model shows that both m-index and h-index were significantly positively associated with the amount of general payments (p-values <0.0001). CONCLUSION: There is an association between disclosed payment from the industry and increased individual research productivity metrics. Further research to find the cause behind this association is warranted.

Resident satisfaction with radiation oncology training.

PURPOSE: Residency training environments can differ significantly; therefore, resident satisfaction may vary widely among programs. Here, we sought to examine several variables in program satisfaction through a survey of radiation oncology (RO) trainees in the United States. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An anonymous, institutional review board-approved, internet-based survey was developed and distributed to U.S. residents in RO in September 2016. This email-based survey assessed program-specific factors with regard to workload, work-life balance, and education as well as resident-specific factors such as marital status and postgraduate year. Binomial multivariable regression assessed the correlations between these factors and the endpoint of resident-reported likelihood of selecting an alternative RO residency program if given the choice again. RESULTS: A total of 215 residents completed the required survey sections, representing 29.3% of U.S. RO residents. When asked whether residency allowed for an adequate balance between work and personal life, the majority of residents (75.6%) agreed or strongly agreed, but a minority (9.3%) did not feel that residency allowed for sufficient time for personal life. The majority of residents (69.7%) indicated that they would choose the same residency program again, but 12.2% would have made a different choice. Almost three-fourths of residents (73.0%) felt that faculty and staff cared about the educational success of residents, but 9.27% did not. Binomial multivariable regression revealed that senior residents (odds ratio: 6.70; 95% confidence interval, 2.20-22.4) were more likely to desire a different residency program. In contrast, residents who reported constructive feedback use by the residency program (odds ratio:0.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.91) were more satisfied with their program choice. CONCLUSIONS: Most RO residents reported satisfaction with their choice of residency program, but seniors had higher rates of dissatisfaction. Possible interventions to improve professional satisfaction include incorporating constructive resident feedback to enhance the program. The potential impact of job market pressures on seniors should be further explored.

Meaningful and Accurate Disclosure of Conflict of Interest at the ASTRO National Meeting: A Need for Reassessment of Current Policies.

PURPOSE:: Conflict of interest (COI) disclosure is essential to research integrity. The average reading comprehension in English is 3.8 words per second (wps). This study examines presenters at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) national meeting over a recent 3-year period to determine whether disclosure is presented accurately and in a manner that allows the audience to comprehend the content. METHODS:: We examined videos of presentations as well as slides from 2014 to 2016 from the ASTRO virtual meeting, noting whether a COI slide was presented, the duration the slide was visible, and the number of disclosures. Disclosures were cross-referenced for discrepancies with the publicly reported Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database. Using a cutoff of 4 wps, we noted how many presentations were presented at speeds of ≤ 4 wps and > 4 wps. RESULTS:: The final data set consisted of 401 presentations delivered by 364 presenters. Using a threshold of 4 wps, 34.0% of presenters had COI slides shown too fast for the average audience to comprehend. Moreover, 16.3% of US physicians incorrectly underreported industry funding received. Of these presentations with discrepancies, 32.6% did not have a COI slide, 39.5% failed to disclose any COI, 27.9% partially disclosed COIs, and 11.6% contained multiple discrepancies. The number of wps were correlated with having a discrepancy on multivariable regression ( P = .046; odds ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.19). CONCLUSION:: A substantial minority of presentations at ASTRO lack meaningful disclosure, and a surprising number incorrectly reported COIs. Additional guidance may be needed to promote more meaningful and accurate disclosure of COIs at major national meetings in oncology.

Industry Funding Among Leadership in Medical Oncology and Radiation Oncology in 2015.

PURPOSE: To quantify and determine the relationship between oncology departmental/division heads and private industry vis-à-vis potential financial conflict of interests (FCOIs) as publicly reported by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We extracted the names of the chairs/chiefs in medical oncology (MO) and chairs of radiation oncology (RO) for 81 different institutions with both RO and MO training programs as reported by the Association of American Medical Colleges. For each leader, the amount of consulting fees and research payments received in 2015 was determined. Logistic modeling was used to assess associations between the 2 endpoints of receiving a consulting fee and receiving a research payment with various institution-specific and practitioner-specific variables included as covariates: specialty, sex, National Cancer Institute designation, PhD status, and geographic region. RESULTS: The majority of leaders in MO were reported to have received consulting fees or research payments (69.5%) compared with a minority of RO chairs (27.2%). Among those receiving payments, the average (range) consulting fee was $13,413 ($200-$70,423) for MO leaders and $6463 ($837-$16,205) for RO chairs; the average research payment for MO leaders receiving payments was $240,446 ($156-$1,234,762) and $295,089 ($160-$1,219,564) for RO chairs. On multivariable regression when the endpoint was receipt of a research payment, those receiving a consulting fee (odds ratio [OR]: 5.34; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.22-13.65) and MO leaders (OR: 5.54; 95% CI: 2.62-12.18) were more likely to receive research payments. Examination of the receipt of consulting fees as the endpoint showed that those receiving a research payment (OR: 5.41; 95% CI: 2.23-13.99) and MO leaders (OR: 3.06; 95% CI: 1.21-8.13) were more likely to receive a consulting fee. CONCLUSION: Leaders in academic oncology receive consulting or research payments from industry. Relationships between oncology leaders and industry can be beneficial, but guidance is needed to develop consistent institutional policies to manage FCOIs.

Trends in Disclosures of Industry Sponsorship.

PURPOSE: To examine trends in the reporting of industry funding of oncology trials by primary therapeutic intervention studied: local, targeted, or nontargeted systemic. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We reviewed oncologic trials published in 10 journals for the years 1994, 2004, and 2014 to determine the frequency of declarations of industry funding for cancer research. Logistic modeling was used to assess associations between reported industry funding and investigation characteristics, such as type of primary intervention, cancer site, study endpoint, number of participants, geographic location of corresponding author, journal impact factor, trial phase, and year of publication. RESULTS: Reporting of industry funding increased over time (odds ratio [OR] 6.8; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.82-12.35). Compared with systemic trials, those investigating local therapies were less likely to report industry funding (OR 0.08; 95% CI 0.14-0.15), whereas studies examining targeted interventions were more likely to report industry funding (OR 2.24; 95% CI 1.38-3.66). Studies investigating gynecologic (OR 0.37; 95% CI 0.15-0.88) and pediatric cancers (OR 0.08; 95% CI 0.02-0.27) were less likely to report funding by industry when compared with hematologic cancers. Phase 2 (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.19-0.52) and phase 3 (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.17-0.37) studies were less likely to report industry funding than phase 1 studies. Trials investigating interventions for metastatic disease (OR 2.55; 95% CI 1.73-3.79) were more likely to have reported industry funding compared with studies examining the primary/definitive disease setting. CONCLUSION: Industry funding was reported in more than one-third of oncology trials examined in this study, and the proportion of trials reporting industry funding increased over time. The potential ramifications for these patterns of funding for the future direction of cancer research should be examined, especially given the disproportionate distribution of industry funding among therapeutic intentions, cancer types, and treatment modalities.

Close to Home: Employment Outcomes for Recent Radiation Oncology Graduates.

PURPOSE: To characterize the practice type and location of radiation oncology (RO) residents graduating in 2013. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Graduates completing RO residency in 2013 were identified, and for each, postgraduate practice setting (academic vs private practice) and location were identified. Characteristics of the graduates, including details regarding their institutions of medical school and residency education, were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 146 of the 154 RO graduates from the class of 2013. Employment data were available for 142 graduates. Approximately one-third of graduates were employed in the same state as residency (36.6%), approximately two-thirds (62.0%) in the same region as residency, and nearly three-fourths (73.9%) in the same region as medical school or residency completion. Of the 66 graduates (46.5%) working in academics, 40.9% were at the same institution where they completed residency. Most trainees (82.4%) attended medical schools with RO residency programs. CONCLUSIONS: Although personal factors may attract students to train in a particular area, the location of medical school and residency experiences may influence RO graduate practice location choice. Trends in the geographic distribution of graduating radiation oncologists can help identify and better understand disparities in access to RO care. Steps to improve access to RO care may include interventions at the medical student or resident level, such as targeting students at medical schools without associated residency programs and greater resident exposure to underserved areas.

Does Cancer Literature Reflect Multidisciplinary Practice? A Systematic Review of Oncology Studies in the Medical Literature Over a 20-Year Period.

PURPOSE: Quality cancer care is best delivered through a multidisciplinary approach requiring awareness of current evidence for all oncologic specialties. The highest impact journals often disseminate such information, so the distribution and characteristics of oncology studies by primary intervention (local therapies, systemic therapies, and targeted agents) were evaluated in 10 high-impact journals over a 20-year period. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Articles published in 1994, 2004, and 2014 in New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet Oncology, Journal of Clinical Oncology, Annals of Oncology, Radiotherapy and Oncology, International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, Annals of Surgical Oncology, and European Journal of Surgical Oncology were identified. Included studies were prospectively conducted and evaluated a therapeutic intervention. RESULTS: A total of 960 studies were included: 240 (25%) investigated local therapies, 551 (57.4%) investigated systemic therapies, and 169 (17.6%) investigated targeted therapies. More local therapy trials (n=185 [77.1%]) evaluated definitive, primary treatment than systemic (n=178 [32.3%]) or targeted therapy trials (n=38 [22.5%]; P<.001). Local therapy trials (n=16 [6.7%]) also had significantly lower rates of industry funding than systemic (n=207 [37.6%]) and targeted therapy trials (n=129 [76.3%]; P<.001). Targeted therapy trials represented 5 (2%), 38 (10.2%), and 126 (38%) of those published in 1994, 2004, and 2014, respectively (P<.001), and industry-funded 48 (18.9%), 122 (32.6%), and 182 (54.8%) trials, respectively (P<.001). Compared to publication of systemic therapy trial articles, articles investigating local therapy (odds ratio: 0.025 [95% confidence interval: 0.012-0.048]; P<.001) were less likely to be found in high-impact general medical journals. CONCLUSIONS: Fewer studies evaluating local therapies, such as surgery and radiation, are published in high-impact oncology and medicine literature. Further research and attention are necessary to guide efforts promoting appropriate representation of all oncology studies in high-impact, broad-readership journals.