Association between access to accelerated partial breast irradiation and use of adjuvant radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: The current study was performed to determine whether access to facilities performing accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) is associated with differences in the use of adjuvant radiotherapy (RT). METHODS: Using the National Cancer Data Base, the authors performed a retrospective study of women aged ≥50 years who were diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer between 2004 and 2013 and treated with breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Facilities performing APBI in ≥10% of their eligible patients within a given year were defined as APBI facilities whereas those not performing APBI were defined as non-APBI facilities. All other facilities were excluded. The authors identified independent factors associated with RT use using multivariable logistic regression with clustering in the overall sample as well as in subsets of patients with standard-risk invasive cancer, low-risk invasive cancer, and ductal carcinoma in situ. RESULTS: Among 222,544 patients, 76.6% underwent BCS plus RT and 23.4% underwent BCS alone. The likelihood of RT receipt in the overall sample did not appear to differ significantly between APBI and non-APBI facilities (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.02; P = .61). Subgroup multivariable analysis demonstrated that among patients with standard-risk invasive cancer, there was no association between evaluation at an APBI facility and receipt of RT (AOR, 0.98; P = .69). However, patients with low-risk invasive cancer were found to be significantly more likely to receive RT (54.4% vs 59.5%; AOR, 1.22 [P<.001]), whereas patients with ductal carcinoma in situ were less likely to receive RT (56.9% vs 55.3%; AOR, 0.89 [P = .04]) at APBI facilities. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who were eligible for observation were more likely to receive RT in APBI facilities but no difference was observed among patients with standard-risk invasive cancer who would most benefit from RT. Cancer 2017;123:502-511. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Variation in pelvic lymph node dissection among patients undergoing radical prostatectomy by hospital characteristics and surgical approach: results from the National Cancer Database.

PURPOSE: Clinical practice guidelines recommend pelvic lymph node dissection at the time of surgery for intermediate or high risk prostate cancer. Therefore, we examined the relationship of pelvic lymph node dissection and detection of lymph node metastasis with hospital characteristics and surgical approach among patients with prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the National Cancer Data Base we identified surgically treated patients with pretreatment intermediate or high risk disease from 2010 to 2011. Primary outcomes were treatment with pelvic lymph node dissection and extended pelvic lymph node dissection, as well as the detection of lymph node metastasis. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to test whether hospital characteristics and surgical approach were associated with each outcome. RESULTS: Among the 50,671 surgically treated patients 70.8% (35,876) underwent concomitant pelvic lymph node dissection, 26.6% (9,543) underwent extended pelvic lymph node dissection and 4.5% (1,621) had lymph node metastasis. Pelvic lymph node dissection was performed more often at high volume vs low volume hospitals (81.2% vs 65.4%, adjusted OR 2.20, p=0.01), but less frequently with robotic assisted radical prostatectomy vs open radical prostatectomy (67.5% vs 81.8%, adjusted OR 0.30, p <0.001). Higher odds ratios for lymph node metastasis were also demonstrated with high vs low volume (OR 1.35, p=0.01) and academic vs community hospitals (OR 1.35, p <0.001). However, patients treated with robotic assisted radical prostatectomy had lower odds ratios for lymph node metastasis compared to those undergoing open radical prostatectomy (OR 0.56, p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort a third of patients are not receiving guideline recommended treatment with pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer. Pelvic lymph node dissection and detection of lymph node metastasis varied by surgical approach, hospital volume and academic status.

Did quality of life for older cancer survivors improve with the turn of the century in the United States?

OBJECTIVES: Although survival after a cancer diagnosis has improved considerably over the past 20 years, little is known about trends in health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) for older prostate, breast, and lung cancer survivors. METHODS: Using a population-based registry with longitudinal patient reported outcomes (the National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database linked to Medicare Health Outcomes Survey), we analyzed Medicare Advantage patients diagnosed with cancer during 1998-2011, who completed surveys regarding HRQOL through 2013. 'Early Era' patients were treated during 1998-2003; 'Late Era' patients were treated during 2006-2011. After propensity score matching, post-diagnosis changes in health utility (HU), Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores were calculated and compared between the two eras. RESULT: We identified 208 older patients with prostate, 276 with breast and 76 with lung cancer who were treated in the 'Early Era' and matched to equal numbers in the 'Late Era'. Mean age of patients in early and late era was 72 and 73 years, respectively. The mean post-diagnosis decline in health utility for patients treated in the 'Late Era' was not significantly different from the 'Early Era' for any cancer (Prostate [early vs. late]: -0.06 vs. -0.03, p = .09; Breast: -0.03 vs. -0.04, p = .65; Lung: -0.07 vs. -0.07, p = .95); nor for Physical Component Summary or Mental Component Summary scores. CONCLUSION: Older patients treated for prostate, breast or lung cancer in the later era reported similar outcomes of changes in HRQOL compared to earlier era patients.

Association Between Radiation Dose and Outcomes With Postoperative Radiotherapy for N0-N1 Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: To review trends in the use of postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) in the modern era for N0-N1 margin-negative non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) following surgical resection and evaluate the association between PORT dose and overall survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of nonmetastatic stage II and III N0-N1 margin-negative NSCLC surgically treated patients within the National Cancer Data Base from 2003 to 2011. Cox proportional hazards regression was performed for multivariable analyses of overall survival and PORT dose. Radiation modalities included nonconformal beam radiation, 3-dimensional conformal radiation (3D-CRT), and intensity-modulated radiation therapy. RESULTS: We identified 2167 (6.7%) and 30,269 (93.3%) patients with surgically resected stage II or III N0-N1 margin-negative NSCLC who were treated with and without PORT, respectively. The proportion of patients treated with PORT (dose range, 45 to 74 Gy) decreased from 8.9% in 2003 to 2006 to 4.1% in 2010 to 2011. Among patients receiving PORT, the use of high-dose (60 to 74 Gy) PORT rose throughout the study period, starting at 34.8% in 2003 to 2006 and rising to 49.3% in 2010 to 2011.Overall, patients who received PORT had worse survival (hazards ratio=1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-1.40) compared with those not receiving PORT. This association was unchanged when limited to patients receiving modern treatment with 3-CRT or intensity-modulated radiation therapy (hazards ratio=1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.65). CONCLUSIONS: The use of PORT for N0-N1 margin-negative NSCLC decreased from 2003 to 2011. We found no evidence of benefit from PORT for resected N0-N1 margin-negative NSCLC, regardless of dose or technique. PORT should be approached with caution in this group of patients, regardless of radiotherapy technique.

Timing of Surgery after Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation in Locally Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: A subset of patients with potentially resectable clinical stage IIIA NSCLC are managed with trimodality therapy. However, little data exist to guide the timing of surgery after neoadjuvant therapy. This study examined whether the time interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NCRT) and surgical resection affects overall survival. METHODS: Patients with clinical stage IIIA disease (T1-3 N2) NSCLC who underwent NCRT were identified in the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) between 2004 and 2012 and categorized on the basis of the interval between chemoradiation and surgery (0 to ≤3, >3 to ≤6, >6 to ≤9, and >9 to ≤12 weeks). Other clinical stages were excluded. The Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank tests were used to compare overall survival rates, and a bootstrapped Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine significant contributors to overall survival. RESULTS: Of the 1623 patients identified, 7.9% underwent an operation 0 to 3 weeks or less after NCRT, 50.5% underwent an operation greater than 3 and less than or equal to 6 weeks after NCRT, 31.9% underwent an operation greater than 6 and less than or equal to 9 weeks after NCRT, and 9.6% underwent an operation greater than 9 and less than or equal to 12 weeks after NCRT. Multivariate survival analysis demonstrated no significant difference in survival in those who underwent an operation within 6 weeks of NCRT. However, significant drops in overall survival were observed in those who had an operation greater than 6 and less than or equal to 9 weeks after NCRT (hazard ratio = 1.33, 95% confidence interval: 1.01-1.76, p = 0.043) and greater than 9 and less than or equal to 12 weeks after NCRT (hazard ratio = 1.44, 95% confidence interval: 1.04-2.01, p = 0.030). CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this retrospective study suggest that overall survival may be significantly lower in patients with clinical stage IIIA N2 NSCLC who undergo an operation later than 6 weeks after NCRT. These results discourage unnecessary delays in surgery.

Changing practice patterns of Gamma Knife versus linear accelerator-based stereotactic radiosurgery for brain metastases in the US.

OBJECTIVE: Single-fraction stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is a crucial component in the management of limited brain metastases from non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Intracranial SRS has traditionally been delivered using a frame-based Gamma Knife (GK) platform, but stereotactic modifications to the linear accelerator (LINAC) have made an alternative approach possible. In the absence of definitive prospective trials comparing the efficacy and toxicities of treatment between the 2 techniques, nonclinical factors (such as technology accessibility, costs, and efficiency) may play a larger role in determining which radiosurgery system a facility may choose to install. To the authors' knowledge, this study is the first to investigate national patterns of GK SRS versus LINAC SRS use and to determine which factors may be associated with the adoption of these radiosurgery systems. METHODS: The National Cancer Data Base was used to identify patients > 18 years old with NSCLC who were treated with single-fraction SRS to the brain between 2003 and 2011. Patients who received "SRS not otherwise specified" or who did not receive a radiotherapy dose within the range of 12-24 Gy were excluded to reduce the potential for misclassification. The chi-square test, t-test, and multivariable logistic regression analysis were used to compare potential demographic, clinicopathologic, and health care system predictors of GK versus LINAC SRS use, when appropriate. RESULTS: This study included 1780 patients, among whom 1371 (77.0%) received GK SRS and 409 (23.0%) underwent LINAC SRS. Over time, the proportion of patients undergoing LINAC SRS steadily increased, from 3.2% in 2003 to 30.8% in 2011 (p < 0.001). LINAC SRS was adopted more rapidly by community versus academic facilities (overall 29.2% vs 17.2%, p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, 4 independent predictors of increased LINAC SRS use emerged, including year of diagnosis in 2008-2011 versus 2003-2007 (adjusted OR [AOR] 2.04, 95% CI 1.52-2.73, p < 0.001), community versus academic facility type (AOR 2.04, 95% CI 1.60-2.60, p < 0.001), non-West versus West geographic location (AOR 4.50, 95% CI 2.87-7.09, p < 0.001), and distance from cancer reporting facility of < 20 versus ≥ 20 miles (AOR 1.57, 95% CI 1.21-2.04, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: GK remains the most commonly used single-fraction SRS modality for NSCLC brain metastases in the US. However, LINAC-based SRS has been rapidly disseminating in the past decade, especially in the community setting. Wide geographic variation persists in the distribution of GK and LINAC SRS cases. Further comparative effectiveness research will be needed to evaluate the impact of these shifts on SRS-related toxicities, local control, and survival, as well as treatment costs and efficiency.

Disparities in Treatment of Patients With High-risk Prostate Cancer: Results From a Population-based Cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the variation in primary treatment of high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) by different hospital characteristics in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used the National Cancer Data Base to identify patients diagnosed with pretreatment high-risk PCa from 2004 to 2011. The primary outcomes were different forms of primary therapy or watchful waiting (WW) across different types of hospitals (community, comprehensive cancer community, and academic hospitals). Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to test for differences in treatment by hospital type. RESULTS: During the study period, we identified 102,701 men diagnosed with high-risk PCa. Overall, the most common treatment was radical prostatectomy (37.0%) followed by radiation therapy (33.2%) and WW (8.5%). Compared with white men with high-risk PCa, black men had lower adjusted odds ratios (OR) for surgery at comprehensive community (OR: 0.64; P <.001) and academic (OR: 0.62; P <.001) hospitals. Similarly, black men were also more likely to be managed with WW at community (OR: 1.49; P <.001), comprehensive cancer community (OR: 1.24; P <.001), and academic (OR: 1.55; P <.001) hospitals, as well as with radiation therapy at comprehensive cancer community (OR: 1.27; P <.001) and academic hospitals (OR: 1.23; P <.001). CONCLUSION: Disparities in the use of WW and different primary treatments among patients with high-risk PCa persisted across different types of hospitals and over time. Our findings highlight a significant racial disparity in the use of curative therapy for high-risk PCa that should be urgently addressed to ensure that all men with PCa receive appropriate care across all racial groups and cancer care facilities.

Adoption of intensity modulated radiation therapy for early-stage breast cancer from 2004 through 2011.

PURPOSE: Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is a newer method of radiation therapy (RT) that has been increasingly adopted as an adjuvant treatment after breast-conserving surgery (BCS). IMRT may result in improved cosmesis compared to standard RT, although at greater expense. To investigate the adoption of IMRT, we examined trends and factors associated with IMRT in women under the age of 65 with early stage breast cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We performed a retrospective study of early stage breast cancer patients treated with BCS followed by whole-breast irradiation (WBI) who were ≤65 years old in the National Cancer Data Base from 2004 to 2011. We used logistic regression to identify factors associated with receipt of IMRT (vs standard RT). RESULTS: We identified 11,089 women with early breast cancer (9.6%) who were treated with IMRT and 104,448 (90.4%) who were treated with standard RT, after BCS. The proportion of WBI patients receiving IMRT increased yearly from 2004 to 2009, with 5.3% of WBI patients receiving IMRT in 2004 and 11.6% receiving IMRT in 2009. Further use of IMRT declined afterward, with the proportion remaining steady at 11.0% and 10.7% in 2010 and 2011, respectively. Patients treated in nonacademic community centers were more likely to receive IMRT (odds ratio [OR], 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30-1.43 for nonacademic vs academic center). Compared to privately insured patients, the uninsured patients (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.70-0.95) and those with Medicaid insurance (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.79-0.95) were less likely to receive IMRT. CONCLUSIONS: The use of IMRT rose from 2004 to 2009 and then stabilized. Important nonclinical factors associated with IMRT use included facility type and insurance status.

Patients Selected for Definitive Concurrent Chemoradiation at High-volume Facilities Achieve Improved Survival in Stage III Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between provider experience and clinical outcomes is poorly defined in radiation oncology. This study examined the impact of facility case volume on overall survival in patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with definitive concurrent chemoradiation therapy (CCRT). METHODS: Using the National Cancer Data Base, we identified clinical stage III NSCLC patients diagnosed in 2004 to 2006 who were treated with definitive CCRT to 59.4-74.0 Gy. High-volume facilities (HVF) were defined as those in the ninetieth percentile of annual CCRT volume (≥12 cases/year). Independent predictors of receiving CCRT at HVF were identified using multivariable logistic regression. Overall survival based on receiving CCRT at HVF was assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, Cox proportional hazards regression, and propensity score matching. RESULTS: Among 10,072 included patients, 1207 (12.0%) were treated at HVF. Patients in HVF were more likely to have a higher Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score, more advanced nodal stage, higher doses, and 3D-conformal or intensity-modulated radiotherapy. When controlling for demographic and clinical covariates including academic affiliation, treatment at HVF was independently associated with a significantly decreased risk of death (hazards ratio = 0.93; 95% confidence interval: 0.87-0.99; p = 0.03). Propensity score matching showed that these findings were robust (hazards ratio = 0.91; 95% confidence interval: 0.84-0.99; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that treatment at HVF is associated with improved overall survival among stage III NSCLC patients receiving definitive CCRT, independent of academic affiliation. Further research is needed to determine whether or not efforts supporting centralization of radiotherapy at HVF will improve population-based survival, toxicities, and costs.

Association between surgeon and hospital characteristics and lymph node counts from radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether surgical approach and hospital characteristics independently determine the number of lymph nodes (LNs) removed from prostate cancer patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) and pelvic LN dissection (PLND). METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database, we identified all surgically treated patients diagnosed with pretreatment intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer from 2010 to 2011. The primary outcome was the number of LNs retrieved at the time of RP. Generalized estimating equations were used to assess for differences in the adjusted number of LNs retrieved after accounting for patient and hospital characteristics and surgical approach. RESULTS: Overall, 35,876 patients were diagnosed with intermediate-risk (61.2%) and high-risk (38.8%) prostate cancer and underwent RP and PLND.On multivariate analysis, open RP and high-volume and academic hospitals were independently associated with greater LN counts compared with robotic-assisted RP and medium or low and community hospitals, respectively (all P <.001). After adjusting for patient and hospital variables, higher adjusted LN counts were observed for open RP compared with robotic-assisted RP (7.1 vs 6.1; P <.001). Adjusted counts were also higher for high-volume hospitals compared with medium- or low-volume hospitals (7.8 vs 5.9; P <.001), and academic compared with community hospitals (7.3 vs 5.6; P <.001). CONCLUSION: Among patients with aggressive prostate cancer treated with RP and PLND, retrieval of LN counts varied by surgical approach and hospital characteristics.

Postoperative Radiation Therapy Is Associated With Improved Overall Survival in Incompletely Resected Stage II and III Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: To review trends in the use of postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) for stage II and III incompletely resected non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and evaluate the association between PORT and survival in such patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified patients with pathologic stage N0-2, overall American Joint Committee on Cancer stage II or III NSCLC within the National Cancer Data Base who had undergone a lobectomy or pneumonectomy with positive surgical margins. Only patients coded as receiving external-beam PORT at 50 to 74 Gy or observation were included. To account for perioperative mortality, we excluded patients who survived less than 4 months after diagnosis. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with PORT receipt. Cox proportional hazards regression was performed for multivariable analyses of overall survival. RESULTS: Among 3,395 included patients, 1,207 (35.6%) received PORT. Predictors for the use of PORT among this patient population included age less than 60 years, treatment in a nonacademic facility, earlier year of diagnosis, decreased travel distance, lower nodal stage, and chemotherapy receipt. On multivariable analysis adjusting for demographic and clinicopathologic covariates, PORT (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70 to 092) was associated with improved survival. Subset analysis by nodal stage showed that PORT improved survival across all nodal stages. CONCLUSION: PORT is associated with improved overall survival in patients with incompletely resected stage II or III N0-2 NSCLC. The use of PORT for this population in more recent years has been declining. In the absence of randomized trials evaluating PORT utilization for this patient population, our findings strongly support the delivery of PORT in patients with incompletely resected NSCLC.

Shared decision making and use of decision AIDS for localized prostate cancer : perceptions from radiation oncologists and urologists.

IMPORTANCE: The current attitudes of prostate cancer specialists toward decision aids and their use in clinical practice to facilitate shared decision making are poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To assess attitudes toward decision aids and their dissemination in clinical practice. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A survey was mailed to a national random sample of 1422 specialists (711 radiation oncologists and 711 urologists) in the United States from November 1, 2011, through April 30, 2012. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Respondents were asked about familiarity, perceptions, and use of decision aids for clinically localized prostate cancer and trust in various professional societies in developing decision aids. The Pearson χ2 test was used to test for bivariate associations between physician characteristics and outcomes. RESULTS: Similar response rates were observed for radiation oncologists and urologists (44.0% vs 46.1%; P=.46). Although most respondents had some familiarity with decision aids, only 35.5% currently use a decision aid in clinic practice. The most commonly cited barriers to decision aid use included the perception that their ability to estimate the risk of recurrence was superior to that of decision aids (7.7% in those not using decision aids and 26.2% in those using decision aids; P<.001) and the concern that patients could not process information from a decision aid (7.6% in those not using decision aids and 23.7% in those using decision aids; P<.001). In assessing trust in decision aids established by various professional medical societies, specialists consistently reported trust in favor of their respective organizations, with 9.2% being very confident and 59.2% being moderately confident (P=.01). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Use of decision aids among specialists treating patients with prostate cancer is relatively low. Efforts to address barriers to clinical implementation of decision aids may facilitate greater shared decision making for patients diagnosed as having prostate cancer.

Adoption of hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation for early-stage breast cancer: a National Cancer Data Base analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the relationship of patient, hospital, and cancer characteristics with the adoption of hypofractionation in a national sample of patients diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We performed a retrospective study of breast cancer patients in the National Cancer Data Base from 2004-2011 who were treated with radiation therapy and met eligibility criteria for hypofractionation. We used logistic regression to identify factors associated with receipt of hypofractionation (vs conventional fractionation). RESULTS: We identified 13,271 women (11.7%) and 99,996 women (88.3%) with early-stage breast cancer who were treated with hypofractionation and conventional fractionation, respectively. The use of hypofractionation increased significantly, with 5.4% of patients receiving it in 2004 compared with 22.8% in 2011 (P<.001 for trend). Patients living ≥50 miles from the cancer reporting facility had increased odds of receiving hypofractionation (odds ratio 1.57 [95% confidence interval 1.44-1.72], P<.001). Adoption of hypofractionation was associated with treatment at an academic center (P<.001) and living in an area with high median income (P<.001). Hypofractionation was less likely to be used in patients with high-risk disease, such as increased tumor size (P<.001) or poorly differentiated histologic grade (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of hypofractionation is rising and is associated with increased travel distance and treatment at an academic center. Further adoption of hypofractionation may be tempered by both clinical and nonclinical concerns.