The Perceived Usability of Virtual Visits Among Black Adults' Receiving Oncology Care: A Qualitative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: With the COVID-19 pandemic came rapid uptake in virtual oncology care. During this, sociodemographic inequities in access to virtual visits (VVs) have become apparent. To better understand these issues, we conducted a qualitative study to describe the perceived usability and acceptability of VVs among Black adults diagnosed with cancer. METHODS: Adults who self-identified as Black and had a diagnosis of prostate, multiple myeloma, or head and neck cancer were recruited from 2 academic medical centers, and their community affiliates to participate in a semi-structured interview, regardless of prior VV experience. A patient and family advisory board was formed to inform all components of the study. Interviews were conducted between September 2, 2021 and February 23, 2022. Transcripts were organized topically, and themes and subthemes were determined through iterative and interpretive immersion/crystallization cycles. RESULTS: Of the 49 adults interviewed, 29 (59%) had participated in at least one VV. Three overarching themes were derived: (1) VVs felt comfortable and convenient in the right contexts; (2) the technology required for VVs with video presented new challenges, which were often resolved by an audio-only telephone call; and (3) participants reported preferring in-person visits, citing concerns regarding gaps in nonverbal communication, trusting providers, and distractions during VV. CONCLUSION: While VVs were reported to be acceptable in specific circumstances, Black adults reported preferring in-person care, in part due to a perceived lack of interpersonal connectedness. Nonetheless, retaining reimbursement for audio-only options for VVs is essential to ensure equitable access for those with less technology savvy and/or limited device/internet capabilities.

Sociodemographic Inequities in Telemedicine Use Among US Patients Initiating Treatment in Community Cancer Centers During the Ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic, 2020-2022.

PURPOSE: Although telemedicine was seen as a way to improve cancer care during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, there is limited information regarding inequities in its uptake. This study assessed sociodemographic factors associated with telemedicine use among patients initiating treatment for 20 common cancers. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used deidentified electronic health record-derived patient data from a nationwide network of community cancer practices, linked to area-level Census information. We included adults (age 18 years and older) who initiated first-line systemic cancer treatment between March 2020 and December 2022 (follow-up through March 2023). Exposures include race/ethnicity, insurance status, and area-level social determinants of health (eg, block group socioeconomic status [SES]). The outcome was telemedicine use within 90 days after treatment initiation. Associations were examined using logistic regression models adjusted for age, sex, performance status, stage, and cancer type. RESULTS: This study included 36,993 patients (48.6% women; median age, 69 years), of whom 15.1% used telemedicine services. Black (12.2%; odds ratio [OR], 0.78 [95% CI, 0.70 to 0.88]) and uninsured (9.2%; OR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.73]) patients were less likely to use telemedicine services than their White and well-insured counterparts (14.5% and 15.0%, respectively). Patients in rural (9.7%; OR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.46 to 0.57]), suburban (11.8%; OR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.61 to 0.74]), and low SES areas (9.9%; OR, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.35 to 0.43]) were less also likely to use telemedicine than their counterparts in urban (16.6%) or high SES (21.6%) areas. CONCLUSION: Nearly one sixth of patients initiating cancer treatment during the pandemic used telemedicine, but there were substantial inequities. The proliferation of telemedicine may perpetuate cancer care inequities if marginalized populations do not have equitable access.

Racial and Ethnic Inequities in US Oncology Clinical Trial Participation From 2017 to 2022.

Importance: There is increasing recognition from regulatory agencies that racial and ethnic representation in clinical trials is inadequate and linked to health inequities. The extent of racial inequities in clinical trial participation is unclear because prior studies have synthesized enrollment data from published trials, which often do not report participant race and ethnicity. Objective: To evaluate racial and ethnic inequities in oncology clinical trial participation in a contemporary cohort of patients with cancer before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used a nationwide electronic health record-derived deidentified database, which includes data for approximately 280 US cancer clinics (approximately 800 sites of care). The study included Latinx, non-Latinx Black (hereinafter, Black), and non-Latinx White (reference; hereinafter, White) patients aged 18 years or older who had been diagnosed with advanced non-small cell lung cancer, metastatic colorectal cancer, metastatic breast cancer, multiple myeloma, or metastatic pancreatic cancer between January 1, 2017, and June 30, 2022 (follow-up through December 31, 2022). Data analysis was performed between August 1, 2022, and February 7, 2023. Exposures: Electronic health record-documented race and ethnicity. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was oncology trial participation (ie, receipt of a clinical study drug). Stratified cause-specific hazard models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for likelihood of participation. Participation was assessed overall, by cancer type, and by period of diagnosis (2017-2019 vs 2020-2022). Results: Of the 50 411 patients in this study, 28 878 (57.3%) were women and 21 533 (42.7%) were men. Black and Latinx patients were younger than White patients, with a median age of 65 (IQR, 57-72), 64 (IQR, 54-73), and 68 (IQR, 60-76) years, respectively. Oncology trial participation was lower among Black patients (307 of 6912 [4.4%]) and Latinx patients (166 of 3973 [4.2%]) relative to White patients (2858 of 39 526 [7.2%]) over the entire study period. Inequities in participation were observed across the 5 cancer types studied, with notably large inequities observed among Black patients (HR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.36-0.81]) and Latinx patients (HR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.27-0.77]) with metastatic pancreatic cancer. Moreover, inequities between Black and White patients in terms of participation widened among those diagnosed in the COVID-19 era (2020-2022: HR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.40-0.60] vs 1.00 [95% CI, 0.93-1.09]) relative to those diagnosed before the pandemic (2017-2019: HR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.53-0.70] vs 1 [reference]). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study suggest that oncology trial participation was lower among Black and Latinx patients relative to White patients across all 5 cancer types examined. These findings, including potentially widening inequities in the COVID-19 era, support the need for regulatory guidance to improve enrollment of participants from historically excluded racial and ethnic populations in clinical trials.

Associations With Virtual Visit Use Among Patients Receiving Radiation Therapy.

Purpose: The objective of this study was to test for patient characteristics associated with virtual versus office visits among radiation oncology patients. Methods and Materials: Using the electronic health record, we extracted encounter data and corresponding patient information for the 6 months before and 6 months of COVID-19-enabled virtual visits (October 1, 2019, to March 22, 2020 vs March 23, 2020, to September 1, 2020) at a National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Center. Encounters during COVID-19 were categorized as in-person or virtual visits. We compared patient demographic variables including race, age, sex, marital status, preferred language, insurance status, and tumor type during the pre-COVID-19 period as a baseline versus during the COVID-19 period. Multivariable analyses examined associations between these variables and virtual visit use. Results: We analyzed 4974 total encounters (2287 before COVID-19 and 2687 during COVID-19) for 3960 unique patients. All (100%) pre-COVID-19 encounters were in-person. During COVID-19, 21% of encounters were via virtual visits. There were no differences identified in pre- versus during-COVID-19 patient characteristics. However, we found significant differences in patient characteristics for in-person versus virtual encounters during COVID-19. On multivariable analysis, virtual visit use was less common among patients who were Black versus White (odds ratio [OR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.57-0.99; P = .044) and not married versus married (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-0.98; P = .037). Patients with head and neck (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.41-0.97; P = .034), breast (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.21-0.62; P ≤ .001), gastrointestinal/abdominal (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.15-0.63; P = .001), or hematologic malignancy (OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.04-0.95; P = .043) diagnoses were less likely to be scheduled for virtual visits relative to patients with genitourinary malignancy. No Spanish-speaking patients engaged in a virtual visit. We did not identify differences in the insurance status or sex of patients scheduled for virtual visits. Conclusions: We found significant differences in virtual visit use by patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. Further investigation into implications of differential virtual visit use including social and structural determinants and subsequent clinical outcomes is indicated.

Exposure to US Cancer Drugs With Lack of Confirmed Benefit After US Food and Drug Administration Accelerated Approval.

This cross-sectional study evaluates patient exposure to oncology drugs withdrawn from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Accelerated Approval program.

Improving Diversity in Clinical Trials by Using Real-world Data to Define Eligibility Criteria.

This Viewpoint discusses the need for thoughtful, modernized eligibility criteria with equity prioritization in clinical trials.

Bladder only versus bladder plus pelvic lymph node chemoradiation for muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

BACKGROUND: Bladder-sparing chemoradiation therapy (CRT) is a definitive first-line treatment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. The optimal radiotherapy target volume, either bladder-only (BO) or bladder plus pelvic lymph nodes (BPN), remains unclear. METHODS: We identified 2,104 patients in the National Cancer Database with cT2-4N0M0 urothelial cell carcinoma of the bladder treated with CRT following maximal transurethral resection of bladder tumor from 2004 to 2016. The exposure of interest was BO vs. BPN treatment volume. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), compared between groups using Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox proportional hazards. Sensitivity analysis tested an interaction term for clinical T stage (T2 vs. T3-4) and radiation modality (3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy vs. intensity modulated radiotherapy or proton therapy). Annual use of BO vs. BPN from 2004 to 2016 was compared using Cochran-Armitage test. RESULTS: A total of 578 patients were treated with BO and 1,526 patients treated with BPN CRT. There was a significant increase in BPN use from 2004 to 2016 (66.9%-76.8%, P < 0.0001). With a median follow-up of 6.2 years, there was no survival difference between groups: 5- and 10-year OS 27.4% (95% CI 23.4%-31.4%) in the BO group vs. 31.9% (95% CI 29.3%-34.6%) in the BPN group, and 13.1% (95% CI 9.7%-17.1%) in the BO group vs. 13.2% (95% CI 10.6%-16.0%) in the BPN group, respectively (log-rank P = 0.10). On multivariable analysis, there was no significant association between BPN and OS (adjusted HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81-1.02, P = 0.09). On sensitivity analysis, we found no differential effect by T stage or radiation modality. CONCLUSION: Use of pelvic lymph node radiation has risen in the US but may not impact long-term survival outcomes for patients with node-negative muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). Optimizing radiation treatment volumes for CRT for MIBC will be important to study under prospective trials, such as the SWOG/NRG 1806.

Dynamic Cross-Task Representation Adaptation for Clinical Targets Co-Segmentation in CT Image-Guided Post-Prostatectomy Radiotherapy.

Adjuvant and salvage radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy requires precise delineations of prostate bed (PB), i.e., the clinical target volume, and surrounding organs at risk (OARs) to optimize radiotherapy planning. Segmenting PB is particularly challenging even for clinicians, e.g., from the planning computed tomography (CT) images, as it is an invisible/virtual target after the operative removal of the cancerous prostate gland. Very recently, a few deep learning-based methods have been proposed to automatically contour non-contrast PB by leveraging its spatial reliance on adjacent OARs (i.e., the bladder and rectum) with much more clear boundaries, mimicking the clinical workflow of experienced clinicians. Although achieving state-of-the-art results from both the clinical and technical aspects, these existing methods improperly ignore the gap between the hierarchical feature representations needed for segmenting those fundamentally different clinical targets (i.e., PB and OARs), which in turn limits their delineation accuracy. This paper proposes an asymmetric multi-task network integrating dynamic cross-task representation adaptation (i.e., DyAdapt) for accurate and efficient co-segmentation of PB and OARs in one-pass from CT images. In the learning-to-learn framework, the DyAdapt modules adaptively transfer the hierarchical feature representations from the source task of OARs segmentation to match up with the target (and more challenging) task of PB segmentation, conditioned on the dynamic inter-task associations learned from the learning states of the feed-forward path. On a real-patient dataset, our method led to state-of-the-art results of PB and OARs co-segmentation. Code is available at https://github.com/ladderlab-xjtu/DyAdapt.

Unsealed Source: Scope of Practice for Radiopharmaceuticals Among United States Radiation Oncologists.

Purpose: Our purpose was to determine the utilization of and barriers to implementation of radiopharmaceutical therapy (RPT) among U.S. radiation oncologists. Methods and Materials: An anonymous, voluntary 21-item survey directed toward attending radiation oncologists was distributed via social media platforms (Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, Student Doctor Network). Questions assessed practice characteristics, specific RPT prescribing patterns, RPT prescribing interest, and perceived barriers to RPT implementation. Nonparametric χ2 test was used for correlation statistics. Results: Of the 142 respondents, 131 (92.3%) practiced in the United States and were included for this analysis. Respondents were well balanced in terms of practicing region, population size served, practice setting, and years in practice. Forty-eight percent (n = 63) reported prescribing at least 1 RPT. An additional 7% (n = 8) participate in RPT administration without billing themselves. Among those that actively prescribed RPT, the mean cumulative cases per month was 4.2 (range, 1-5). The most commonly prescribed radionuclides were radium-223 (40%; mean 2.8 cases/mo), iodine-131 (18%; mean 2.3 cases/mo), yttrium-90 (13%; mean 3.4 cases/mo), "other" (8%), samarium-153 (6%; mean 1.0 cases/mo), and strontrium-89 and phosphorous-32 (2% each; mean 1.8 and 0.4 cases/mo, respectively). Of those who answered "other," lutetium-177 dotatate was most commonly prescribed (8%). No significant (P < .05) association was noted between practice type, practice location, years of practice, or practice volume with utilization of any RPTs. Most radiation oncologists (56%, n = 74) responded they would like to actively prescribe more RPT, although 27% (n = 35) were indifferent, and 17% (n = 22) said they would not like to prescribe more RPT. Perceived barriers to implementation were varied but broadly categorized into treatment infrastructure (44%, n = 57), interspecialty relations (41%, n = 53), lack of training (23%, n = 30), and financial considerations (16%, n = 21). Conclusions: Among surveyed U.S. radiation oncologists, a significant number reported prescribing at least 1 RPT. The majority expressed interest in prescribing additional RPT. Wide-ranging barriers to implementation exist, most commonly interspecialty relations, treatment infrastructure, lack of training, and financial considerations.

High Dose "HDR-Like" Prostate SBRT: PSA 10-Year Results From a Mature, Multi-Institutional Clinical Trial.

Purpose/Objectives: Although ample intermediate-term prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) outcomes have been reported, 10-year results remain relatively sparse. Materials/Methods: Eighteen institutions enrolled 259 low- and intermediate-risk patients. Median follow-up is 5.5 years, with 66 patients followed ≥ 10 years. This SBRT regimen specifically emulated an existing HDR brachytherapy dose schedule and isodose morphology, prescribed to 38 Gy/4 fractions, delivered daily by robotic SBRT, mandating > 150% dose escalation in the peripheral zone. Androgen deprivation therapy was not allowed, and a hydrogel spacer was not available at that time. Results: Median pre-SBRT PSA 5.12 ng/mL decreased to 0.1 ng/mL by 3.5 years, with further decrease to a nadir of < 0.1 ng/mL by 7 years, maintained through 10 years. Ten-year freedom from biochemical recurrence measured 100% for low-risk, 84.3% for favorable intermediate risk (FIR), and 68.4% for unfavorable intermediate (UIR) cases. Multivariable analysis revealed that the UIR group bifurcated into two distinct prognostic subgroups. Those so classified by having Gleason score 4 + 3 and/or clinical stage T2 (versus T1b/T1c) had a significantly poorer 10 year freedom from biochemical recurrence rate, 54.8% if either or both factors were present, while UIR patients without these specific factors had a 94.4% 10-year freedom from biochemical recurrence rate. The cumulative incidence of grade 2 GU toxicity modestly increased over time - 16.3% at 5 years increased to 19.2% at 10 years-- while the incidence of grade 3+ GU and GI toxicity remained low and stable to 10 years - 2.6% and 0%, respectively. The grade 2 GI toxicity incidence also remained low and stable to 10 years - 4.1% with no further events after year 5. Conclusion: This HDR-like SBRT regimen prescribing 38 Gy/4 fractions but delivering much higher intraprostatic doses on a daily basis is safe and effective. This treatment achieves a median PSA nadir of <0.1 ng/mL and provides high long-term disease control rates without ADT except for a subgroup of unfavorable intermediate-risk patients.

Real-world Use of Radiation for Newly Diagnosed Brain Metastases in Patients With ALK-positive Lung Cancer Receiving First-line ALK Inhibitor.

PURPOSE: Management paradigms now allow for systemic targeted drugs before central nervous system (CNS)-directed radiation therapy (RT) in selected asymptomatic patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and brain metastases (BM). We aimed to quantify how novel targeted agents with improved CNS activity, such as second-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitors (eg, alectinib), might affect the role of CNS-directed RT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This retrospective, observational, real-world, patterns-of-care study used a nationwide, electronic, health record-derived, de-identified, longitudinal database. A random sample of patients with ALK+ advanced NSCLC and BM on first-line ALK-inhibitor monotherapy between January 1, 2014 and August 31, 2019 were included. Using an index date of the first instance of BM, the outcome was brain-directed local treatment within 4 months. Trends over time were reported and tested using multivariable modified Poisson regression with robust error variance, including an indicator during or after 2017 (when alectinib was approved). RESULTS: Of the 352 included patients, 146 had BM. In addition, 104 patients received CNS-directed local therapy, and 42 did not. The majority of patients (89.4%) were treated with RT alone. Of those receiving RT, stereotactic radiosurgery monotherapy was the most common (53%), followed by whole brain RT alone (39%). On multivariable analysis, patients who had their first BM during or after 2017 had a decreased rate of receiving local BM treatment versus those before 2017 with an adjusted incidence rate ratio of 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-0.95; P = .026). We found no change in the proportion of BM treated with whole brain RT during or after 2017 versus before (adjusted incidence rate ratio: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.24-2.06; P = .517). CONCLUSIONS: We found decreasing use of CNS-directed RT in patients with NSCLC with new BM on first-line ALK inhibitors. Clinical outcomes for these patients require continued investigation, because physicians may become increasingly comfortable deferring upfront local therapy for BM in lieu of novel targeted agents with improved CNS activity.

Financial Toxicity as an End Point in Prospective Clinical Trials Involving Radiation Therapy.

Prior research, predominately retrospective, has increased awareness that patients with cancer are at elevated risk for financial toxicity (FT). Radiation therapy (RT) can be particularly disruptive due to weeks of daily treatments. Yet, FT in patients receiving RT is less studied, and the extent to which FT has been incorporated as an end point in prospective clinical trials involving RT is unknown. Clinicaltrials.gov was queried to identify all observational or interventional studies from 2001 to 2020 wherein RT was administered for cancer. Studies with primary, secondary, or exploratory FT end points were identified through keyword search. For trials incorporating FT outcomes, pertinent study characteristics were collected. Detailed information regarding FT measures was recorded. Descriptive statistics, including frequency counts and proportions, were performed. The overall rate of inclusion of FT end points was calculated, and rates over 5-year intervals were compared using the χ2 test (α = 0.05). Overall, 10,550 studies involving RT were identified, of which 88 reported FT end points (0.8%). Included FT end points were typically secondary (78%), with just 15 studies (17%), including primary end points. Notably, only 19 studies (22%) reported a standalone FT end point. The majority measured FT as part of a larger quality of life (QoL) questionnaire. The rate of inclusion of FT end points significantly increased over time from 0.1% from 2001 to 2005 to 1.5% from 2016 to 2020, (P < .0001). FT is a major stressor for patients with cancer, yet even after a relative increase over time, the absolute rate of inclusion of FT end points remains low among RT-based trials. When included, FT outcomes were typically a single question within a QoL assessment not validated as a standalone measure of FT, preventing meaningful study and inference. To characterize and mitigate this burden more accurately, future prospective studies should include FT end points with greater frequency.

List Prices for Proton Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: Some patients elect for self-pay proton radiation therapy (PT) in the United States, but price transparency is a significant concern. The U.S. government recently declared that hospitals must provide a comprehensive list of "standard" charges for all services. Yet, the proportion of compliant proton centers is unknown, as is the extent to which prices vary nationally. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We obtained online chargemasters from U.S. proton centers. Technical charges for per fraction delivery of PT of varying complexity were obtained by billing code (77520, 77522, 77523, 77525) and keyword searches. Prices were adjusted for cost-of-living differences using the Medicare geographic cost price index. The relationship between prices for each PT billing code and cost of living was assessed. The interrelationship in cost between codes was examined. The effect of geographic region and other key variables on pricing was explored. RESULTS: Thirty-six proton centers were identified. Twenty-eight (78%) had accessible chargemasters with 20 (56%) listing at least one PT charge. The median prices for billing codes 77520, 77522, 77523, 77525 were $4707, $4712, $5904, and $6690, respectively, with a trend toward greater cost for more complex therapy (77523, 77525; P = .056). Large ranges ($16,863, $16,059, $18,414, $22,143) resulted in ratios of maximum/minimum prices of 5 to 10x. Only prices for code 77522 were associated with cost of living (P = .039). Across institutions, prices for all 4 codes were positively interrelated (all P < .0001). Prices differed between regions (P < .0001) but not by National Cancer Institute designation. CONCLUSIONS: List prices for PT differ dramatically between institutions and regions without obvious explanation, raising the concerning possibility that such variation is largely arbitrary. Policy solutions that promote rationalized pricing would greatly benefit this patient population.

Demographics of ASTRO Student Members and Potential Implications for Future U.S. Radiation Oncology Workforce Diversity.

PURPOSE: The radiation oncology workforce in the United States is comparatively less diverse than the U.S. population and U.S. medical school graduates. Workforce diversity correlates with higher quality care and outcomes. The purpose of this study was to determine whether student members of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) are any more diverse than resident members-in-training using the recently established medical student membership category. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Self-reported sex, race and Hispanic ethnicity, medical school, and degree(s) earned for all medical students (n = 268) and members-in-training (n = 713) were collected from the ASTRO membership database. International members were excluded. The χ2 test was used to assess for differences between subgroups. RESULTS: Compared with members-in-training, student members were more likely to be female (40.0% vs 31.5%, P = .032), black or African American (10.7% vs 4.8%, P = .009), candidates for or holders of a DO rather than MD degree (5.2% vs 1.5%, P = .002), and from a U.S. medical school that is not affiliated with a radiation oncology residency program (30.5% vs 20.9%, P = .001). There was no significant difference in self-reported Hispanic ethnicity (7.3% vs 5.4%, P = .356). There were no indigenous members in either category assessed. CONCLUSIONS: Medical student members of ASTRO are more diverse in terms of black race, female sex, and osteopathic training, though not in terms of Hispanic ethnicity or nonmultiracial indigenous background, than the members-in-training. Longitudinal engagement with these students and assessment of the factors leading to specialty retention versus attrition may increase diversity, equity, and inclusion in radiation oncology.

Cost Comparison From a Patient Perspective for Intracranial Stereotactic Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: Historically, opaque health care pricing in the US has prevented patients from identifying opportunities to lower costs. Attempting to promote price transparency, the US government recently mandated that hospitals publish prices for all services in a document called a chargemaster. Patients often travel to tertiary centers for intracranial stereotactic radiation therapy (SRT), but cost comparison is complicated by multiple delivery systems and fractionation schemes. We hypothesized that prices published in chargemasters vary widely between SRT techniques and institutions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We obtained chargemasters published online by National Cancer Institute-designated clinical centers. Technical charges for Gamma Knife single-fraction stereotactic radiosurgery (GK), single-fraction linear-accelerator stereotactic radiation surgery (SRS), and 3-fraction fractionated stereotactic radiation therapy (FSRT) were obtained from chargemasters by billing code and keyword searches. Prices were adjusted by the Medicare geographic cost price index (GPCI). Pairwise comparisons were conducted to compare prices between modalities and geographic regions. Relationships with cost index were examined using Spearman correlations, as was the price interrelationship between modalities across institutions. RESULTS: Of 62 chargemasters obtained, 58 listed SRT prices. Median prices were $49,529 for GK, $31,834 for FSRT, and $22,915 for SRS. Prices varied widely, with large ranges corresponding to 2 to 9 times the magnitude of median prices (GK, $111,298; FSRT, $312,480; and SRS, $104,396). Adjusting for GPCI, GK (P = .0003) and FSRT (P = .001) were more expensive than SRS, and no difference in price was noted between regions. The FSRT price was positively correlated with GPCI (P = .033), but prices for the other techniques were not. Modality prices were all positively correlated (all P < .001), meaning that institutions with prices greater than the median price for SRS were similarly expensive for GK and FSRT. CONCLUSIONS: Published prices for SRT vary by delivery system, fractionation, and institution without a clear explanation. Obtaining personalized price estimates may offer cost savings for patients. Policy changes encouraging reliable access to insurer-negotiated cost estimates for SRT are needed.

Association of race with receipt of definitive therapy for high risk prostate cancer in older men.

OBJECTIVES: Black men are more likely to die of prostate cancer (PCa) than White men. Whether this difference is driven by biological versus sociodemographic and access to care differences is actively investigated. However, studies that have highlighted racial disparities in PCa outcomes have been poorly represented by elderly men, a notoriously undertreated group. Herein, we evaluated use of curative treatment between Black and White elderly men with aggressive PCa in a large US database. METHODS: Men ≥80 years diagnosed with National Comprehensive Cancer Network-defined high risk PCa between 2004 and 2016 were analyzed from the National Cancer Database. Multivariable logistic regression was used to model the effect of race and sociodemographic factors on receipt of definitive therapy (surgery or radiation +/- androgen deprivation therapy [ADT]) versus non-definitive therapy (ADT alone or observation) in inverse probability weighted groups matched for stage, prostate-specific antigen, and Gleason score. RESULTS: Between 2004 and 2016, utilization of definitive therapy with either surgery or radiation therapy increased in both White and Black men in the United States. However, we found that Black men compared with White men were significantly less likely to receive definitive therapy (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.64-0.79, p < .001). Using multivariable modeling, effect size diminished after adjusting for sociodemographic variables. Notably, there is evidence of the racial disparity narrowing over time. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight striking but improving racial disparities in elderly men with high risk PCa in the US, an overall undertreated population.