Overcoming Barriers to Radiation Oncology Access in Low-Resource Settings in the United States.

Providing high-quality radiation therapy in medically underserved, low-resource environments can be challenging in the United States. During the American Society of Radiation Oncology 2020 Annual Meeting, the American Society for Radiation Oncology Committee on Health Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion hosted 4 radiation oncologists from both academic and community practices in an educational session. Speakers discussed creative ways to overcome barriers to equitable cancer care and outcomes for their vulnerable patient populations in both rural and urban settings. Successful tactics have included applying for state-sponsored grants, lobbying hospital leadership for equipment upgrades, implementing quality improvement programs specifically targeting the needs of the patient population, studying novel hypofractionation schedules, monitoring toxicities using wearable devices, and expanding transportation options.

Cost-Effectiveness of Adjuvant Treatment for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ.

PURPOSE: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) accounts for 20% of breast cancer cases in the United States and is potentially overtreated, leading to high expenditures and low-value care. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis evaluating all adjuvant treatment strategies for DCIS. METHODS: A Markov model was created with six competing treatment strategies: observation, tamoxifen (TAM) alone, aromatase inhibitor (AI) alone, radiation treatment (RT) alone, RT + TAM, and RT + AI. Baseline recurrence rates were modeled using the NSABP B17 and RTOG 9804 trials for standard-risk and good-risk DCIS, respectively. Relative risk reductions and adverse event rates for each treatment strategy were derived from meta-analyses of large randomized trials. We used a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 in US dollars/quality-adjusted life-year and a lifetime horizon for two cohorts of women, age 40 and 60 years. Comprehensive sensitivity analyses evaluated the robustness of base-case results. RESULTS: RT alone was cost-effective for patients with standard-risk DCIS, and observation was cost-effective for patients with good-risk DCIS, across both age groups. Strategies including TAM or AI resulted in fewer quality-adjusted life-years than observation, because of the prolonged decrement in quality of life outweighing the modest benefit in ipsilateral risk reduction. In sensitivity analysis, RT alone was cost-effective for age 40, good-risk patients when ipsilateral risk reduction matched that of the RTOG 9804 trial, there was minimal increased risk of contralateral breast secondary malignancy, or there was strong patient willingness to pursue RT. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that cost-effective and clinically optimal treatment strategies are RT alone for standard-risk DCIS and observation for good-risk DCIS, with personalization on the basis of patient age and preference for RT. Hormonal therapy is likely suboptimal for most patients with DCIS.

Proton Therapy for Breast Cancer: A Consensus Statement From the Particle Therapy Cooperative Group Breast Cancer Subcommittee.

Radiation therapy plays an important role in the multidisciplinary management of breast cancer. Recent years have seen improvements in breast cancer survival and a greater appreciation of potential long-term morbidity associated with the dose and volume of irradiated organs. Proton therapy reduces the dose to nontarget structures while optimizing target coverage. However, there remain additional financial costs associated with proton therapy, despite reductions over time, and studies have yet to demonstrate that protons improve upon the treatment outcomes achieved with photon radiation therapy. There remains considerable heterogeneity in proton patient selection and techniques, and the rapid technological advances in the field have the potential to affect evidence evaluation, given the long latency period for breast cancer radiation therapy recurrence and late effects. In this consensus statement, we assess the data available to the radiation oncology community of proton therapy for breast cancer, provide expert consensus recommendations on indications and technique, and highlight ongoing trials' cost-effectiveness analyses and key areas for future research.

Insurance Approval for Proton Beam Therapy and its Impact on Delays in Treatment.

PURPOSE: Prior authorization (PA) has been widely implemented for proton beam therapy (PBT). We sought to determine the association between PA determination and patient characteristics, practice guidelines, and potential treatment delays. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A single-institution retrospective analysis was performed of all patients considered for PBT between 2015 and 2018 at a National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. Differences in treatment start times and denial rates over time were compared, and multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of initial denial. RESULTS: A total of 444 patients were considered for PBT, including 396 adult and 48 pediatric patients. The American Society for Radiation Oncology model policy supported PBT coverage for 77% of the cohort. Of adult patients requiring PA, 64% were initially denied and 32% remained denied after appeal. In patients considered for reirradiation or randomized phase 3 trial enrollment, initial denial rates were 57% and 64%, respectively. Insurance coverage was not related to diagnosis, reirradiation, trial enrollment, or the American Society for Radiation Oncology model policy guidelines, but it was related to insurance category on multivariable analysis (P < .001). Over a 3-year timespan, initial denial rates increased from 55% to 74% (P = .034). PA delayed treatment start by an average of 3 weeks (and up to 4 months) for those requiring appeal (P < .001) and resulted in 19% of denied patients abandoning radiation treatment altogether. Of pediatric patients, 9% were initially denied, all of whom were approved after appeal, and PA requirement did not delay treatment start (P = .47). CONCLUSIONS: PA requirements in adults represent a significant burden in initiating PBT and cause significant delays in patient care. Insurance approval is arbitrary and has become more restrictive over time, discordant with national clinical practice guidelines. Payors and providers should seek to streamline coverage policies in alignment with established guidelines to ensure appropriate and timely patient care.

Nation-Scale Adoption of Shorter Breast Radiation Therapy Schedules Can Increase Survival in Resource Constrained Economies: Results From a Markov Chain Analysis.

PURPOSE: Hypofractionated whole breast irradiation and accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) offer women options for shorter courses of breast radiation therapy. The impact of these shorter schedules on the breast cancer populations of emerging economies with limited radiation therapy resources is unknown. We hypothesized that adoption of these schedules would improve throughput in the system and, by allowing more women access to life-saving treatments, improve patient survival within the system. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We designed a Markov chain model to simulate the different health states that a postlumpectomy or postmastectomy patient could enter over the course of a 20-year follow-up period. Transition rates between health states were adapted from published data on recurrence rates. We used primary data from a tertiary care hospital in Lahore, Pakistan, to populate the model with proportional use of mastectomy versus breast conservation and to estimate the proportion of patients suitable for APBI. Sensitivity analyses on the use of APBI and relative efficacy of APBI were conducted to study the impact on the population. RESULTS: The shorter schedule resulted in more women alive and more women remaining without evidence of disease (NED) compared with the conventional schedule, with an absolute difference of about 4% and 7% at 15 years, respectively. Among women who had lumpectomies, the chance of remaining alive and with an intact breast was 62% in the hypofractionation model and 54% in the conventional fractionation model. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing throughput in the system can result in improved survival, improved chances of remaining without evidence of disease, and improved chances of remaining alive with a breast. These findings are significant and suggest that adoption of hypofractionation in emerging economies is not simply a question of efficiency and cost but one of access to care and patient survivorship.

Supply and Demand for Radiation Oncology in the United States: Updated Projections for 2015 to 2025.

PURPOSE: Prior studies have forecasted demand for radiation therapy to grow 10 times faster than the supply between 2010 and 2020. We updated these projections for 2015 to 2025 to determine whether this imbalance persists and to assess the accuracy of prior projections. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The demand for radiation therapy between 2015 and 2025 was estimated by combining current radiation utilization rates determined by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data with population projections provided by the US Census Bureau. The supply of radiation oncologists was forecast by using workforce demographics and full-time equivalent (FTE) status provided by the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), current resident class sizes, and expected survival per life tables from the US Centers for Disease Control. RESULTS: Between 2015 and 2025, the annual total number of patients receiving radiation therapy during their initial treatment course is expected to increase by 19%, from 490,000 to 580,000. Assuming a graduating resident class size of 200, the number of FTE physicians is expected to increase by 27%, from 3903 to 4965. In comparison with prior projections, the new projected demand for radiation therapy in 2020 dropped by 24,000 cases (a 4% relative decline). This decrease is attributable to an overall reduction in the use of radiation to treat cancer, from 28% of all newly diagnosed cancers in the prior projections down to 26% for the new projections. By contrast, the new projected supply of radiation oncologists in 2020 increased by 275 FTEs in comparison with the prior projection for 2020 (a 7% relative increase), attributable to rising residency class sizes. CONCLUSION: The supply of radiation oncologists is expected to grow more quickly than the demand for radiation therapy from 2015 to 2025. Further research is needed to determine whether this is an appropriate correction or will result in excess capacity.

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.

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.

Factors that determine academic versus private practice career interest in radiation oncology residents in the United States: results of a nationwide survey.

PURPOSE: To determine what factors US radiation oncology residents consider when choosing academic or nonacademic careers. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A 20-question online survey was developed and sent to all US radiation oncology residents to assess factors that influence their career interest. Residents were asked to rate their interest in academics (A) versus private practice (PP) on a 0 (strong interest in A) to 100 (strong interest in PP) scale. Responses were classified as A (0-30), undecided (40-60), and PP (70-100). Residents were also asked to rank 10 factors that most strongly influenced their career interest. RESULTS: Three hundred thirty-one responses were collected, of which 264 were complete and form the basis for this analysis. Factors that correlated with interest in A included having a PhD (P=.018), postgraduate year level (P=.0006), research elective time (P=.0003), obtaining grant funding during residency (P=.012), and number of publications before residency (P=.0001), but not number of abstracts accepted in the past year (P=.65) or publications during residency (P=.67). The 3 most influential factors for residents interested in A were: (1) baseline interest before residency; (2) academic role models; and (3) research opportunities during residency. The 3 most influential factors for residents interested in PP were: (1) baseline interest before residency; (2) academic role models; and (3) academic pressure and obligations. CONCLUSIONS: Interest in A correlated with postgraduate year level, degree, and research time during residency. Publications before but not during residency correlated with academic interest, and baseline interest was the most influential factor. These data can be used by residency program directors to better understand what influences residents' career interest.

A profile of academic training program directors and chairs in radiation oncology.

PURPOSE: To identify objective characteristics and benchmarks for program leadership in academic radiation oncology. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A study of the 87 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education radiation oncology training program directors (PD) and their chairs was performed. Variables included age, gender, original training department, highest degree, rank, endowed chair assignment, National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, and Hirsch index (H-index). Data were gathered from online sources such as departmental websites, NIH RePORTER, and Scopus. RESULTS: There were a total of 87 PD. The median age was 48, and 14 (16%) were MD/PhD. A total of 21 (24%) were female, and rank was relatively equally distributed above instructor. Of the 26 professors, at least 7 (27%) were female. At least 24 (28%) were working at the institution from which they had received their training. A total of 6 individuals held endowed chairs. Only 2 PD had active NIH funding in 2012. The median H-index was 12 (range, 0-51) but the index dropped to 9 (range, 0-38) when those who served as both PD and chair were removed from the group. A total of 76 chairs were identified at the time of the study. The median age was 55, and 9 (12%) were MD/PhD. A total of 7 (9%) of the chairs were female, and rank was professor for all with the exception of 1 who was listed as "Head" and was an associate professor. Of the 76 chairs, at least 10 (13%) were working at the institution from which they received their training. There were a total of 21 individuals with endowed chairs. A total of 13 (17%) had NIH funding in 2012. The median H-index was 29 (range, 3-60). CONCLUSIONS: These data provide benchmarks for individuals and departments evaluating leadership positions in the field of academic radiation oncology. Such data are useful for evaluating leadership trends over time and comparing academic radiation oncology with other specialties.

Geographic analysis of the radiation oncology workforce.

PURPOSE: To evaluate trends in the geographic distribution of the radiation oncology (RO) workforce. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We used the 1995 and 2007 versions of the Area Resource File to map the ratio of RO to the population aged 65 years or older (ROR) within different health service areas (HSA) within the United States. We used regression analysis to find associations between population variables and 2007 ROR. We calculated Gini coefficients for ROR to assess the evenness of RO distribution and compared that with primary care physicians and total physicians. RESULTS: There was a 24% increase in the RO workforce from 1995 to 2007. The overall growth in the RO workforce was less than that of primary care or the overall physician workforce. The mean ROR among HSAs increased by more than one radiation oncologist per 100,000 people aged 65 years or older, from 5.08 per 100,000 to 6.16 per 100,000. However, there remained consistent geographic variability concerning RO distribution, specifically affecting the non-metropolitan HSAs. Regression analysis found higher ROR in HSAs that possessed higher education (p = 0.001), higher income (p < 0.001), lower unemployment rates (p < 0.001), and higher minority population (p = 0.022). Gini coefficients showed RO distribution less even than for both primary care physicians and total physicians (0.326 compared with 0.196 and 0.292, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a modest growth in the RO workforce, there exists persistent geographic maldistribution of radiation oncologists allocated along socioeconomic and racial lines. To solve problems surrounding the RO workforce, issues concerning both gross numbers and geographic distribution must be addressed.

Brachytherapy for accelerated partial-breast irradiation: a rapidly emerging technology in breast cancer care.

PURPOSE: Brachytherapy is a method for delivering partial-breast irradiation after breast-conserving surgery (BCS). It is currently used in the community setting, although its efficacy has yet to be validated in prospective comparative trials. Frequency and factors influencing use have not been previously identified. METHODS: In a nationwide database of 6,882 Medicare beneficiaries (age ≥ 65 years) with private supplemental insurance (MarketScan Medicare Supplemental), claims codes identified patients treated with brachytherapy versus external-beam radiation after BCS for incident breast cancer (diagnosed from 2001 to 2006). Logistic regression modeled predictors of brachytherapy use. RESULTS: Frequency of brachytherapy use as an alternative to external-beam radiation after BCS increased over time (< 1% in 2001, 2% in 2002, 3% in 2003, 5% in 2004, 8% in 2005, 10% in 2006; P < .001). Increased use correlated temporally with US Food and Drug Administration approval and Medicare reimbursement of brachytherapy technology. Brachytherapy use was more likely in women with lymph node-negative disease (odds ratio [OR], 2.19; 95% CI, 1.17 to 4.11) or axillary surgery (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.23 to 2.44). Brachytherapy use was also more likely in women with non-health maintenance organization insurance (OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.24 to 2.64) and in areas with higher median income (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.05 to 2.38), lower density of radiation oncologists (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.11 to 2.86), or higher density of surgeons (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.07 to 2.31). CONCLUSION: Despite ongoing questions regarding efficacy, breast brachytherapy was rapidly incorporated into the care of older, insured patients. In our era of frequently emerging novel technologies yet growing demands to optimize costs and outcomes, results provide insight into how clinical, policy, and socioeconomic factors influence new technology diffusion into conventional care.

The future of radiation oncology in the United States from 2010 to 2020: will supply keep pace with demand?

PURPOSE: Prior studies forecasted an incipient shortage of medical oncologists as a result of the aging US population, but the radiation oncology workforce has not been studied. Accordingly, we projected demand for radiation therapy and supply of radiation oncologists in 2010 and 2020 to determine whether a similar shortage may exist for this specialty. METHODS: Demand for radiation therapy in 2010 and 2020 was estimated by multiplying current radiation utilization rates (as calculated with Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data) by population projections from the Census Bureau. Supply of radiation oncologists was projected using data from the American Board of Radiology inclusive of current radiation oncologists and active residents, accounting for variation in full-time equivalent status and expected survival by age and sex. RESULTS: Between 2010 and 2020, the total number of patients receiving radiation therapy during their initial treatment course is expected to increase by 22%, from 470,000 per year to 575,000 per year. In contrast, assuming that the current graduation rate of 140 residents per year remains constant, the number of full-time equivalent radiation oncologists is expected to increase by only 2%, from 3,943 to 4,022. The size of residency training classes for the years 2014 to 2019 would have to double to 280 residents per year in order for growth in supply of radiation oncologists to equal expected growth in demand. CONCLUSION: Demand for radiation therapy is expected to grow 10 times faster than supply between 2010 and 2020. Research is needed to explore strategies to enhance capacity to deliver quality radiation therapy despite increased patient loads.

Effectiveness of radiation therapy for older women with early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Recent clinical trials have questioned the necessity of breast radiation therapy for older women with early breast cancer. However, the effectiveness of radiation therapy for older women in the community setting has not been addressed. METHODS: We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database from January 1, 1992, through December 31, 1999, to identify 8724 women aged 70 years or older treated with conservative surgery for small, lymph node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive (or unknown receptor status) breast cancer. We used a proportional hazards model to test whether radiation therapy was associated with a lower risk of a combined outcome, defined as a second ipsilateral breast cancer reported by SEER and/or a subsequent mastectomy reported by Medicare claims. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Radiation therapy, compared with no radiation therapy, was associated with a lower risk of the combined outcome (hazard ratio = 0.19, 95% confidence interval = 0.14 to 0.28). Radiation therapy was associated with an absolute risk reduction of 4.0 events per 100 women at 5 years (i.e., from 5.1 events without radiation therapy to 1.1 with radiation therapy) and 5.7 events per 100 persons at 8 years (i.e., from 8.0 events without radiation therapy to 2.3 with radiation therapy) (P < .001, log-rank test). Radiation therapy was most likely to benefit those aged 70-79 years without comorbidity (number needed to treat [NNT] to prevent one event = 21 to 22 patients) and was least likely to benefit those aged 80 years or older with moderate to severe comorbidity (NNT = 61 to 125 patients). CONCLUSION: For older women with early breast cancer, radiation therapy was associated with a lower risk of a second ipsilateral breast cancer and subsequent mastectomy. Patients aged 70-79 years with minimal comorbidity were the most likely to benefit, and older patients with substantial comorbidity were least likely to benefit.

Radiation oncology career decision variables for graduating trainees seeking positions in 2003-2004.

PURPOSE: Radiation oncology trainees must consider an array of variables when deciding upon an academic or private practice career path. This prospective evaluation of the 2004 graduating radiation oncology trainees, evaluates such variables and provides additional descriptive data. METHODS: A survey that included 15 questions (one subjective, eleven categorical, and 3 continuous variables) was mailed to the 144 graduating radiation oncology trainees in United States programs in January of 2004. Questions were designed to gather information regarding factors that may have influenced career path choices. The responses were anonymous, and no identifying information was sought. Survey data were collated and analyzed for differences in both categorical and continuous variables as they related to choice of academic or private practice career path. RESULTS: Sixty seven (47%) of the surveys were returned. Forty-five percent of respondents indicated pursuit of an academic career. All respondents participated in research during training with 73% participating in research publication authorship. Post graduate year-3 was the median in which career path was chosen, and 20% thought that a fellowship position was "perhaps" necessary to secure an academic position. Thirty percent of the respondents revealed that the timing of the American Board of Radiology examination influenced their career path decision. Eighteen variables were offered as possibly influencing career path choice within the survey, and the top five identified by those seeking an academic path were: (1) colleagues, (2) clinical research, (3) teaching, (4) geography, (5) and support staff. For those seeking private practice, the top choices were: (1) lifestyle, (2) practice environment, (3) patient care, (4) geography, (5) colleagues. Female gender (p = 0.064), oral meeting presentation (p = 0.053), and international meeting presentation (p = 0.066) were the variables most significantly associated with pursuing an academic career path. The following variables were ranked significantly differently in hierarchy (p < 0.05) by those seeking an academic versus private practice path with respect to having influence on the career decision: lifestyle, income, case-mix, autonomy, ability to sub-specialize, basic research, clinical research, teaching, patient care, board structure, practice environment, and mentoring. CONCLUSION: These data offer descriptive information regarding variables that lead to radiation oncology trainee career path decisions. Such information may be of use in modification of training programs to meet future personnel and programmatic needs within the specialty.