Racial inequity and other social disparities in the diagnosis and management of bladder cancer.

BACKGROUND: We investigate the impact of gender, race, and socioeconomic status on the diagnosis and management of bladder cancer in the United States. METHODS: We utilized the National Cancer Database to stratify cases of urothelial cell carcinoma of the bladder as early (Tis, Ta, T1), muscle invasive (T2-T3, N0), locally advanced (T4, N1-3), and metastatic. Multivariate binomial and multinomial logistic regression analyses identified demographic characteristics associated with stage at diagnosis and receipt of cancer-directed therapies. Odds ratios (OR) are reported with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: After exclusions, we identified 331,714 early, 72,154 muscle invasive, 15,579 locally advanced, and 15,161 metastatic cases from 2004-2016. Relative to diagnosis at early stage, the strongest independent predictors of diagnosis at muscle invasive, locally advanced, and metastatic disease included Black race (OR = 1.19 [1.15-1.23], OR = 1.49 [1.40-1.59], OR = 1.66 [1.56-1.76], respectively), female gender (OR = 1.21 [1.18-1.21], OR = 1.16 [1.12-1.20], and OR = 1.34 [1.29-1.38], respectively), and uninsured status (OR = 1.22 [1.15-1.29], OR = 2.09 [1.94-2.25], OR = 2.57 [2.39-2.75], respectively). Additional demographic factors associated with delayed diagnosis included older age, treatment at an academic center, Medicaid insurance and patients from lower income/less educated/more rural areas (all p < 0.01). Treatment at a non-academic center, older age, women, Hispanic and Black patients, lower income and rural areas were all less likely to receive cancer-directed therapies in early stage disease (all p < 0.01). Women, older patients, and Black patients remained less likely to receive treatment in muscle invasive, locally advanced, and metastatic disease (all p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Black race was the strongest independent predictor of delayed diagnosis and substandard treatment of bladder cancer.

Surveillance Mammography After Breast Conservation Therapy: Is Tomosynthesis Worth It?

INTRODUCTION: We investigated the downstream workup and costs associated with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) compared with 2-dimensional full field digital mammogram (FFDM) when employed as initial follow-up imaging in breast conservation therapy. METHODS: Between the years 2015 and 2017, 450 consecutive breast conservation therapy patients, ages 32 to 89, with a follow-up DBT (n=162) or FFDM (n=288) were retrospectively reviewed. The primary endpoints were further workup after follow-up mammogram and associated health care costs at 1 year. A single DBT costs an estimated $149 compared with $111 for FFDM, based on Centers for Medicare claims data from the Oncology Care Model. RESULTS: The first posttreatment mammogram was received within 3 (20%), 3 to 6 (32%), or after 6 months (48%) following radiation. Younger patients and those undergoing hypofractionated radiation were more likely to get DBT. There were no differences in stage, receptor status, or mammogram timing between those in the FFDM and DBT groups.The following downstream workup ensued for DBT compared with FFDM imaging: 18% versus 29% short-interval (6-mo) mammogram (odds ratio=1.83, P=0.01), 6% versus 11% breast magnetic resonance imaging (odds ratio=1.90, P=0.08), 4% ultrasound for each, and 3% biopsy for each (1 positive in the FFDM group). Including downstream workup, the estimated cost per patient in the DBT group was $216.14 compared with $237.83 in the FFDM group. Independent predictors for reduced downstream workup per multivariable analysis were the use of DBT and first follow-up mammogram at least 6 months after radiation (P<0.05). DISCUSSION: Excess workup was reduced with DBT compared with FFDM in the posttreatment setting, which translated to an improvement in cost efficiency in this study.

Determining the impact of pre-radiation treatment verification simulation/dry run by analyzing intradepartmental reported incidents and surveying staff and patients.

PURPOSE: Error identification in radiation therapy is critical to maintain a safe and efficient therapeutic environment. A verification simulation (VS; also called a dry run for patient information) provides a dedicated time prior to treatment to duplicate steps of patient setup, imaging, and treatment process as a final quality assurance step. Through the use of surveys and analysis of reported incidents, we sought to determine the value of a VS before initiating patient treatment. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In November 2014, a VS was instituted across our network of 11 radiation oncology clinics. A comparison of the incident rate reported through our departmental incident learning system (ILS) was made between a non-VS group (965 patients who were treated in the 18 months prior to instituting the VS) and a VS group (984 patients who were treated over 18 months with the VS policy in place). From August to December 2016, surveys were completed by 211 patients and 55 physicians, nurses, and therapists detailing their perspectives on the VS. RESULTS: There were 28 incidents (2.9%) in the non-VS group compared with 18 incidents (1.8%) in the VS group (P = .03). In the VS group, more incidents were detected before the day of treatment (P = .03) and fewer incidents on the day of treatment (P = .02). In addition, a trend toward fewer incidents after treatment started (P = .09) was observed. Patient surveys indicated that 99.5% of patients were informed of the VS, 83% reported decreased anxiety during treatment, and 5% indicated concerns about delaying treatment. The majority of staff members (67%) were satisfied with the VS. CONCLUSIONS: A VS helps identify and correct incidents before the administration of radiation therapy and reduces patient anxiety.

Comparison of Ray Tracing and Monte Carlo Calculation Algorithms for Thoracic Spine Lesions Treated With CyberKnife-Based Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is an emerging technology for the treatment of spinal metastases, although the dosimetric impact of the calculation method on spinal dose distribution is unknown. This study attempts to determine whether CyberKnife (CK)-based SBRT using a Ray Tracing (RyTc) algorithm is comparable dosimetrically to that of Monte Carlo (MC) for thoracic spinal lesions. Our institutional CK-based SBRT database for thoracic spinal lesions was queried and a cohort was generated. Patients were planned using RyTc and MC algorithms using the same beam angles and monitor units. Dose-volume histograms of the planning target volume (PTV), spinal cord, esophagus, and skin were generated, and dosimetric parameters were compared. There were 37 patients in the cohort. The average percentage volume of PTV covered by the prescribed dose with RyTc and MC algorithms was 91.1% and 80.4%, respectively (P < .001). The difference in average maximum spinal cord dose between RyTc and MC plans was significant (1126 vs 1084 cGy, P = .004), with the MC dose ranging from 18.7% below to 13.8% above the corresponding RyTc dose. A small reduction in maximum skin dose was also noted (P = .017), although no difference was seen in maximum esophageal dose (P = .15). Only PTVs smaller than 27 cm(3) were found to correlate with large (>10%) changes in dose to 90% of the volume (P = .014), while no correlates with the average percentage volume of PTV covered by the prescribed dose were demonstrated. For thoracic spinal CK-based SBRT, RyTc computation may overestimate the MC calculated average percentage volume of PTV covered by the prescribed dose and have unpredictable effects on doses to organs at risk, particularly the spinal cord. In this setting, use of RyTc optimization should be limited and always verified with MC.