Real-World Use of Hypofractionated Radiotherapy for Primary CNS Tumors in the Elderly, and Implications on Medicare Spending.

BACKGROUND: For elderly patients with high-grade gliomas, 3-week hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT) is noninferior to standard long-course radiotherapy (LCRT). We analyzed real-world utilization of HFRT with and without systemic therapy in Medicare beneficiaries treated with RT for primary central nervous system (CNS) tumors using Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data. METHODS: Radiation modality, year, age (65-74, 75-84, or ≥85 years), and site of care (freestanding vs hospital-affiliated) were evaluated. Utilization of HFRT (11-20 fractions) versus LCRT (21-30 or 31-40 fractions) and systemic therapy was evaluated by multivariable logistic regression. Medicare spending over the 90-day episode after RT planning initiation was analyzed using multivariable linear regression. RESULTS: From 2015 to 2019, a total of 10,702 RT courses (ie, episodes) were included (28% HFRT; 65% of patients aged 65-74 years). A considerable minority died within 90 days of RT planning initiation (n=1,251; 12%), and 765 (61%) of those received HFRT. HFRT utilization increased (24% in 2015 to 31% in 2019; odds ratio [OR], 1.2 per year; 95% CI, 1.1-1.2) and was associated with older age (≥85 vs 65-74 years; OR, 6.8; 95% CI, 5.5-8.4), death within 90 days of RT planning initiation (OR, 5.0; 95% CI, 4.4-5.8), hospital-affiliated sites (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.3-1.6), conventional external-beam RT (vs intensity-modulated RT; OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 2.3-3.1), and no systemic therapy (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.3; P<.001 for all). Increasing use of HFRT was concentrated in hospital-affiliated sites (P=.002 for interaction). Most patients (69%) received systemic therapy with no differences by site of care (P=.12). Systemic therapy utilization increased (67% in 2015 to 71% in 2019; OR, 1.1 per year; 95% CI, 1.0-1.1) and was less likely for older patients, patients who died within 90 days of RT planning initiation, those who received conventional external-beam RT, and those who received HFRT. HFRT significantly reduced spending compared with LCRT (adjusted ß for LCRT = +$8,649; 95% CI, $8,544-$8,755), whereas spending modestly increased with systemic therapy (adjusted ß for systemic therapy = +$270; 95% CI, $176-$365). CONCLUSIONS: Although most Medicare beneficiaries received LCRT for primary brain tumors, HFRT utilization increased in hospital-affiliated centers. Despite high-level evidence for elderly patients, discrepancy in HFRT implementation by site of care persists. Further investigation is needed to understand why patients with short survival may still receive LCRT, because this has major quality-of-life and Medicare spending implications.

Trends in Use of and Medicare Spending on Short-Course Radiotherapy for Lymphomas From 2015 to 2019.

This cross-sectional study uses Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services payment data to examine use of short-course radiotherapy from 2015 to 2019 among Medicare beneficiaries with indolent lymphoma.

Financial toxicity associated with treatment of localized prostate cancer.

Financial toxicity is a broad term to describe the economic consequences and subjective burden resulting from a cancer diagnosis and treatment. As financial toxicity is associated with poor disease outcomes, recognition of this problem and calls for strategies to identify and support those most at risk are increasing. Men with localized prostate cancer face treatment choices including active surveillance, prostatectomy or radiotherapy. The fact that potential patient out-of-pocket costs might influence decision making has rarely been acknowledged and, overall, the risk of financial toxicity for men with localized prostate cancer remains poorly studied. This shortfall requires a work-up in the context of prostate cancer and a multidimensional framework for considering a patient's risk of financial toxicity. The major elements of this framework are direct and indirect costs, patient-specific values, expectations of possible financial burdens, and individual economic circumstances. Current data indicate that total cost patterns probably differ by treatment modality: surgery might have an increased short-term effect, whereas radiotherapy might have an increased long-term risk of financial toxicity. Specific thresholds of patient income levels or out-of-pocket costs that predict risk of financial toxicity are difficult to identify. Compared with other malignancies, prostate cancer might have a lower overall risk of financial toxicity, but persistent post-treatment urinary, bowel or sexual adverse effects are likely to increase this risk.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Surgical versus Medical Treatment of Prolactinomas.

Background Few studies address the cost of treating prolactinomas. We performed a cost-utility analysis of surgical versus medical treatment for prolactinomas. Materials and Methods We determined total hospital costs for surgically and medically treated prolactinoma patients. Decision-tree analysis was performed to determine which treatment produced the highest quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Outcome data were derived from published studies. Results Average total costs for surgical patients were $19,224 ( ± 18,920). Average cost for the first year of bromocriptine or cabergoline treatment was $3,935 and $6,042, with $2,622 and $4,729 for each additional treatment year. For a patient diagnosed with prolactinoma at 40 years of age, surgery has the lowest lifetime cost ($40,473), followed by bromocriptine ($41,601) and cabergoline ($70,696). Surgery also appears to generate high health state utility and thus more QALYs. In sensitivity analyses, surgery appears to be a cost-effective treatment option for prolactinomas across a range of ages, medical/surgical costs, and medical/surgical response rates, except when surgical cure rates are ≤ 30%. Conclusion Our single institution analysis suggests that surgery may be a more cost-effective treatment for prolactinomas than medical management for a range of patient ages, costs, and response rates. Direct empirical comparison of QALYs for different treatment strategies is needed to confirm these findings.