Evaluating the Impact of Race and Ethnicity on Health-Related Quality of Life Disparities in Patients with Esophageal Cancer: A SEER-MHOS National Database Study.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether health-related quality of life (HRQOL) disparities exist between racial/ethnic groups in older patients with esophageal cancer, pre- and post-diagnosis. METHODS: Using the SEER-MHOS (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results and Medicare Health Outcomes Survey) national database, we included patients ages 65-years-old or greater with esophageal cancer diagnosed from 1996 to 2017. HRQOL data within 36 months before and after diagnosis were measured by the Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores from the SF-36 and VR-12 instruments. Total combined score (TCS) was reflected by both PCS and MCS. RESULTS: We identified 1,312 patients, with evaluable data on 873 patients pre-diagnosis and 439 post-diagnosis. On pre-diagnosis cohort MVA, the MCS was better for White over Hispanic patients (54.1 vs. 48.6, P = 0.012). On post-diagnosis cohort MVA, PCS was better for Hispanic compared with White (39.8 vs. 34.5, P = 0.036) patients, MCS was better for Asian compared with White (48.9 vs. 40.9, P = 0.034) patients, and TCS better for Asian compared with White (92.6 vs. 76.7, P = 0.003) patients. CONCLUSIONS: In older patients with esophageal cancer, White patients had better mental HRQOL as compared with Hispanic patients pre-diagnosis. However, post-diagnosis, White patients had worse mental and physical HRQOL compared with Asian and Hispanic patients, respectively, suggesting a greater negative impact on self-reported HRQOL in White patients with esophageal cancer. IMPACT: To our knowledge, this study is the first to explore HRQOL differences in patients with esophageal cancer of various racial and ethnic groups and warrants further validation in future studies.

MRI-Guided Radiation Therapy-An Emerging and Disruptive Process of Care: Healthcare Economic and Policy Considerations.

MRI-guided radiation therapy (MRgRT) is an emerging, innovative technology that provides opportunities to transform and improve the current clinical care process in radiation oncology. As with many new technologies in radiation oncology, careful evaluation from a healthcare economic and policy perspective is required for its successful implementation. In this review article, we describe the current evidence surrounding MRgRT, framing it within the context of value within the healthcare system. Additionally, we highlight areas in which MRgRT may disrupt the current process of care, and discuss the evidence thresholds and timeline required for the widespread adoption of this promising technology.

Assessment of Differences in Academic Rank and Compensation by Gender and Race/Ethnicity Among Academic Radiation Oncologists in the United States.

Purpose: Advancing equity, diversity, and inclusion in the physician workforce is essential to providing high-quality and culturally responsive patient care and has been shown to improve patient outcomes. To better characterize equity in the field of radiation oncology, we sought to describe the current academic radiation oncology workforce, including any contemporary differences in compensation and rank by gender and race/ethnicity. Methods and Materials: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the Society of Chairs of Academic Radiation Oncology Programs (SCAROP) 2018 Financial Survey. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with associate or full professor rank. Compensation was compared by gender and race/ethnicity overall and stratified by rank and was further analyzed using multivariable linear regression models. Results: Of the 858 academic radiation oncologists from 63 departments in the United States in the sample, 33.2% were female, 65.2% were White, 27.2% were Asian, and 7.6% were underrepresented in medicine (URiM). There were 44.0% assistant professors, 32.0% associate professors, and 22.8% full professors. Multivariable logistic regression analysis for factors associated with associate or full professor rank did not reveal statistically significant associations between gender or race/ethnicity with academic rank (odds ratio [OR], 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-1.32; P = .48 for gender; OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.5-1.30; P = .37 for Asian vs White; and OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.31-1.55; P = .37 for URiM vs White), but CIs were wide due to sample size, and point estimates were <1. Similarly, multivariable linear regression analysis modeling the log relative total compensation did not detect statistically significant differences between radiation oncologists by gender (-1.7%; 95% CI, -6.8% to 3.4%; P = .51 for female vs male) or race/ethnicity (-1.6%; 95% CI, -7.3% to 4.0%; P = .57 for Asian vs White and -3.0%; 95% CI, -12.1% to 6.0%; P = .51 for URiM vs White). Conclusions: The low numbers of women and faculty with URiM race/ethnicity in this radiation oncology faculty sample limits the ability to compare career trajectory and compensation by those characteristics. Given that point estimates were <1, our findings do not contradict larger multispecialty studies that suggest an ongoing need to monitor equity.

Race-dependent association of clinical trial participation with improved outcomes for high-risk prostate cancer patients treated in the modern era.

It is unclear whether cancer patients enrolled in clinical trials have improved outcomes compared with non-study patients. We compared prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) in patients in a real-world setting (SEER-Medicare database) versus on a trial (NRG/RTOG 0521). The 7-year freedom from PCSM was superior in trial patients (92.4% vs. 88.1%, sHR = 1.77 [95% CI 1.05-2.97], P = 0.03). Black trial patients had significantly superior freedom from PCSM than Black real-world patients (sHR 6.52, 95% CI 1.43-29.72, P = 0.02), which was not seen among non-Black patients. Trial patients may have improved outcomes, and racial disparities are accentuated in the real world.

Impact of Prediagnosis Risk of Major Depressive Disorder and Health-Related Quality of Life on Treatment Choice for Stage II-III Rectal Cancer.

PURPOSE: We hypothesized that depressive symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) reported by patients before their cancer diagnoses would be associated with treatment choice for stage II and III rectal cancer, specifically whether patients underwent surgery. METHODS: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results and Medicare Health Outcomes Survey linked data set was used to identify patients with stage II-III rectal adenocarcinoma diagnosed between 2004 and 2013 who had completed the health outcomes survey within 36 months before their cancer diagnoses. Risk for major depressive disorder (MDD) was determined on the basis of responses to screening questions for depressive disorders. HRQOL was assessed using the Mental Component Summary and Physical Component Summary of the 36-Item Short Form Survey and Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey. Using univariable and multivariable analyses, we assessed for associations between health survey responses and ultimate treatment modality. RESULTS: We identified 142 evaluable patients, of whom 109 (76.8%) underwent surgery. Thirty patients (21.1%) met criteria for being at risk for MDD before their cancer diagnoses. Patients at risk for MDD underwent surgery less often than those not at risk (P = .0499), and this association strengthened after adjusting for patient characteristics (odds ratio, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.82; P = .027). There was a nonsignificant trend between higher Mental Component Summary scores (indicating higher self-reported mental HRQOL) and increased frequency of undergoing surgery (P = .081). There were no significant associations between the Physical Component Summary and treatment modality. CONCLUSION: In Medicare beneficiaries with stage II-III rectal cancer, those at risk for MDD underwent standard-of-care treatment with surgery less frequently. Further studies are warranted to assess the effect of mental health on clinical decision making in this patient population.

Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing of CT-Guided vs MR-Guided Prostate SBRT.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has become a standard-of-care option for localized prostate cancer. While prostate SBRT has traditionally been delivered using computed-tomography-guided radiation therapy (CTgRT), MR-imaging-guided radiation therapy (MRgRT) is now available. MRgRT offers real-time soft-tissue visualization and ease of adaptive planning, obviating the need for fiducial markers, and potentially allowing for smaller planning target volume (PTV) margins. Although prior studies have focused on evaluating the cost-effectiveness of MRgRT vs CTgRT from a payor perspective, the difference in provider costs to deliver such treatments remains unknown. This study thus used time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) to determine the difference in provider resources consumed by delivering prostate SBRT via MRgRT vs CTgRT. METHODS: Data was collected from a single academic institution where prostate SBRT is routinely performed using both CTgRT and MRgRT. Five-fraction SBRT (40 Gy total dose) was assumed to be delivered through volumetric-modulated arc therapy for CTgRT patients, and through step-and-shoot, fixed-gantry intensity-modulated radiation therapy for MRgRT patients. Process maps were constructed for each portion of the radiation delivery process via interviews/surveys with departmental personnel and by measuring CTgRT and MRgRT treatment times. Prior to simulation, only CTgRT patients underwent placement of three gold fiducial markers. Personnel capacity cost rates were calculated by dividing total personnel costs by the annual minutes worked by a given personnel. Equipment costs included both an annualized purchase price and annual maintenance costs. Ultimately, the total costs of care encompassing personnel, space/equipment, and materials were aggregated across the entire chain of care for both CTgRT and MRgRT patients in a base case. RESULTS: Direct costs associated with delivering a 5-fraction course of prostate SBRT were $1,497 higher with MRgRT than with CTgRT - comprised of personnel costs ($210 higher with MRgRT), space/equipment ($1,542 higher with MRgRT), and materials ($255 higher with CTgRT). Only CTgRT patients underwent fiducial placement, which accounted for $591. MRgRT patients were assumed to undergo both CT simulation (for electron density calculation) and MRI simulation, with the former accounting for $168. Mean time spent by patients in the treatment vault per fraction was 20 minutes (range 15-26 minutes) for CTgRT, and 31 minutes (range 30-34 minutes) for MRgRT. Patient time spent during fiducial placement (CTgRT only) was 60 minutes. Modifying the number of fractions treated would result in the cost difference of $1,497 (5 fractions) changing to $441 (1 fraction) or to $2,025 (7 fractions). CONCLUSION: This study provides an approximate comparison of the direct resources required for a radiation oncology provider to deliver prostate SBRT with CTgRT vs MRgRT. We await findings from the currently accruing phase III MIRAGE trial, which is comparing these modalities, and will subsequently measure acute and late genitourinary/gastrointestinal (GU/GI) toxicities, temporal change in quality-of-life outcomes, and 5-year biochemical, recurrence-free survival. Results from studies comparing the efficacy and safety of MRgRT vs CTgRT will ultimately allow us to put this cost difference into context.

National variation in the delivery of radiation oncology procedures in the non-facility-based setting.

PURPOSE: Though utilization of medical procedures has been shown to vary considerably across the United States, similar efforts to characterize variation in the delivery of radiation therapy (RT) procedures have not been forthcoming. Our aim was to characterize variation in the delivery of common RT procedures in the Medicare population. We hypothesized that delivery would vary significantly based on provider characteristics. METHODS: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File was linked to the CMS Physician Compare (PC) database by physician NPI to identify and sum all treatment delivery charges submitted by individual radiation oncologists in the non-facility-based (NFB) setting in 2016. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was carried out to determine provider characteristics (gender, practice rurality, practice region, and years since graduation) that predicted for the delivery of 3D conformal RT (3DCRT), intensity modulated RT (IMRT), stereotactic body RT (SBRT), stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), low dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy, and high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy delivery in the Medicare patient population. The overall significance of categorical variables in the multivariable logistic regression model was assessed by the likelihood ratio test (LRT). RESULTS: In total, 1,802 physicians from the NFB practice setting were analyzed. Male gender predicted for greater LDR brachytherapy delivery (OR 8.19, 95% CI 2.58-26.05, p < 0.001), but not greater delivery of other technologies. Metropolitan practice was the only predictor for greater HDR brachytherapy utilization (OR 12.95, 95% CI 1.81-92.60, p = 0.01). Practice region was predictive of the delivery of 3DCRT, SRS and SBRT (p < 0.01, p < 0.001, and p < 0.001, respectively). With the Northeast as the reference region, 3DCRT was more likely to be delivered by providers in the South (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.09-1.62, p < 0.01) and the West (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.11-1.71, p < 0.01). At the same time, SRS use was less likely in the Midwest (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.55-0.91, p < 0.01), South (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.40-0.61, p < 0.001), and West (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.34-0.55, p < 0.001). SBRT, on the other hand, was more commonly utilized in the Midwest (OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.13-6.13, p = 0.03), South (OR 3.44, 95% CI 1.58-7.49, p < 0.01), and West (OR 4.87, 95% CI 2.21-10.72, p < 0.001). HDR brachytherapy use was also more likely in the Midwest (OR 1.97, 95% CI 1.11-3.49, p = 0.02) and West (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.08-3.24, p = 0.03). While the degree held by the billing physician did not predict for delivery of a given procedure, greater years since graduation was related to decreased likelihood of SBRT use (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.96-0.99, p < 0.001) and increased likelihood of LDR brachytherapy use (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.00-1.04, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Substantial geographic variation in the use of specific RT technologies was identified. The degree to which this variation reflects effective care, preference-sensitive care, or supply-sensitive care warrants further investigation.

Provider-Level Variation in Treatment Planning of Radiation Oncology Procedures in the United States.

PURPOSE: Variation in the use of radiation oncology procedures and technologies is poorly characterized. We sought to identify associations between the treatment planning codes used to bill for radiotherapy procedures and the demographic characteristics of the radiation oncologists submitting them. METHODS: The Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File was linked to the Physician Compare database by using the physician National Provider Identifier for the year 2016. Analysis was stratified by practice setting, considering both the freestanding non-facility-based (NFB) setting and the facility-based (FB) setting. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine provider characteristics (gender, practice rurality, and years since graduation) that predicted for the use of 3D-conformal RT (3DCRT) planning, intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) planning, and brachytherapy planning in the Medicare population. RESULTS: Three thousand twenty-nine physicians were linked for analysis. In both the FB and NFB settings together, male gender predicted for decreased likelihood of 3DCRT planning (OR, 0.70, 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.80, P < .001) and increased likelihood of IMRT planning (OR, 1.35, 95% CI, 1.19 to 1.54, P < .001). Brachytherapy planning was also more likely with increasing years since medical school graduation (OR, 1.03, 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.04, P < .001) in the combined FB and NFB settings. These significant associations persisted when examining the NFB and FB settings individually. In both settings overall, brachytherapy planning was more likely in male providers (OR, 1.75, 95% CI, 1.10 to 2.76, P = .02) and also more likely for providers practicing in metropolitan regions compared with those practicing in rural areas (OR, 3.01, 95% CI, 1.23 to 7.39, P = .02). CONCLUSION: Male gender predicts for utilization of IMRT planning, whereas female gender predicts for utilization of 3DCRT planning. Future research is warranted to better understand the role that provider gender and rurality play in the selection of radiation planning techniques for Medicare patients.

Underutilization of Androgen Deprivation Therapy with External Beam Radiotherapy in Men with High-grade Prostate Cancer.

Multiple randomized trials have shown a survival benefit to long durations of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in patients with Gleason grade group (GG) 4-5 (ie, Gleason score 8-10) prostate cancer (PCa) undergoing definitive external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). We conducted a population-based retrospective study utilizing the complete Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare-linked database from 2008 to 2011, extracting PCa patients of non-Hispanic white (NHW) and African-American (AA) race diagnosed with GG 4-5PCa who received EBRT with or without concomitant ADT. Of 961 patients receiving definitive EBRT, 225 (23.4%) received no ADT, 297 (30.9%) received 1-6mo of ADT, 313 (32.6) received 7-23mo of ADT, and 126 (13.1%) received ≥24mo of ADT. On multinomial logistic regression after inverse probability treatment weighting to balance for differences in other covariates, AA men still had significantly lower odds of receiving 1-6mo of ADT versus no ADT compared with NHW men (odds ratios 0.519 [95% confidence interval, 0.384-0.700]). In conclusion, long-duration ADT is underutilized, with nearly 90% of patients with GG 4-5PCa receiving <24mo of concomitant ADT, and AA men are less likely to receive ADT than NHW men. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we examined the utilization of concomitant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) among men with high-grade prostate cancer undergoing definitive external beam radiotherapy. We found that long-duration ADT was underutilized overall; moreover, African-American men were less likely to receive concomitant ADT than non-Hispanic white men.

Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing Analysis of Telemedicine Services in Radiation Oncology.

PURPOSE: Health systems have increased telemedicine use during the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak to limit in-person contact. We used time-driven activity-based costing to evaluate the change in resource use associated with transitioning to telemedicine in a radiation oncology department. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Using a patient undergoing 28-fraction treatment as an example, process maps for traditional in-person and telemedicine-based workflows consisting of discrete steps were created. Physicians/physicists/dosimetrists and nurses were assumed to work remotely 3 days and 1 day per week, respectively. Mapping was informed by interviews and surveys of personnel, with cost estimates obtained from the department's financial officer. RESULTS: Transitioning to telemedicine reduced provider costs by $586 compared with traditional workflow: $47 at consultation, $280 during treatment planning, $237 during on-treatment visits, and $22 during the follow-up visit. Overall, cost savings were $347 for space/equipment and $239 for personnel. From an employee perspective, the total amount saved each year by not commuting was $36,718 for physicians (7243 minutes), $19,380 for physicists (7243 minutes), $17,286 for dosimetrists (7210 minutes), and $5599 for nurses (2249 minutes). Patients saved $170 per treatment course. CONCLUSIONS: A modified workflow incorporating telemedicine visits and work-from-home capability conferred savings to a department as well as significant time and costs to health care workers and patients alike.

Cost Effectiveness of External Beam Radiation Therapy versus Percutaneous Image-Guided Cryoablation for Palliation of Uncomplicated Bone Metastases.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of incorporating cryoablation in the treatment regimens for uncomplicated bone metastases using radiation therapy (RT) in single-fraction RT (SFRT) or multiple-fraction RT (MFRT) regimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov model was constructed using 1-month cycles over a lifetime horizon to compare the cost effectiveness of multiple strategies, including RT followed by RT (RT-RT) for recurrent pain, RT followed by cryoablation (RT-ablation), and cryoablation followed by RT (ablation-RT). RT-RT consisted of 8 Gy in 1 fraction/8 Gy in 1 fraction (SFRT-SFRT) and 30 Gy in 10 fractions/20 Gy in 5 fractions (MFRT-MFRT). Probabilities and utilities were extracted from a search of the medical literature. Costs were calculated from a payer perspective using 2017 Medicare reimbursement in an outpatient setting. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated using strategies evaluated for willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). To account for model uncertainty, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, SFRT-ablation was cost effective relative to SFRT-SFRT at $96,387/QALY. MFRT-ablation was cost effective relative to MFRT-MFRT at $85,576/QALY. Ablation-SFRT and ablation-MFRT were not cost effective with ICERs >$100,000/QALY. In one-way sensitivity analyses, results were highly sensitive to variation in multiple model parameters, including median survival (base: 9 months), with SFRT-SFRT favored at median survival ≤8.7 months. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis examining SFRT-based regimens showed that SFRT-ablation was preferred in 36.9% of simulations at WTP of $100,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Cryoablation is a potentially cost-effective alternative to reirradiation with RT for recurrent of pain following RT; however, no strategy incorporating initial cryoablation was cost effective.

Cost-Effectiveness of Metastasis-Directed Therapy in Oligorecurrent Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Oligorecurrent prostate cancer has historically been treated with indefinite androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), although many patients and providers opt to defer this treatment at the time of recurrence given quality-of-life and/or comorbidity considerations. Recently, metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) has emerged as a potential intermediary between surveillance and immediate continuous ADT. Simultaneously, advanced systemic therapy in addition to ADT has also been shown to improve survival in metastatic hormone-sensitive disease. This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of treating oligorecurrent patients with upfront MDT before standard-of-care systemic therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A Markov-based cost-effectiveness analysis was constructed comparing 3 strategies: (1) upfront MDT → salvage abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP) + ADT → salvage docetaxel + ADT; (2) upfront AAP + ADT → salvage docetaxel + ADT; and (3) upfront docetaxel + ADT → salvage AAP + ADT. Transition probabilities and utilities were derived from the literature. Using a 10-year time horizon and willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY), net monetary benefit values were subsequently calculated for each treatment strategy. RESULTS: At 10 years, the base case revealed a total cost of $141,148, $166,807, and $136,154 with QALYs of 4.63, 4.89, and 4.00, respectively, reflecting a net monetary benefit of $322,240, $322,018, and $263,407 for upfront MDT, upfront AAP + ADT, and upfront docetaxel + ADT, respectively. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis using a Monte Carlo simulation (1,000,000 simulations), upfront MDT was the cost-effective strategy in 53.6% of simulations. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed 95% confidence intervals for cost ($75,914-$179,862, $124,431-$223,892, and $103,298-$180,617) and utility in QALYs (3.85-6.12, 3.91-5.86, and 3.02-5.22) for upfront MDT, upfront AAP + ADT, and upfront docetaxel + ADT, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: At 10 years, upfront MDT followed by salvage AAP + ADT, is comparably cost-effective compared with upfront standard-of-care systemic therapy and may be considered a viable treatment strategy, especially in patients wishing to defer systemic therapy for quality-of-life or comorbidity concerns. Additional studies are needed to determine whether MDT causes a sustained meaningful delay in disease natural history and whether any benefit exists in combining MDT with upfront advanced systemic therapy.

Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing Comparison of CT-Guided Versus MR-Guided SBRT.

PURPOSE: Magnetic resonance-guided radiation therapy (MRgRT) has recently become commercially available, offering the opportunity to accurately image and target moving tumors as compared with computed tomography-guided radiation therapy (CTgRT) systems. However, the costs of delivering care with these 2 modalities remain poorly described. With localized unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma as an example, we were able to use time-driven activity-based costing to determine the cost of treatment on linear accelerators with CTgRT compared with MRgRT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Process maps, informed via interviews with departmental personnel, were created for each phase of the care cycle. Stereotactic body radiation therapy was delivered at 50 Gy in 5 fractions, either with CTgRT using fiducial placement, deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) with real-time position management, and volumetric-modulated arc therapy, or with MRgRT using real-time tumor gating, DIBH, and static-gantry intensity-modulated radiation therapy. RESULTS: Direct clinical costs were $7,306 for CTgRT and $8,622 for MRgRT comprising personnel costs ($3,752 v $3,603), space and equipment costs ($2,912 v $4,769), and materials costs ($642 v $250). Increased MRgRT costs may be mitigated by forgoing CT simulation ($322 saved) or shortening treatment to 3 fractions ($1,815 saved). Conversely, adaptive treatment with MRgRT would result in an increase in cost of $529 per adaptive treatment. CONCLUSION: MRgRT offers real-time image guidance, avoidance of fiducial placement, and ability to use adaptive treatments; however, it is 18% more expensive than CTgRT under baseline assumptions. Future studies that elucidate the magnitude of potential clinical benefits of MRgRT are warranted to clarify the value of using this technology.

Cost Effectiveness of DCISionRT for Guiding Treatment of Ductal Carcinoma in Situ.

The DCISionRT test estimates the risk of an ipsilateral breast event (IBE) in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) as well as the benefit of adjuvant radiation therapy (RT). We determined the cost-effectiveness of DCISionRT using a Markov model simulating 10-year outcomes for 60-year-old women with DCIS based on nonrandomized data. Three strategies were compared: no testing, no RT (strategy 1); test all, RT for elevated risk only (strategy 2); and no testing, RT for all (strategy 3). We used utilities and costs from the literature and Medicare claims to determine incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and examined the number of women irradiated per IBE prevented. In the base-case scenario, strategy 1 was the cost-effective strategy. Strategy 2 was cost-effective compared with strategy 3 when the cost of DCISionRT was less than $4588. The number irradiated per IBE prevented were 8.37 and 15.46 for strategies 2 and 3, respectively, relative to strategy 1.

Opioid prescription patterns among radiation oncologists in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Radiation oncologists (ROs) play an important role in managing cancer pain; however, their opioid prescribing patterns remain poorly described. METHODS: The 2016 Medicare Physician Compare National Downloadable and the 2016 Medicare Part D Prescriber Data files were cross-linked to identify RO-written opioid prescriptions. RESULTS: Of 4,627 identified ROs, 1,360 (29.3%) wrote >10 opioid prescriptions. The average number of opioid prescriptions written was significantly (P ≤ .05) associated with the following RO characteristics: sex [13.1 ± 36.5 male vs 7.5 ± 16.9 female]; years since medical school graduation [4.5 ± 11.5 1-10 years vs 12.6 ± 26.0 11-24 years vs 13.3 ± 40.9 ≥25 years]; practice size [15.5 ± 44.6 size ≤10 vs 13.3 ± 25.9 size 11-49 vs 8.5 ± 12.7 size 50-99 vs 8.8 ± 26.9 size ≥100]; Medicare Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) participation [12.6 ± 31.8 yes vs 7.0 ± 35.4 no]; and practice location [17.4 ± 47.0 South vs 10.6 ± 29.4 Midwest vs 8.1 ± 13.9 West vs 6.9 ± 15.2 Northeast]. On multivariable regression modeling, male sex (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.22-1.35, P < .001), ≥25 years since graduation (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64-0.70, 1-10 years vs ≥25 years; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 - 1.04, 11-24 years vs ≥25 years; P < .001), practice size <10 members (RR 1.51, CI 1.44-1.59, ≤10 vs ≥100 members, RR 1.27, CI 1.20-1.34, 10-49 vs ≥100 members, RR 0.86, CI 0.80-0.92, 50-99 vs ≥100 members, P < .001), PQRS participation (RR 1.12, CI 1.04-1.19, P < .002), and Southern location (RR 0.67, CI 0.64-0.70, Midwest vs South; RR 0.39, CI 0.37-0.41, Northeast vs South; RR 0.43, CI 0.41-0.46, West vs South; P < .001) were predictive of higher opioid prescription rates. CONCLUSIONS: Factors associated with increased number of RO-written opioid prescriptions were male sex, ≥25 years since graduation, group practice <10, PQRS participation, and Southern location. Additional research is required to establish optimal opioid prescribing practices for ROs.

Cost-effectiveness of Short-Course Radiation Therapy vs Long-Course Chemoradiation for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer.

Importance: Although both short-course radiotherapy and long-course chemoradiotherapy have been practiced in parallel for more than 15 years, no cost-effectiveness analysis comparing these 2 approaches in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer has been published. Objective: To analyze the cost-effectiveness of short-course radiotherapy vs long-course chemoradiotherapy for the treatment of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation used a cost-effectiveness model simulating 10-year outcomes for 1 million hypothetical patients aged 65 years with locally advanced rectal cancer treated with either short-course radiotherapy or long-course chemoradiotherapy, followed by surgery and chemotherapy. Utilities and probabilities from the literature and costs from the Healthcare Bluebook and Medicare fee schedules were used to determine incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. It was assumed that long-course chemoradiotherapy would result in higher rates of low anterior resection (LAR). To model preference-sensitive care, a 2-way sensitivity analysis was conducted in which the utilities of the no-evidence-of-disease (NED) states with LAR and abdominoperineal resection (APR) were simultaneously varied. The analysis was repeated for patients with distal rectal tumors. Analysis was conducted from January to October 2018. Exposures: Short-course radiotherapy and long-course chemoradiotherapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Results: Short-course radiotherapy was the cost-effective strategy compared with long-course chemoradiotherapy (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $133 495 per quality-adjusted life-year). Two-way sensitivity analysis revealed that the cost-effective approach for a given patient depended on the utilities for the NED-LAR and NED-APR states. Assuming that a greater proportion of patients with locally advanced distal tumors undergoing long-course chemoradiotherapy (39%) would proceed to LAR compared with those treated with short-course radiotherapy (19%), long-course chemoradiotherapy was the cost-effective approach (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $61 123 per quality-adjusted life-year). Conclusions and Relevance: Short-course radiotherapy was the cost-effective strategy compared with long-course chemoradiotherapy for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. The cost-effectiveness of short-course radiotherapy vs long-course chemoradiotherapy was sensitive to the utilities of the NED-LAR and NED-APR health states, highlighting the importance of care that is sensitive to patient preference. Long-course chemoradiotherapy was the cost-effective approach for patients with distal tumors.

Evaluation of Sex Distribution of Industry Payments Among Radiation Oncologists.

Importance: Industry relationships are an important measure of professional advancement; however, the association between physician sex and industry payments in radiation oncology has not been described. Objective: To update the trends in the sex distribution of industry payments in radiation oncology. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted between July 1, 2018, and August 31, 2018. It used the publicly available Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payments program and CMS Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File databases to obtain 2016 industry payment data for US radiation oncologists who reported receiving industry funding in that year (n = 3052). Total monetary value, number of payments, and median payment amounts were determined for each sex in the following categories: research, consulting, honoraria, industry grants, royalty or license, and services other than consulting. Main Outcomes and Measures: Industry payment amounts among 3052 radiation oncologists who reported receiving payments in 2016; association of median payment with the types of payment by sex. Results: Of the total 4483 radiation oncologists who practiced in 2016, 1164 (25.9%) were female and 3319 (74.0%) were male. Industry payments were distributed among 3052 radiation oncologists (68.1%), of whom 715 (23.4%) were female and 2337 (76.6%) were male. The proportion of female radiation oncologists who received at least 1 industry payment was 61.4% (715 of 1164), whereas the proportion of their male counterparts was 70.4% (2337 of 3319). Across all payment types, female radiation oncologists received a smaller percentage of total industry funding than the percentage of female physicians represented in each category. The median payment value was smaller for female radiation oncologists in consulting (-$1000; 95% CI, -$1966.67 to $100.63; P = .005) and honoraria (-$500; 95% CI, -$1071.43 to $0; P = .007). This trend was also observed in research payments, but was not statistically significant (-$135.02; 95% CI, -$476.93 to $6.88; P = .08). Of the $1 347 509 royalty or license payments made to 72 physicians, none was for female radiation oncologists. Conclusions and Relevance: Distribution of industry payments appears to show sex disparity in industry relationships among radiation oncologists; this observation warrants further investigation to determine the underlying reasons and provide avenues for increased parity.

Cost Effectiveness of the Oncotype DX Genomic Prostate Score for Guiding Treatment Decisions in Patients With Early Stage Prostate Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of using the Oncotype DX Genomic Prostate Score (GPS), a 17-gene expression assay that can be used to inform decisions regarding active surveillance (AS) vs immediate treatment. METHODS: We developed a Markov model simulating 20-year outcomes for 65-year-old men with very low-, low-, or favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer undergoing AS vs immediate treatment using GPS vs no testing. Utilities, costs, and probabilities were extracted from the literature and National Medicare Fee Schedules to determine incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) from a payer perspective. RESULTS: In the overall cohort, the ICER of GPS-guided therapy was $31,394 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). When stratified by risk group, the ICER was $25,343 per QALY in very low-risk, $28,911 per QALY in low-risk, and $39,695 per QALY in favorable intermediate-risk patients. On sensitivity analysis, findings were robust against a willingness-to-pay of $100,000 per QALY to variations in key model parameters, including the cost of annual management of AS, probability of exiting AS to treatment, cost of treatment, and probability of biochemical failure post-treatment. However, the cost-effectiveness was sensitive to small differences in the utility of AS and the utility of no evidence of disease post-treatment states. CONCLUSION: The use of the GPS was cost-effective in guiding treatment decisions regarding AS vs immediate treatment. The cost-effectiveness was sensitive to small differences in the utilities of the AS and no evidence of disease post-treatment states, highlighting the importance of assessing patient preferences.

Content Validity of Anatomic Site-Specific Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) Item Sets for Assessment of Acute Symptomatic Toxicities in Radiation Oncology.

PURPOSE: To improve assessment of symptomatic toxicity in cancer clinical trials and complement clinician-based toxicity reporting, the US National Cancer Institute developed a measurement system called the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). The objective of this study was to examine the content validity of PRO-CTCAE in patients undergoing radiation therapy and to establish anatomic site-specific item sets for implementation in cancer research. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients receiving radiation to the brain, head and neck, breast, thorax, abdomen, or pelvis were recruited during the final week of radiation. Participants described side effects qualitatively and completed anatomic site-specific checklists indicating the presence or absence of symptomatic toxicities drawn from the PRO-CTCAE library. Items endorsed by ≥20% of participants were selected for inclusion. Symptomatic toxicities described qualitatively were content analyzed and summarized. Symptomatic toxicities not reflected in the PRO-CTCAE item library were tabulated. RESULTS: We conducted 389 interviews of patients receiving radiation to the brain (n = 46), head and neck (n = 69), breast (n = 134), thorax (n = 30), abdomen (n = 27), female pelvis (n = 36), or male pelvis (n = 47). Median age was 62 years; 62% were female. The 53 solicited PRO-CTCAE symptoms reflected all reported radiation-induced toxicities with the exception of phlegm/mucus production and mouth/throat pain with swallowing in patients receiving head and neck radiation, eye dryness/irritation in patients undergoing brain radiation, and obstructive urinary symptoms in men receiving pelvic radiation. The PRO-CTCAE items "skin burns" and "pain" require greater specificity to adequately reflect toxicities experienced during radiation. CONCLUSIONS: PRO-CTCAE demonstrates strong content validity as a measure of symptomatic toxicities in patients receiving radiation. These results provide empirical support for the definition of site-specific PRO-CTCAE item sets to assess the symptomatic toxicities of radiation therapy. The site-specific PRO-CTCAE item sets developed herein are currently being deployed in our department via an electronic platform to capture treatment-related toxicity.