Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Use of Novel Hormonal Therapy Agents in Patients With Prostate Cancer.

Importance: Novel hormonal therapy (NHT) agents have been shown to prolong overall survival in numerous randomized clinical trials for patients with advanced prostate cancer (PCa). There is a paucity of data regarding the pattern of use of these agents in patients from different racial and ethnic groups. Objective: To assess racial and ethnic disparities in the use of NHT in patients with advanced PCa. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study comprised all men diagnosed with de novo advanced PCa (distant metastatic [M1], regional [N1M0], and high-risk localized [N0M0] per Systemic Therapy in Advancing or Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Evaluation of Drug Efficacy [STAMPEDE] trial criteria) with Medicare Part A, B, and D coverage between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2017, in a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database including prescription drug records. Data analysis took place from January through May 2023. Exposures: Race and ethnicity (Black [non-Hispanic], Hispanic, White, or other [Alaska Native, American Indian, Asian, Pacific Islander, or not otherwise specified and unknown]) abstracted from the SEER data fields. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was receipt of an NHT agent (abiraterone, enzalutamide, apalutamide, or darolutamide) using a time-to-event approach. Results: The study included 3748 men (median age, 75 years [IQR, 70-81 years]). A total of 312 (8%) were Black; 263 (7%), Hispanic; 2923 (78%), White; and 250 (7%) other race and ethnicity. The majority of patients had M1 disease (2135 [57%]) followed by high-risk N0M0 (1095 [29%]) and N1M0 (518 [14%]) disease. Overall, 1358 patients (36%) received at least 1 administration of NHT. White patients had the highest 2-year NHT utilization rate (27%; 95% CI, 25%-28%) followed by Hispanic patients (25%; 95% CI, 20%-31%) and patients with other race or ethnicity (23%; 95% CI, 18%-29%), with Black patients having the lowest rate (20%; 95% CI, 16%-25%). Black patients had significantly lower use of NHT compared with White patients, which persisted at 5 years (37% [95% CI, 31%-43%] vs 44% [95% CI, 42%-46%]; P = .02) and beyond. However, there was no significant difference between White patients and Hispanic patients or patients with other race or ethnicity in NHT utilization (eg, 5 years: Hispanic patients, 38% [95% CI, 32%-46%]; patients with other race and ethnicity: 41% [95% CI, 35%-49%]). Trends of lower utilization among Black patients persisted in the patients with M1 disease (eg, vs White patients at 5 years: 51% [95% CI, 44%-59%] vs 55% [95% CI, 53%-58%]). After adjusting for patient, disease, and sociodemographic factors in multivariable analysis, Black patients continued to have a significantly lower likelihood of NHT initiation (adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61-0.94, P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries with advanced PCa, receipt of NHT agents was not uniform by race, with decreased use observed in Black patients compared with the other racial and ethnic groups, likely due to multifactorial obstacles. Future studies are needed to identify strategies to address the disparities in the use of these survival-prolonging therapies in Black patients.

Association between hospital competition and quality of prostate cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals account for approximately 6% of United States' gross domestic product. We examined the association between hospital competition and outcomes in elderly with localized prostate cancer (PCa). We also assessed if race moderated this association. METHODS: Retrospective study using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) - Medicare database. Cohort included fee-for-service, African American and white men aged ≥ 66, diagnosed with localized PCa between 1998 and 2011 and their claims between 1997 and 2016. We used Hirschman-Herfindahl index (HHI) to measure of hospital competition. Outcomes were emergency room (ER) visits, hospitalizations, Medicare expenditure and mortality assessed in acute survivorship phase (two years post-PCa diagnosis), and long-term mortality. We used Generalized Linear Models for analyzing expenditure, Poisson models for ER visits and hospitalizations, and Cox models for mortality. We used propensity score to minimize bias. RESULTS: Among 253,176 patients, percent change in incident rate of ER visit was 17% higher for one unit increase in HHI (IRR: 1.17, 95% CI: 1.15-1.19). Incident rate of ER was 24% higher for whites and 48% higher for African Americans. For one unit increase in HHI, hazard of short-term all-cause mortality was 7% higher for whites and 11% lower for African Americans. The hazard of long-term all-cause mortality was 10% higher for whites and 13% higher for African Americans. CONCLUSIONS: Lower hospital competition was associated with impaired outcomes of localized PCa care. Magnitude of impairment was higher for African Americans, compared to whites. Future research will explore process through which competition affects outcomes and racial disparity.

Benchmarking the Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Model: Changes in Medicare Reimbursement for 16 Common Radiation Therapy Treatment Courses.

Radiation oncology (RO) has seen declines in Medicare reimbursement (MCR) in the past decade under the current fee-for-service model. Although studies have explored decline in reimbursement at a per-code level, to our knowledge there are no recent studies analyzing changes in MCR over time for common RO treatment courses. By analyzing changes in MCR for common treatment courses, our study had 3 objectives: (1) to provide practitioners and policymakers with estimates of recent reimbursement changes for common treatment courses; (2) to provide an estimate of how reimbursement will change in the future under the current fee-for-service model if current trends continue; and (3) to provide a baseline for treatment episodes in the event that the episode-based Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Model is eventually implemented. Specifically, we quantified inflation- and utilization-adjusted changes in reimbursement for 16 common radiation therapy (RT) treatment courses from 2010 to 2020. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary databases were used to obtain reimbursement for all RO procedures in 2010, 2015, and 2020 for free-standing facilities. Inflation-adjusted average reimbursement (AR) per billing instance was calculated for each Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System code using 2020 dollars. For each year, the billing frequency of each code was multiplied by the AR per code. Results were summed per RT course per year, and AR for RT courses were compared. Sixteen common RO courses for head and neck, breast, prostate, lung, and palliative RT were analyzed. AR decreased for all 16 courses from 2010 to 2020. From 2015 to 2020, the only course that increased in AR was palliative 2-dimensional 10-fraction 30 Gy, which increased by 0.4%. Courses using intensity modulated RT saw the largest AR decline from 2010 to 2020, ranging from 38% to 39%. We report significant declines in reimbursement from 2010 to 2020 for common RO courses, with the largest declines for intensity modulated RT. Policymakers should consider the significant cuts to reimbursement that have already occurred when considering future reimbursement adjustment under the current fee-for-service model or when considering mandatory adoption of a new payment system with further cuts and the negative effect of such cuts on quality and access to care.

Continuity of care and advanced prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Continuity of care is an important element of advanced prostate cancer care due to the availability of multiple treatment options, and associated toxicity. However, the association between continuity of care and outcomes across different racial groups remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of provider continuity of care with outcomes among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with advanced prostate cancer and its variation by race. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data. SUBJECTS: African American and white Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 or older, and diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer between 2000 and 2011. At least 5 years of follow-up data for the cohort was used. MEASURES: Short-term outcomes were emergency room (ER) visits, hospitalizations, and cost during acute survivorship phase (2-year post-diagnosis), and mortality (all-cause and prostate cancer-specific) during the follow-up period. We calculated continuity of care using Continuity of Care Index (COCI) and Usual Provider Care Index (UPCI), for all visits, oncology visits, and primary care visits in acute survivorship phase. We used Poisson models for ER visits and hospitalizations, and log-link GLM for cost. Cox model and Fine-Gray competing risk models were used for survival analysis, weighted by propensity score. We performed similar analysis for continuity of care in the 2-year period following acute survivorship phase. RESULTS: One unit increase in COCI was associated with reduction in short-term ER visits (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64, 0.67), hospitalizations (IRR = 0.65, 95% CI 0.64, 0.67), and cost (0.64, 95% CI 0.61, 0.66) and lower hazard of long-term mortality. Magnitude of these associations differed between African American and white patients. We observed comparable results for continuity of care in the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Continuity of care was associated with improved outcomes. The benefits of higher continuity of care were greater for African Americans, compared to white patients. Advanced prostate cancer survivorship care must integrate appropriate strategies to promote continuity of care.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology Workforce Taskforce Review of the United States Radiation Oncology Workforce Analysis.

Over the past decade, concerns have arisen in radiation oncology regarding potential workforce supply and demand imbalance. The American Society for Radiation Oncology commissioned an independent analysis in 2022, looking at supply and demand in the United States radiation oncology workforce and projecting future trends for 2025 and 2030. The final report, titled Projected Supply and Demand for Radiation Oncologists in the U.S. in 2025 and 2030, is now available. The analysis included evaluating radiation oncologist (RO) supply (new graduates, exits from the specialty), potential changes in demand (growth of Medicare beneficiaries, hypofractionation, loss of indications, new indications) as well as RO productivity (growth of work relative value units [wRVUs] produced), and demand per beneficiary. The results demonstrated a relative balance between radiation oncology supply and demand for radiation services; the growth in ROs was balanced by the rapid growth of Medicare beneficiaries over the same period. The primary factors driving the model were found to be growth of Medicare beneficiaries and change in wRVU productivity, with hypofractionation and loss of indication having only a moderate effect; although the most likely scenario was a balance of workforce supply and demand, scenarios did demonstrate the possibility of over- and undersupply. Oversupply may become a concern if RO wRVU productivity reaches the highest region; beyond 2030, this is also possible if growth in RO supply does not parallel Medicare beneficiary growth, which is projected to decline and will require corresponding supply adjustment. Limitations of the analysis included uncertainty regarding the true number of ROs, the lack of inclusion of most technical reimbursement and its effect as well as failing to account for stereotactic body radiation therapy. A modeling tool is available to allow individuals to evaluate different scenarios. Moving forward, continued study will be needed to evaluate trends (particularly wRVU productivity and Medicare beneficiary growth) to allow for continued assessment of workforce supply and demand in radiation oncology.

Radiation Oncology Residency Training Program Integration of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: An Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology Equity and Inclusion Subcommittee Inaugural Program Director Survey.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate United States (US) radiation oncology (RO) program directors' (PDs) attitudes and practices regarding racial/ethnic diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) to better understand potential effects on underrepresented in medicine (UIM) residents in RO. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A 28-item survey was developed using the validated Ethnic Harassment Experiences Scale and the Daily Life Experiences subscale, as well as input from DEI leaders in RO. The survey was institutional review board-approved and administered to RO PDs. PDs were provided with the American Association of Medical Colleges definition of UIM, that is, "Underrepresented in medicine means those racial and ethnic populations that are underrepresented in the medical profession relative to their numbers in the general population." Descriptive statistics were used in analysis. RESULTS: The response rate was 71% (64/90). Institutional Culture and Beliefs: 42% responded that they had a department DEI director. A minority (17%, n = 11) agreed "I believe that people from UIM backgrounds have equal access to quality tertiary education in the US." The majority (97%, n = 62) agreed "My program values residents from UIM backgrounds." Support and Resources: The majority (78%, n = 50) agreed "My program has resources in place to assist/provide support for resident physicians from UIM backgrounds." Interview and Recruitment: Most PDs (53%) had not taken part in activities aimed at recruiting UIM residents and 17% had interviewed no UIM applicants in the past 5 years for residency. Resident Experiences of Racism: 17% (n = 11) agreed "UIM residents in my program have reported incidents of racism to me," and 28% (n = 18) agreed "I believe that UIM residents in my program have been treated differently because of their race/ethnicity by faculty, staff, coresidents or patients." CONCLUSIONS: Most PDs reported that they did not believe that UIM residents were treated differently in their department because of their race/ethnicity, and only a minority had received reports of racial discrimination experienced by residents. These data contrast resident experiences and suggest a disconnect between DEI perceptions and resident experiences among US RO PDs that should be addressed through increased programmatic action and evaluation.

Racial and ethnic disparities in a real-world precision oncology data registry.

Biorepositories enable precision oncology research by sharing clinically annotated genomic data, but it remains unknown whether these data registries reflect the true distribution of cancers in racial and ethnic minorities. Our analysis of Project Genomics Evidence Neoplasia Information Exchange (GENIE), a real-world cancer data registry designed to accelerate precision oncology discovery, indicates that minorities do not have sufficient representation, which may impact the validity of studies directly comparing mutational profiles between racial/ethnic groups and limit generalizability of biomarker discoveries to all populations.

Assessment of Lymphoma and Other Hematologic Malignancies Training Needs Among Radiation Oncology Residents: a Brief Report.

The role of radiation therapy (RT) varies across hematologic malignancies (HM). Radiation oncology (RO) resident comfort with specific aspects of HM patient management is unknown. The International Lymphoma RO Group (ILROG) assessed resident HM training opportunities and interest in an HM away elective. RO residents (PGY2-5) in the Association of Residents in RO (ARRO) database (n = 572) were emailed an anonymous, web-based survey in January 2019 including binary, Likert-type scale (1 = not at all, 5 = extremely, reported as median [interquartile range]), and multiple-choice questions. Of 134 resident respondents (23%), 86 (64%) were PGY4/5 residents and 36 (27%) were in larger programs (≥ 13 residents). Residents reported having specialized HM faculty (112, 84%) and a dedicated HM rotation (95, 71%). Residents reported "moderate" preparedness to advocate for RT in multidisciplinary conferences (3 [2-3]); make HM-related clinical decisions (3 [2-4]); and critique treatment planning (3 [2-4]). They reported feeling "moderately" to "quite" prepared to contour HM cases (3.5 [3-4]) and "quite" prepared to utilize the PET-CT five-point scale (4 [3-5]). Overall, residents reported feeling "moderately" prepared to treat HM patients (3 [2-3]); 24 residents (23%) felt "quite" or "extremely" prepared. Sixty-six residents (49%) were potentially interested in an HM away elective, commonly to increase comfort with treating HM patients (65%). Therefore, HM training is an important component of RO residency, yet a minority of surveyed trainees felt quite or extremely well prepared to treat HM patients. Programs should explore alternative and additional educational opportunities to increase resident comfort with treating HM patients.

Prospective 5-Year Analysis of the United States Radiation Oncology Job Market Using the ASTRO Career Center Website.

PURPOSE: We provide 5-year results of prospectively collected radiation oncology (RO) job opportunities and a longitudinal assessment of RO graduate numbers within the United States. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Full-time domestic RO job opportunities were collected and categorized using the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Career Center from July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2021. A chi-square test was used to compare regional job availability by city size and position type. The corresponding number of graduating United States (US) RO residents (2017-2021) was collected. US census and Medicare database resources were used as comparators for population and workforce estimates. Pearson's correlation coefficients were used to examine changes in data over time and a 2-tailed t test was used to assess for statistical significance. RESULTS: Over the 5-year study period, 819 unique job offers were posted, compared with 935 RO graduates (0.88 total jobs-to-graduates ratio). Most jobs were nonacademic (57.6%), located in populated areas >1 million (57.1%; median: 1.57M), with the largest proportion of jobs seen in the South region (32.4%). One-third of academic jobs were located at satellites. Regional differences were seen between academic versus nonacademic job availability (P < .01), with the highest proportion of academic jobs seen in the Northeast (60.3%) and the lowest in the Midwest (34.5%). Differences between regions were also observed for jobs in areas >1 million versus ≤1 million (P < .01), with the most jobs in areas >1 million seen in the West (64.6%) and the least in the South (51.3%). Regional job availability over time did not differ by position type (academic vs nonacademic) or population area size (P = .11 and P = .27, respectively). Annual graduate numbers increased with time (P = .02), with the highest percentage of graduates trained in the South (30.8%). Regional distribution of jobs versus graduates significantly differed (P < .01) with the lowest jobs-to-graduates ratio observed in the Northeast (0.67) and highest ratio in the West (1.07). Regional RO workforce estimates based on the 4336 radiation oncologists who were Medicare providers in 2020 were compared with total jobs and graduates by region with no difference observed between the distributions of the workforce and jobs (P = .39), but comparisons between the workforce and graduates were proportionally different (P < .01). The number of total jobs (vs graduates) per 10 million population in the Northeast, South, Midwest, and West were 30.2 (45.1), 21.0 (22.7), 30.6 (33.4), and 22.6 (21.2), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This multiyear quantitative assessment of the RO job market and graduates identified fewer job opportunities than graduates overall in most regions, most notably in the Northeast. Regional differences were seen between available job type (academic vs nonacademic) and population size (>1 million vs ≤1 million). The findings are worrisome for trainee oversupply and geographic maldistribution. The number and distribution of RO trainees and residency programs across the US should be evaluated to minimize job market imbalance for future graduates, promote workforce stability, and continue to meet the future societal needs of patients with cancer.

Radiation Oncology Resident Perspectives on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: An Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology Equity and Inclusion Subcommittee Inaugural Resident Survey.

PURPOSE: In this study, radiation oncology residents were surveyed on perceptions of diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging in their residency training programs. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A 23-item survey was developed by the Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology Equity and Inclusion Subcommittee resident members and faculty advisors. The survey was divided into 4 sections: institutional culture, support and resources, interview and recruitment, and experiences of bias. The survey was sent individually to residents from all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited radiation oncology programs. RESULTS: The survey was issued to 757 residents. A total of 319 residents completed the survey, for a response rate of 42%. All postgraduate years and geographic regions were represented. Significant racial, ethnic, and gender differences were present in survey response patterns. White residents (94%, 164 of 174) and male residents (96%, 186 of 194) were more likely to strongly agree/agree that they were treated with respect by their colleagues and their coworkers than other racial groups (P < .005) or gender groups (P < .008). Only 3% (5 of 174) of White residents strongly agreed/agreed that they were treated unfairly because of their race/ethnicity, while 31% (5 of 16) of Black residents and 10% (9 of 94) of Asian residents strongly agreed/agreed (P < .0001). Similarly, Hispanic residents were more likely to strongly agree/agree (24%, 5 of 21) than non-Hispanic residents (7%, 20 of 298) (P = .003). Regarding mentorship, there were no differences by gender or ethnicity. There were differences by race in residents reporting that they had a supportive mentor (P = .022), with 89% (154 of 174) of White residents who strongly agreed/agreed, 88% (14 of 16) of Black residents, and 91% of Asian residents (86 of 94). CONCLUSIONS: This survey reveals that experiences of support, mentorship, inclusion, and bias vary significantly among radiation oncology residents based on race, ethnicity, and gender. Radiation oncology has opportunity for growth to ensure an equitable experience for all residents.

Decreases in Radiation Oncology Medicare Reimbursement Over Time: Analysis by Billing Code.

PURPOSE: Radiation oncology (RO) has seen declines in Medicare reimbursement (MCR). However, there are no recent studies analyzing the contributions of specific billing codes to overall RO reimbursement. We compared total MCR for specific Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes in 2019 with MCR for those codes in 2010 and 2015, corrected for inflation, to see how the same basket of RO services in 2019 would have been reimbursed in 2010 and 2015 (adjusted MCR). METHODS AND MATERIALS: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary database was used to obtain MCR data for RO HCPCS codes in 2010, 2015, and 2019. For each code, the total allowed charge was divided by the number of submitted claims to calculate the average MCR per claim in 2010, 2015, and 2019. The 2019 billing frequency for each code was then multiplied by the inflation-adjusted average MCR for those codes in 2010 and 2015 to determine what the MCR would have been in 2010 and 2015 using 2019 dollars and utilization rates. Results were compared with actual 2019 MCR to calculate the projected difference. RESULTS: Total inflation-adjusted RO MCR was $2281 million (M), $1991 M, and $1848 M in 2010, 2015, and 2019 respectively. This represents a cut of $433 M (19%) and $143 M (7%) from 2010 and 2015, respectively, to 2019. After utilization adjustment, total reimbursement was $2534 M, $2034 M, and $1848 M for 2010, 2015, and 2019, respectively, representing a cut of $686 M (27%) and $186 M (9%) from 2010 and 2015, respectively, to 2019. Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment delivery and planning accounted for $917 M (36%), $670 M (33%), and $573 M (31%) of the adjusted MCR in 2010, 2015, and 2019, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare reimbursement decreased substantially from 2010 to 2019. A decline in IMRT treatment reimbursement was the primary driver of MCR decline. When considering further cuts, policymakers should consider these trends and their consequences for health care quality and access.

Heterogeneity in Radiotherapeutic Parameter Assumptions in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses in Prostate Cancer: A Call for Uniformity.

OBJECTIVES: Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) may provide useful data to inform management decisions depending on the robustness of a model's input parameters. We sought to determine the level of heterogeneity in health state utility values, transition probabilities, and cost estimates across published CEAs assessing primarily radiotherapeutic management strategies in prostate cancer. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of prostate cancer CEAs indexed in MEDLINE between 2000 and 2018 comparing accepted treatment modalities across all cancer stages. Search terms included "cost effectiveness prostate," "prostate cancer cost model," "cost utility prostate," and "Markov AND prostate AND (cancer OR adenocarcinoma)." Included studies were agreed upon. A Markov model was designed using the parameter estimates from the systematic review to evaluate the effect of estimate heterogeneity on strategy cost acceptability. RESULTS: Of 199 abstracts identified, 47 publications were reviewed and 37 were included; 508 model estimates were compared. Estimates varied widely across variables, including gastrointestinal toxicity risk (0%-49.5%), utility of metastatic disease (0.25-0.855), intensity-modulated radiotherapy cost ($21 193-$61 996), and recurrence after external-beam radiotherapy (1.5%-59%). Multiple studies assumed that different radiotherapy modalities delivering the same dose yielded varying cancer control rates. When using base estimates for similar parameters from included studies, the designed model resulted in 3 separate acceptability determinations. CONCLUSIONS: Significant heterogeneity exists across parameter estimates used to perform CEAs evaluating treatment for prostate cancer. Heterogeneity across model inputs yields variable conclusions with respect to the favorability and cost-effectiveness of treatment options. Decision makers are cautioned to review estimates in CEAs to ensure they are up to date and relevant to setting and population.

Diversity Trends by Sex and Underrepresented in Medicine Status Among US Radiation and Medical Oncology Faculty Over 5 Decades.

IMPORTANCE: It remains unclear how the historical exclusion of women and racial and ethnic minority groups from medical training, and therefore the oncologic subspecialties, has contributed to rates of faculty diversity among oncology departments over time. Oncologic faculty diversity is an important initiative to help improve care and address health disparities for an increasingly diverse US population with cancer. OBJECTIVES: To report trends in academic faculty representation by sex and by race and ethnicity for radiation oncology (RO) and medical oncology (MO) departments and to describe comparisons with the general US population, medical students, RO and MO trainees, clinical department chairs, and faculty in other departments. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional analysis used data from the Association of American Medical Colleges to analyze trends by sex and by race and ethnicity among full-time US faculty in RO and MO departments from 1970 through 2019. Data were analyzed between October 2020 and April 2021. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Proportions of women and individuals from underrepresented in medicine (URM) racial and ethnic groups (Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous individuals) were calculated among RO and MO academic departments; trends were analyzed over 5 decades. These proportions were compared with cohorts already described. In addition, proportions of women and URM individuals were calculated by faculty rank among RO and MO departments. RESULTS: In 1970, there were 119 total faculty in RO (10 women [8.4%] and 2 URM [1.7%]) and 87 total faculty in MO (11 women [12.6%] and 7 URM [8.0%]). In 2019, there were 2115 total faculty in RO (615 women [29.1%] and 108 URM [5.1%]) and 819 total faculty in MO (312 women [38.1%] and 47 URM [5.7%]). Total faculty numbers increased over time in both RO and MO. Faculty representation of URM women proportionally increased by 0.1% per decade in both RO (95% CI, 0.005%-0.110%; P <. 001 for trend) and MO (95% CI, -0.03% to 0.16%; P = .06 for trend) compared with non-URM women faculty, which increased by 0.4% (95% CI, 0.25%-0.80%) per decade in RO and 0.7% (95% CI, 0.47%-0.87%) per decade in MO (P < .001 for trend for both). Faculty representation of URM men did not significantly change for RO (0.03% per decade [95% CI, -0.008% to 0.065%]; P = .09 for trend) or MO (0.003% per decade [95% CI, -0.13% to 0.14%]; P = .94 for trend). Representation of both women and URM individuals among both specialties was lower than their representation in the US population in both 2009 and 2019. Across all cohorts studied, RO faculty had the lowest URM representation in 2019 at 5.1%. At every rank in 2019, the number of total URM faculty represented among both MO and RO remained low (MO: instructor, 2 of 44 [5%]; assistant professor, 18 of 274 [7%]; associate professor, 13 of 177 [7%]; full professor, 13 of 276 [5%]; and RO: instructor, 9 of 147 [6%]; assistant professor, 57 of 927 [6%]; associate professor, 20 of 510 [4%]; full professor, 18 of 452 [4%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This cross-sectional study suggests that RO and MO academic faculty have increased the representation of women over time, while URM representation has lagged. The URM trends over time need further investigation to inform strategies to improve URM representation in RO and MO.

United States Radiation Oncology Fellowship Growth From 2010 to 2020.

PURPOSE: To provide a comprehensive analysis of radiation oncology (RO) fellowship growth from 2010 to 2020. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A collated database of RO fellowship programs and matriculants was created using (1) RO residency program (n = 92) and graduate (n = 2082) web searches, (2) prospective American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Career Center postings database, (3) Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology Fellowship Directory, (4) RO fellowship survey data, (5) ASTRO Membership Directory, and (6) direct e-mail contact with fellowship program directors. Linear regression was used to assess the statistical significance of RO fellowship program, position, and matriculant growth over time. RESULTS: From 2010 to 2020, the number of RO fellowship programs and annual positions significantly increased from 20 to 37 (1.60 increase per year; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-1.89; P < .001) and 20 to 39 (1.81 increase per year; 95% confidence interval, 1.52-2.10; P < .001), respectively. The most commonly offered fellowship disciplines were proton therapy (n = 10), brachytherapy (n = 7), stereotactic radiosurgery/stereotactic body radiation therapy (n = 6), general RO (n = 5), and customizable to trainees' interests (n = 3). Only 10 (27%) fellowships had a formal curriculum. All fellowships were unaccredited. Four (10.8%) programs were offered at institutions without an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited RO residency training program, all established within the past 2 years. In addition, 54.8% (171 of 312) of available fellowship positions were filled between 2010 to 2020. Of these, 94 (55.0%) were graduates of US RO residency programs. The mean number of total fellows and US-residency trained fellows per year was 15 (range, 5-23) and 8 (range, 2-20), respectively. There was no significant increase in the number of annual matriculated fellows over time (P = .077). Among US-residency trained fellows, 27 (28.7%), 37 (39.4%), and 29 (30.9%) were from small (≤6), medium (7-12), and large (>12) residency programs, respectively. Twenty-eight (29.8%), 13 (13.8%), 25 (26.6%), and 27 (28.7%) trained in the Northeast, Midwest, South, and West, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There has been significant growth in unaccredited RO fellowship programs and annual positions during the past decade, although the number of matriculants has remained stable. We report for the first time the recent establishment of fellowships at institutions without an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited RO residency program. The impact of fellowship programs on the training of RO residents should be studied.

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.

Prevalence, Predictors, and Implications for Appropriate Use of Active Surveillance Management Among Black Men Diagnosed With Low-risk Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Consensus guidelines recommend that active surveillance (AS) be considered in the management of men with low-risk prostate cancer (LRPC). The objective was to evaluate the prevalence and predictors of an AS approach in black men (BM) diagnosed with LRPC after inclusion of AS in LRPC consensus guidelines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: BM and white men (WM) diagnosed with LRPC (prostate-specific antigen ≤10 ng/mL, Gleason score [GS] ≤6, clinical stage T1-T2a) between 2010 and 2013 were identified from the National Cancer Database. Logistic regression models were used to assess the likelihood of AS over time and to examine associations between sociodemographic characteristics (SDCs) and the receipt of AS. A subanalysis was performed to assess the likelihood of GS upgrading on prostatectomy specimens for cases that received definitive treatment with radical prostatectomy. RESULTS: Overall, 9% of BM (N=15,242) with LRPC were managed with AS. The likelihood of BM undergoing AS increased from 2010 and for all subsequent years of the study period (P<0.001). Uninsured BM were twice as likely as those with private insurance to undergo AS (odds ratio [OR]=1.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.51-2.58; P<0.001). BM were less likely than WM (N=86,655) to receive AS (OR=0.82; 95% CI, 0.77-0.87; P<0.001). However, on multivariate analysis adjusted for SDCs, there was no significant difference in AS utilization between the 2 race groups. Nearly half of BM (47.5%) treated with radical prostatectomy had a postprostatectomy GS≥7, and BM were 17% more likely to experience postprostatectomy upgrading to GS≥7 when compared with WM (OR=1.17; 95% CI, 1.08-1.26; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The utilization of AS for BM with LRPC seems to be increasing, is influenced by SDCs, and may not differ from AS utilization among WM. Careful consideration of prostate biopsy technique and sampling as well as SDCs at time of treatment planning may be necessary to ensure adequate evaluation of prostatic disease and appropriate disease management for BM with LRPC.