Open vs minimally invasive radical trachelectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: International Radical Trachelectomy Assessment Study.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive radical trachelectomy has emerged as an alternative to open radical hysterectomy for patients with early-stage cervical cancer desiring future fertility. Recent data suggest worse oncologic outcomes after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy than after open radical hysterectomy in stage I cervical cancer. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare 4.5-year disease-free survival after open vs minimally invasive radical trachelectomy. STUDY DESIGN: This was a collaborative, international retrospective study (International Radical Trachelectomy Assessment Study) of patients treated during 2005-2017 at 18 centers in 12 countries. Eligible patients had squamous carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma; had a preoperative tumor size of ≤2 cm; and underwent open or minimally invasive (robotic or laparoscopic) radical trachelectomy with nodal assessment (pelvic lymphadenectomy and/or sentinel lymph node biopsy). The exclusion criteria included neoadjuvant chemotherapy or preoperative pelvic radiotherapy, previous lymphadenectomy or pelvic retroperitoneal surgery, pregnancy, stage IA1 disease with lymphovascular space invasion, aborted trachelectomy (conversion to radical hysterectomy), or vaginal approach. Surgical approach, indication, and adjuvant therapy regimen were at the discretion of the treating institution. A total of 715 patients were entered into the study database. However, 69 patients were excluded, leaving 646 in the analysis. Endpoints were the 4.5-year disease-free survival rate (primary), 4.5-year overall survival rate (secondary), and recurrence rate (secondary). Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate disease-free survival and overall survival. A post hoc weighted analysis was performed, comparing the recurrence rates between surgical approaches, with open surgery being considered as standard and minimally invasive surgery as experimental. RESULTS: Of 646 patients, 358 underwent open surgery, and 288 underwent minimally invasive surgery. The median (range) patient age was 32 (20-42) years for open surgery vs 31 (18-45) years for minimally invasive surgery (P=.11). Median (range) pathologic tumor size was 15 (0-31) mm for open surgery and 12 (0.8-40) mm for minimally invasive surgery (P=.33). The rates of pelvic nodal involvement were 5.3% (19 of 358 patients) for open surgery and 4.9% (14 of 288 patients) for minimally invasive surgery (P=.81). Median (range) follow-up time was 5.5 (0.20-16.70) years for open surgery and 3.1 years (0.02-11.10) years for minimally invasive surgery (P<.001). At 4.5 years, 17 of 358 patients (4.7%) with open surgery and 18 of 288 patients (6.2%) with minimally invasive surgery had recurrence (P=.40). The 4.5-year disease-free survival rates were 94.3% (95% confidence interval, 91.6-97.0) for open surgery and 91.5% (95% confidence interval, 87.6-95.6) for minimally invasive surgery (log-rank P=.37). Post hoc propensity score analysis of recurrence risk showed no difference between surgical approaches (P=.42). At 4.5 years, there were 6 disease-related deaths (open surgery, 3; minimally invasive surgery, 3) (log-rank P=.49). The 4.5-year overall survival rates were 99.2% (95% confidence interval, 97.6-99.7) for open surgery and 99.0% (95% confidence interval, 79.0-99.8) for minimally invasive surgery. CONCLUSION: The 4.5-year disease-free survival rates did not differ between open radical trachelectomy and minimally invasive radical trachelectomy. However, recurrence rates in each group were low. Ongoing prospective studies of conservative management of early-stage cervical cancer may help guide future management.

From street address to survival: Neighborhood socioeconomic status and pancreatic cancer outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Neighborhood factors may influence cancer care through physical, economic, and social means. This study assesses the impact of neighborhood socioeconomic status on diagnosis, treatment, and survival in pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma were identified in the 2010-2016 Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results database. Neighborhood socioeconomic status (divided into tertiles) was based on an National Cancer Institute census tract-level composite score, including income, education, housing, and employment. Multivariate models predicted metastasis at time of diagnosis and receipt of surgery for early-stage disease. Overall survival compared via Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards. RESULTS: Fifteen thousand four hundred and thirty-six patients (29.7%) lived in low neighborhood socioeconomic status, 17,509 (33.7%) in middle neighborhood socioeconomic status, and 19,010 (36.6%) in high neighborhood socioeconomic status areas. On multivariate analysis, neighborhood socioeconomic status was not associated with metastatic disease at diagnosis (low neighborhood socioeconomic status odds ratio 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.97-1.07; ref: high neighborhood socioeconomic status). However, low neighborhood socioeconomic status was associated with decreased likelihood of surgery for localized/regional disease (odds ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.54-0.68; ref: high neighborhood socioeconomic status) and worse overall survival (low neighborhood socioeconomic status hazard ratio 1.18, 95% confidence interval 1.15-1.21; ref: high neighborhood socioeconomic status). CONCLUSION: Patients from resource-poor neighborhoods are less likely to receive stage-appropriate therapy for pancreatic cancer and have an 18% higher risk of death.

The impact of socioeconomic status on survival in stage III colon cancer patients: A retrospective cohort study using the SEER census-tract dataset.

BACKGROUND: The impact of socioeconomic status (SES) has been described for screening and accessing treatment for colon cancer. However, little is known about the "downstream" effect in patients who receive guideline-concordant treatment. This study assessed the impact of SES on cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) for stage III colon cancer patients. METHODS: The SEER Census Tract-Level SES Dataset from 2004 to 2015 was used to identify stage III colon adenocarcinoma patients who received curative-intent surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. The predictor variable was census tract SES. SES was analyzed as quintiles. The outcome variables were OR and CSS. Statistical analysis included chi square tests for association, Kaplan-Meier, Cox, Fine and Gray regression for survival analysis. RESULTS: In total, 27,222 patients met inclusion criteria. Lower SES was associated with younger age, Black or Hispanic race/ethnicity, Medicaid/uninsured, higher T stage, and lower grade tumors. CSS at the 25th percentile was 54 months for the lowest SES quintile and 80 for the highest. Median OS was 113 months for the lowest SES quintile and not reached for highest. The 5-year CSS rate was 72.4% for the lowest SES quintile compared to 78.9% in the highest (p < 0.001). The 5-year OS rate was 66.5% for the lowest SES quintile and 74.6% in the highest (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This is the first study to evaluate CSS and OS in an incidence-based cohort of stage III colon cancer patients using a granular, standardized measure of SES. Despite receipt of guideline-based treatment, SES was associated with disparities in CSS and OS.

Socioeconomic factors in timing of esophagectomy and association with outcomes.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Disparities in esophageal cancer are well-established. The standard treatment for locally advanced esophageal cancer is chemoradiation followed by surgery. We sought to evaluate the association between socioeconomic factors, time to surgery, and patient outcomes. METHODS: All patients ≥18 years old diagnosed with T2/3/4 or node-positive esophageal cancer between 2004 and 2016 and who underwent chemoradiation and esophagectomy in the National Cancer Database were included. Multivariable regression was used to assess the association between socioeconomic variables and time to surgery (grouped into <56, 56-84, and 85-112 days). RESULTS: A total of 12 157 patients were included. Five-year overall survival was 39%, 35%, and 35% for the three groups examined. Postoperative 30- and 90-day mortality was increased in both the 56-84 days to surgery group (odds ratio [OR]: 1.30 and 1.20, respectively) and the 85-112 days group (OR: 1.37 and 1.56, respectively) when compared to <56 days. Patients of a minority race, public insurance, or lower income were more likely to have a longer time to surgery. CONCLUSION: Longer time to surgery is associated with increased postoperative mortality and is more common in patients with lower socioeconomic status. Further research exploring reasons for delays to esophagectomy among disadvantaged patients could help target interventions to reduce disparities.

Impact of assumptions on future costs, disutility and mortality in cost-effectiveness analysis; a model exploration.

INTRODUCTION: In cost-effectiveness analyses, the future costs, disutility and mortality from alternative causes of morbidity are often not completely taken into account. We explored the impact of different assumed values for each of these factors on the cost-effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). METHODS: Twenty different CRC screening strategies and two EAC screening strategies were evaluated using microsimulation. Average health-related expenses, disutility and mortality by age for the U.S. general population were estimated using surveys and lifetables. First, we evaluated strategies under default assumptions, with average mortality, and no accounting for health-related costs and disutility. Then, we varied costs, disutility and mortality between 100% and 150% of the estimated population averages, with 125% as the best estimate. Primary outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained among efficient strategies. RESULTS: The set of efficient strategies was robust to assumptions on future costs, disutility and mortality from other causes of morbidity. However, the incremental cost per QALY gained increased with higher assumed values. For example, for CRC, the ratio for the recommended strategy increased from $15,600 with default assumptions, to $32,600 with average assumption levels, $61,100 with 25% increased levels, and $111,100 with 50% increased levels. Similarly, for EAC, the incremental costs per QALY gained for the recommended EAC screening strategy increased from $106,300 with default assumptions to $198,300 with 50% increased assumptions. In sensitivity analyses without discounting or including only above-average expenses, the impact of assumptions was relatively smaller, but best estimates of the cost per QALY gained remained substantially higher than default estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Assumptions on future costs, utility and mortality from other causes of morbidity substantially impact cost-effectiveness outcomes of cancer screening. More empiric evidence and consensus are needed to guide assumptions in future analyses.

Assessment of the optimal number of positive biopsy cores to discriminate between cancer-specific mortality in high-risk versus very high-risk prostate cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Number of positive prostate biopsy cores represents a key determinant between high versus very high-risk prostate cancer (PCa). We performed a critical appraisal of the association between the number of positive prostate biopsy cores and CSM in high versus very high-risk PCa. METHODS: Within Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2010-2016), 13,836 high versus 20,359 very high-risk PCa patients were identified. Discrimination according to 11 different positive prostate biopsy core cut-offs (≥2-≥12) were tested in Kaplan-Meier, cumulative incidence, and multivariable Cox and competing risks regression models. RESULTS: Among 11 tested positive prostate biopsy core cut-offs, more than or equal to 8 (high-risk vs. very high-risk: n = 18,986 vs. n = 15,209, median prostate-specific antigen [PSA]: 10.6 vs. 16.8 ng/ml, <.001) yielded optimal discrimination and was closely followed by the established more than or equal to 5 cut-off (high-risk vs. very high-risk: n = 13,836 vs. n = 20,359, median PSA: 16.5 vs. 11.1 ng/ml, p < .001). Stratification according to more than or equal to 8 positive prostate biopsy cores resulted in CSM rates of 4.1 versus 14.2% (delta: 10.1%, multivariable hazard ratio: 2.2, p < .001) and stratification according to more than or equal to 5 positive prostate biopsy cores with CSM rates of 3.7 versus 11.9% (delta: 8.2%, multivariable hazard ratio: 2.0, p < .001) in respectively high versus very high-risk PCa. CONCLUSIONS: The more than or equal to 8 positive prostate biopsy cores cutoff yielded optimal results. It was very closely followed by more than or equal to 5 positive prostate biopsy cores. In consequence, virtually the same endorsement may be made for either cutoff. However, more than or equal to 5 positive prostate biopsy cores cutoff, based on its existing wide implementation, might represent the optimal choice.

Assessment of safety margin after microwave ablation of stage I NSCLC with three-dimensional reconstruction technique using CT imaging.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the ablative margin of microwave ablation (MWA) for stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) using a three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 36 patients with stage I NSCLC lesions undergoing MWA and analyzed the relationship between minimal ablative margin and the local tumor progression (LTP) interval, the distant metastasis interval and disease-free survival (DFS). The minimal ablative margin was measured using the fusion of 3D computed tomography reconstruction technique. RESULTS: Univariate and multivariate analyses indicated that tumor size (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.91, P < 0.01; HR = 2.41, P = 0.01) and minimal ablative margin (HR = 0.13, P < 0.01; HR = 0.11, P < 0.01) were independent prognostic factors for the LTP interval. Tumor size (HR = 1.96, P < 0.01; HR = 2.35, P < 0.01) and minimal ablative margin (HR = 0.17, P < 0.01; HR = 0.13, P < 0.01) were independent prognostic factors for DFS by univariate and multivariate analyses. In the group with a minimal ablative margin < 5 mm, the 1-year and 2-year local progression-free rates were 35.7% and 15.9%, respectively. The 1-year and 2-year distant metastasis-free rates were 75.6% and 75.6%, respectively; the 1-year and 2-year disease-free survival rates were 16.7% and 11.1%, respectively. In the group with a minimal ablative margin ≥ 5 mm, the 1-year and 2-year local progression-free rates were 88.9% and 69.4%, respectively. The 1-year and 2-year distant metastasis-free rates were 94.4% and 86.6%, respectively; the 1-year and 2-year disease-free survival rates were 88.9% and 63.7%, respectively. The feasibility of 3D quantitative analysis of the ablative margins after MWA for NSCLC has been validated. CONCLUSIONS: The minimal ablative margin is an independent factor of NSCLC relapse after MWA, and the fusion of 3D reconstruction technique can feasibly assess the minimal ablative margin.

The impact of socioeconomic status on stage at presentation, receipt of diagnostic imaging, receipt of treatment and overall survival in colorectal cancer patients.

Socioeconomic factors influence patterns of care in colorectal cancer. Our study investigates the impact of socioeconomic status (SES) on stage at presentation, receipt of diagnostic imaging, receipt of treatment and overall survival (OS) in a universal healthcare system. The Ontario Cancer Registry (OCR) was accessed to identify a cohort of patients diagnosed with colorectal adenocarcinoma from 2007 to 2016 in Ontario, Canada. SES was measured using median neighborhood income divided into quintiles (Q1-Q5; Q1 = lowest income). Logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate stage, imaging and treatment. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate OS. All endpoints were adjusted for demographics and comorbidities with OS models also adjusting for stage, imaging and treatment. In total, 39 802 colon and 13 164 rectal patients were identified. Lower SES was associated with advanced stage at presentation in both cohorts (Q1 vs Q5: Colon odds ratio [OR] = 1.08, P = .046, rectal OR = 1.25, P < .0001). Lower SES colon patients were less likely to receive adjuvant oxaliplatin (Q1 vs Q5: OR = 0.78, P < .001) and all palliative chemotherapies studied including oxaliplatin (Q1 vs Q5: OR = 0.60, P < 0.0001), irinotecan (Q1 vs Q5: OR = 0.65, P < .0001), bevacizumab (Q1 vs Q5: OR = 0.70, P < .001), cetuximab (Q1 vs Q5: OR = 0.40, P = .0053) and panitumumab (Q1 vs Q5: OR = 0.54, P = .0036). In rectal patients, lower SES was associated with decreased receipt of rectal cancer resection for stages I-III (Q1 vs Q5: OR = 0.78, P < .001), adjuvant oxaliplatin (Q1 vs Q5: OR = 0.72, P = .0020) and palliative chemotherapies including oxaliplatin (Q1 vs Q5: OR = 0.59, P < .001), irinotecan (Q1 vs Q5: OR = 0.53, P < .001) and bevacizumab (Q1 vs Q5: OR = 0.71, P = .046). All survival models identified poorer OS for lower SES patients (total colorectal; Q1 vs Q5: Hazard ratio [HR] = 1.25, P < .0001). These findings suggest disparities persist even within universal healthcare.

Patient Factors Limit Colon Cancer Survival at Safety-Net Hospitals: A National Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Safety-net hospitals serve a vital role in society by providing care for vulnerable populations. Existing data regarding oncologic outcomes of patients with colon cancer treated at safety-net hospitals are limited and variable. The objective of this study was to delineate disparities in treatment and outcomes for patients with colon cancer treated at safety-net hospitals. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study identified 802,304 adult patients with colon adenocarcinoma from the National Cancer Database between 2004-2016. Patients were stratified according to safety-net burden of the treating hospital as previously described. Patient, tumor, facility, and treatment characteristics were compared between groups as were operative and short-term outcomes. Cox proportional hazards regression was utilized to compare overall survival between patients treated at high, medium, and low burden hospitals. RESULTS: Patients treated at safety-net hospitals were demographically distinct and presented with more advanced disease. They were also less likely to receive surgery, adjuvant chemotherapy, negative resection margins, adequate lymphadenectomy, or a minimally invasive operative approach. On multivariate analysis adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics, survival was inferior for patients at safety-net hospitals, even for those with stage 0 (in situ) disease. CONCLUSION: This analysis revealed inferior survival for patients with colon cancer treated at safety-net hospitals, including those without invasive cancer. These findings suggest that unmeasured population differences may confound analyses and affect survival more than provider or treatment disparities.

Is Improved Survival in Early-Stage Pancreatic Cancer Worth the Extra Cost at High-Volume Centers?

BACKGROUND: Volume of operative cases may be an important factor associated with improved survival for early-stage pancreatic cancer. Most high-volume pancreatic centers are also academic institutions, which have been associated with additional healthcare costs. We hypothesized that at high-volume centers, the value of the extra survival outweighs the extra cost. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective cohort study used data from the California Cancer Registry linked to the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development database from January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2012. Stage I-II pancreatic cancer patients who underwent resection were included. Multivariable analyses estimated overall survival and 30-day costs at low- vs high-volume pancreatic surgery centers. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental net benefit (INB) were estimated, and statistical uncertainty was characterized using net benefit regression. RESULTS: Of 2,786 patients, 46.5% were treated at high-volume centers and 53.5% at low-volume centers. There was a 0.45-year (5.4 months) survival benefit (95% CI 0.21-0.69) and a $7,884 extra cost associated with receiving surgery at high-volume centers (95% CI $4,074-$11,694). The ICER was $17,529 for an additional year of survival (95% CI $7,997-$40,616). For decision-makers willing to pay more than $20,000 for an additional year of life, high-volume centers appear cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Although healthcare costs were greater at high-volume centers, patients undergoing pancreatic surgery at high-volume centers experienced a survival benefit (5.4 months). The extra cost of $17,529 per additional year is quite modest for improved survival and is economically attractive by many oncology standards.

Palliative radiotherapy after oesophageal cancer stenting (ROCS): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced oesophageal cancer have a median survival of 3-6 months, and most require intervention for dysphagia. Self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) insertion is the most typical form of palliation in these patients, but dysphagia deterioration and re-intervention are common. This study examined the efficacy of adjuvant external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) compared with usual care alone in preventing dysphagia deterioration and reducing service use after SEMS insertion. METHODS: This was a multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial based at cancer centres and acute care hospitals in England, Scotland, and Wales. Patients (aged ≥16 years) with incurable oesophageal carcinoma receiving stent insertion for primary management of dysphagia were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive usual care alone or EBRT (20 Gy in five fractions or 30 Gy in ten fractions) plus usual care after stent insertion. Usual care was implemented according to need as identified by the local multidisciplinary team (MDT). Randomisation was via the method of minimisation stratified by treating centre, stage at diagnosis (I-III vs IV), histology (squamous or non-squamous), and MDT intent to give chemotherapy (yes vs no). The primary outcome was difference in proportions of participants with dysphagia deterioration (>11 point decrease on patient-reported European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire-oesophagogastric module [QLQ-OG25], or a dysphagia-related event consistent with such a deterioration) or death by 12 weeks in a modified intention-to-treat (ITT) population, which excluded patients who did not have a stent inserted and those without a baseline QLQ-OG25 assessment. Secondary outcomes included survival, quality of life (QoL), morbidities (including time to first bleeding event or hospital admission for bleeding event and first dysphagia-related stent complications or re-intervention), and cost-effectiveness. Safety analysis was undertaken in the modified ITT population. The study is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry, ISRCTN12376468, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01915693, and is completed. FINDINGS: 220 patients were randomly assigned between Dec 16, 2013, and Aug 24, 2018, from 23 UK centres. The modified ITT population (n=199) comprised 102 patients in the usual care group and 97 patients in the EBRT group. Radiotherapy did not reduce dysphagia deterioration, which was reported in 36 (49%) of 74 patients receiving usual care versus 34 (45%) of 75 receiving EBRT (adjusted odds ratio 0·82 [95% CI 0·40-1·68], p=0·59) in those with complete data for the primary endpoint. No significant difference was observed in overall survival: median overall survival was 19·7 weeks (95% CI 14·4-27·7) with usual care and 18·9 weeks (14·7-25·6) with EBRT (adjusted hazard ratio 1·06 [95% CI 0·78-1·45], p=0·70; n=199). Median time to first bleeding event or hospital admission for a bleeding event was 49·0 weeks (95% CI 33·3-not reached) with usual care versus 65·9 weeks (52·7-not reached) with EBRT (adjusted subhazard ratio 0·52 [95% CI 0·28-0·97], p=0·038; n=199). No time versus treatment interaction was observed for prespecified QoL outcomes. We found no evidence of differences between trial group in time to first stent complication or re-intervention event. The most common (grade 3-4) adverse event was fatigue, reported in 19 (19%) of 102 patients receiving usual care alone and 22 (23%) of 97 receiving EBRT. On cost-utility analysis, EBRT was more expensive and less efficacious than usual care. INTERPRETATION: Patients with advanced oesophageal cancer having SEMS insertion for the primary management of their dysphagia did not gain additional benefit from concurrent palliative radiotherapy and it should not be routinely offered. For a minority of patients clinically considered to be at high risk of tumour bleeding, concurrent palliative radiotherapy might reduce bleeding risk and the need for associated interventions. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

The Impact of Socioeconomic Deprivation on Clinical Outcomes for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma at a High-volume Cancer Center: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of a granular measure of SED on pancreatic surgical and cancer-related outcomes at a high-volume cancer center that employs a standardized clinic pathway. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Prior research has shown that low socioeconomic status leads to less treatment and worse outcomes for PDAC. However, these studies employed inconsistent definitions and categorizations of socioeconomic status, aggregated individual socioeconomic data using large geographic areas, and lacked detailed clinicopathologic variables. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 1552 PDAC patients between 2008 and 2015. Patients were stratified using the area deprivation index, a validated dataset that ranks census block groups based on SED. Multivariable models were used in the curative surgery cohort to predict the impact of SED on (1) grade 3/4 Clavien-Dindo complications, (2) initiation of adjuvant therapy, (3) completion of adjuvant therapy, and (4) overall survival. RESULTS: Patients from high SED neighborhoods constituted 29.9% of the cohort. Median overall survival was 28 months. The rate of Clavien-Dindo grade 3/4 complications was 14.2% and completion of adjuvant therapy was 65.6%. There was no evidence that SED impacted surgical evaluation, receipt of curative-intent surgery, postoperative complications, receipt of adjuvant therapy or overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: Although nearly one-quarter of curative-intent surgery patients were from high SED neighborhoods, this factor was not associated with measures of treatment quality or survival. These observations suggest that treatment at a high-volume cancer center employing a standardized clinical pathway may in part address socioeconomic disparities in pancreatic cancer.

Spine metastasis in patients with prostate cancer: Survival prognosis assessment.

BACKGROUND: Patients presenting spine metastasis (SpM) from prostate cancer (PC) form a heterogeneous population, through this study, we aimed to clarify and update their prognostic assessment. METHODS: The patient data used in this study was obtained from a French national multicenter database of patients treated for PC with SpM between 2014 and 2017. A total of 72 patients and 365 SpM cases were diagnosed. RESULTS: The median overall survival time for all patients following the event of SpM was 28.8 months. First, we identified three significant survival prognostic factors of PC patients with SpM: good Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group/World Health Organization personnel status (Status 0 hazard ratio [HR]: 0.031, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.008-0.127; p < .0001) or (Status 1 HR: 0.163, 95% CI: 0.068-0.393; p < .0001) and SpM radiotherapy (HR: 2.923, 95% CI: 1.059-8.069; p < .0001). Secondly, the presence of osteolytic lesions of the spine (vs. osteoblastic) was found to represent an independent prognosis factor for longer survival [HR: 0.424, 95% CI: 0.216-0.830; p = .01]. Other factors including the number of SpM, surgery, extraspinal metastasis, synchrone metastasis, metastasis-free survival, and SpM recurrence were not identified as being prognostically relevant to the survival of patients with PC. CONCLUSION: Survival and our ability to estimate it in patients presenting PC with SpM have improved significantly. Therefore, we advocate the relevance of updating SpM prognostic scoring algorithms by incorporating data regarding the timeline of PC as well as the presence of osteolytic SpM to conceive treatments that are adapted to each patient.

Racial and Socioeconomic Disparities in the Treatments and Outcomes of Pancreatic Cancer Among Different Treatment Facility Types.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate racial and socioeconomic disparities for patients with pancreatic cancer across different facility types. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for pancreatic cancer cases from 2004 to 2015. Along with propensity score matching analysis, multivariate logistic and Cox model were used to assess effects of facility type, race, elements of socioeconomics on receipt of treatment, time to treatment, and overall survival, separately. RESULTS: Among 223,465 patients, 44.6%, 42.1%, and 13.3% were treated at academic, community, and integrated facilities, respectively. Private insurance was associated with more treatment (odds ratio, 1.41; P < 0.001) and better survival [hazards ratio (HR), 0.84; P < 0.001]. Higher education was associated with earlier treatment (HR, 1.09; P < 0.001). African Americans had less treatment (odds ratio, 0.97; P = 0.04) and delayed treatment (HR, 0.89; P < 0.001) despite later stage at diagnosis. After adjusting for socioeconomic status, African Americans had similar survival (HR, 0.99; P = 0.11) overall and improved survival (HR, 0.95; P = 0.016) at integrated facilities. CONCLUSIONS: Higher socioeconomic status was associated with better treatment and survival. After adjusting for socioeconomic disparities, race did not affect survival. Less racial disparity was observed at integrated facilities.

Population-based Assessment of Intermittent Androgen Deprivation Therapy Utilization for Relapsed, Nonmetastatic, Hormone-sensitive Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate.

OBJECTIVES: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is the standard of care for men with nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (nmHSPC) after treatment failure. Although intermittent ADT (iADT) is noninferior to continuous ADT for prostate cancer outcomes, with superior quality of life and cost-to-benefit ratio, little is known regarding its real-world utilization. The authors aimed to determine the utilization of iADT in a Canadian Provincial Cancer Program for relapsed nmHSPC and identified risk factors associated with the nonreceipt of iADT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective population-based cohort study used linked administrative databases to identify all patients with relapsed nmHSPC from 2012 to 2016 and quantified ADT prescription history. Patients were defined as iADT eligible if prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was <4 ng/mL and trending downwards on ≥2 sequential PSAs after ≥6 months of ADT. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to determine factors associated with nonreceipt of iADT. RESULTS: A total of 601 men with relapsed, nmHSPC were included with a median age at relapse of 73 (range, 46 to 96), pre-ADT PSA of 12.2 ng/mL, and a median pre-ADT PSA doubling time of 7.8 months. 80.9% of the cohort were eligible to receive iADT and 74.4% were treated with iADT. On multivariable analysis, patients originally treated with surgery (odds ratio [OR], 0.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.08-0.46) or having a Gleason Score ≥8 (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.12-0.78) had decreased odds of receipt of iADT. Patients with longer PSA doubling times were more likely to receive iADT (OR, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.17-6.31). CONCLUSIONS: The utilization of iADT was relatively common for men in Manitoba during the study period, however, the uptake of iADT can be improved among identified subgroups.

Impact of affordable care act on the treatment and outcomes for stage-IV colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced cancers are among the most vulnerable group of patients. We sought to analyze the impact of Affordable Care Act (ACA) on the interaction of socioeconomic factors with treatment and survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancers. METHODS: National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for patients with Stage-IV colon(CCa) and rectal cancers(R-Ca) diagnosed 2004-2015 and excluded those who did not receive any therapies within 6 months of diagnosis. Enrollment-rates were calculated as receipt of primary therapy as the incident-event (numerator) over time-to-initiation of therapy (denominator) and used to calculate incident-rate ratios that was analyzed using Poisson regression analysis- reported as enrollment-rate ratios (ER, <1 indicating lower enrollment rate). Multivariate Cox-proportional hazard model was performed for survival analysis and reported as calculate Hazard Ratios (HR). RESULTS: For CCa, enrollment to primary therapies was significantly associated (p-value < 0.05) with gender, race, insurance status, educational status and treatment facility. The HR for non-Hispanic Blacks (NHB) vs. Whites (NHW) improved from 1.1(1.03-1.11),p-value<0.005 to no-significant difference post-ACA. For R-Ca, the enrollment rates were favorable for NHB vs. NHW and ER improved from 1.15(1.0-1.32),p-value = 0.054) to 1.29(1.06-1.58),p-value = 0.013 post-ACA. Despite this, the HR for mortality were unfavorable - 1.19(1.06-1.33),p-value = 0.003 that persisted through the post-ACA period. The HR was favorable for the insured group in both cancer groups (0.84 for R-Ca,0.86 for CCa) and for high-income vs. low-income group-0.90(0.87-0.94),p-value < 0.005 in CCa. CONCLUSION: The ACA appears to have had a positive impact overall but further research and ongoing interventions are warranted to mitigate disparities in this population.

Total Lesion Glycolysis Assessment Identifies a Patient Fraction With a High Cure Rate Among Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Patients Treated With Definitive Chemoradiation.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine whether tumor metabolism could be prognostic of cure in L-EAC patients who receive definitive chemoradiation. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Patients with inoperable localized esophageal adenocarcinoma (L-EAC) often receive definitive chemoradiation; however, biomarkers and/or imaging variables to prognosticate cure are missing. METHODS: Two hundred sixty-six patients with L-EAC who had chemoradiation but not surgery were analyzed from the prospectively maintained EAC databases in the Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (Texas, USA) between March 2002 and April 2015. Maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) from the positron emission tomography data were evaluated. RESULTS: Of 266 patients, 253 (95%) were men; the median age was 67 years (range 20-91 yrs) and 153 had poorly differentiated L-EAC. The median SUVmax was 10.3 (range 0-87) and the median TLG was 85.7 (range 0-3227). Both SUVmax and TLG were higher among those with: tumors >5 cm in length, high clinical stage, and high tumor and node categories by TNM staging (all P < 0.0001). Of 234 patients evaluable for cure, 60 (25.6%) achieved cure. In the multivariable logistic regression model, low TLG (but not low SUVmax) was associated with cure (continuous TLG value: odds ratio 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54-0.92). TLG was quantified into 4 quartile categorical variables; first quartile (Q1; <32), second quartile (Q2; 32.0-85.6), third quartile (Q3; 85.6-228.4), and fourth quartile (Q4; >228.4); the cure rate was only 10.3% in Q4 and 5.1% in Q3 but increased to 28.8% in Q2, and 58.6% in Q1. The cross-validation resulted in an average accuracy of prediction score of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.75-0.86). CONCLUSIONS: In this cross-validated model, 59% of patients in the 1st quartile were cured following definitive chemoradiation. Baseline TLG could be pursued as one of the tools for esophageal preservation.

Limited Role for Routine Restaging After Neoadjuvant Therapy in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Although many patients with locally advanced rectal cancer undergo restaging imaging after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and before surgery, the benefit of this practice is unclear. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of reimaging on outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with stage 2 and 3 rectal adenocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy between May 2005 and April 2018. Patient and disease characteristics, imaging, treatment, and oncologic outcomes were compared between those who underwent restaging and those who went directly to surgery. Predictors of outcomes and cost effectiveness of restaging were determined. RESULTS: Of 224 patients, 146 underwent restaging. Six restaged patients had findings leading to a change in management. There was no difference in freedom from recurrence (P = 0.807) and overall survival (P = 0.684) based on restaging. Pretreatment carcinoembryonic antigen level >3 ng/mL (P = 0.010), clinical T stage 4 (P = 0.016), and pathologic T4 (P = 0.047) and N2 (P = 0.002) disease increased the risk of death, whereas adjuvant chemotherapy decreased the risk of death (P < 0.001) on multivariate analysis. Disease recurrence was lower with pelvic exenteration (P = 0.005) and in females (P = 0.039) and higher with pathologic N2 (P = 0.003) and N3 (P = 0.002) disease. The average cost of reimaging is $40,309 per change in management; however, $45 is saved per patient when downstream surgical costs are considered. CONCLUSIONS: Imaging restaging after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer rarely changes treatment and does not improve survival. In a subset of patients at higher risk for worse outcome, reimaging may be beneficial.

Variation in long-term oncologic outcomes by type of cancer center accreditation: An analysis of a SEER-Medicare population with pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cancer center accreditation is designed to identify centers that provide high-quality cancer care. This also guides patients and referring physicians towards centers of excellence for specialized care. We sought to examine if cancer center accreditation was associated with improved long-term oncologic outcomes in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. METHODS: Using the SEER-Medicare database, we identified patients who underwent pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma from 1996 to 2013. Hospitals were categorized into three groups: National Cancer Institute-designated (NCI-designated) centers, Commission on Cancer (CoC)-accredited centers, and "non-accredited" (NA) centers. Multilevel mixed-effects models were used to calculate adjusted examined lymph nodes, disease-specific survival (DSS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: We identified 5,118 patients who underwent pancreatectomy at 632 hospitals (41.0% NA, 49.6% CoC, 9.4% NCI). NCI-designated centers had a greater median number of lymph nodes examined compared with CoC-accredited or NA centers (14 vs. 10 vs. 11.0 nodes, respectively; p < 0.001). Patients treated at NCI centers had a higher 5-year DSS compared to those treated at CoC or NA centers (31.2% vs. 23.6% vs. 23.0%, respectively; p < 0.001). Finally, patients treated at NCI centers had a higher 5-year OS compared to those treated at CoC or NA centers (23.5% vs. 18.9% vs. 17.9%, respectively; p < 0.001). The associations held true when adjusted analyses were performed. CONCLUSION: Patients with resected pancreatic cancer treated at NCI-designated centers were associated with improved long-term oncologic outcomes. There was no difference between CoC-accredited centers compared with NA centers. Meticulous validation of accreditation is warranted globally prior to implementation.

Cost-Effectiveness and Quality-Adjusted Survival of Watch and Wait After Complete Response to Chemoradiotherapy for Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by total mesorectal excision (TME) is the standard treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer. There is interest in deescalating local therapy after a clinical complete response to CRT. We hypothesized that a watch-and-wait (WW) strategy offers comparable cancer-specific survival, superior quality-adjusted survival, and reduced cost compared with upfront TME. METHODS: We developed a decision-analytic model to compare WW, low anterior resection, and abdominoperineal resection for patients achieving a clinical complete response to CRT. Rates of local regrowth, pelvic recurrence, and distant metastasis were derived from series comparing WW with TME after pathologic complete response. Lifetime incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) were calculated between strategies, and sensitivity analyses were performed to study model uncertainty. RESULTS: The base case 5-year cancer-specific survival was 93.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 91.5% to 94.9%) on a WW program compared with 95.9% (95% CI = 93.6% to 97.4%) after upfront TME. WW was dominant relative to low anterior resection, with cost savings of $28 500 (95% CI = $22 200 to $39 000) and incremental QALY of 0.527 (95% CI = 0.138 to 1.125). WW was also dominant relative to abdominoperineal resection, with a cost savings of $32 100 (95% CI = $21 800 to $49 200) and incremental QALY of 0.601 (95% CI = 0.213 to 1.208). WW remained dominant in sensitivity analysis unless the rate of surgical salvage fell to 73.0%. CONCLUSIONS: Using current multi-institutional recurrence estimates, we observed comparable cancer-specific survival, superior quality-adjusted survival, and decreased costs with WW compared with upfront TME. Upfront TME was preferred when surgical salvage rates were low.