Survival outcomes in an older US population with advanced melanoma and central nervous system metastases: SEER-Medicare analysis.

BACKGROUND: Central nervous system (CNS) metastasis is common in advanced melanoma patients. New treatment options have improved overall prognosis, but information is lacking for patients with CNS metastases. We investigated treatment patterns and survival outcomes in older melanoma patients with and without CNS metastases. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of SEER-Medicare, a population-based linked database, was undertaken in patients aged > 65 years with advanced melanoma diagnosed from 2004 to 2011 and followed until 2013. RESULTS: A total of 2522 patients were included. CNS metastases were present in 24.8% of patients at initial metastatic diagnosis; 16.5% developed CNS metastases during follow-up. Chemotherapy was the most common treatment regardless of CNS metastases. Overall survival (OS) was better for patients without CNS metastases (median, 9.5 months; 95% confidence interval [CI], 8.8-10.2) vs patients with CNS metastases (3.63 months; 95% CI, 3.4-3.9). Among patients with CNS metastases, median OS for targeted therapy, immunotherapy, and chemotherapy was 6 (95% CI, 2.5-9.6), 5.5 (95% CI, 3.8-7.5), and 4.5 (95% CI, 3.8-5.4) months, respectively, vs 2.4 (95% CI, 2.1-2.7) and 2.1 (95% CI, 1.8-2.7) months for local radiotherapy and no treatment, respectively. Stereotactic radiosurgery demonstrated higher OS vs whole-brain radiation therapy (median, 4.98 [95% CI, 3.5-7.5] vs 2.4 [95% CI, 2.1-2.7] months). CONCLUSION: Patients with CNS metastases from melanoma remain a population with high unmet medical need despite recent advances in treatment. Systemic treatments (eg, BRAF-targeted therapy and immunotherapy) and stereotactic radiosurgery demonstrated meaningful but modest improvements in OS. Further explorations of combinations of radiotherapy, BRAF-targeted therapies, and immunotherapies are needed.

Autologous stem cell transplant for high-risk neuroblastoma: Achieving cure with low-cost adaptations.

BACKGROUND: The majority of patients in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) are unable to receive optimal therapy, including autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) for high-risk neuroblastoma. Management is intensive and multidisciplinary; survival is often poor. We report a single-center outcome of high-risk neuroblastoma, with adaptations optimized for LMIC. PROCEDURE: The study was retrospective. Patients were treated on the backbone of the high-risk neuroblastoma study-1 of SIOP-Europe (HR-NBL1/SIOPEN) protocol with ASCT. Adaptations incorporated to decrease cost, requirement for inpatient admission, infections, and faster engraftment included (a) optional outpatient administration for rapid-COJEC, (b) two sessions of stem-cell apheresis, (c) storing stem cells at 2-6°C without cryopreservation for up to 7 days, (d) no central lines, (e) no antibacterial/antifungal/antiviral prophylaxis, (f) omitting formal assessment of cardiac/renal/pulmonary functions before ASCT, and (g) administration of pegylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor on Day +4. RESULTS: Over 5 years 9 months, 35 patients with high-risk neuroblastoma were treated. Rapid-COJEC was administered over a median duration of 80 days (interquartile range: 77, 83). Conditioning regimen included melphalan (n = 7), oral busulfan-melphalan (Bu/Mel; n = 6), or intravenous Bu/Mel (n = 22). The median viability of stem cells stored for 6 days (n = 28) was 93% (range: 88-99). Two (5.7%) patients had ASCT-related mortality. The 3-year overall and event-free survival was 41% and 39%, respectively. A relapse occurred in 20 (57%) patients. Treatment abandonment was observed in one (3%) patient. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of therapy in a disciplined time frame along with low-cost adaptations enables to manage high-risk neuroblastoma with low abandonment and an encouraging survival in LMIC. Stem cells can be stored safely without cryopreservation for up to 7 days.

LINAC-based stereotactic radiosurgery versus hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy delivered in 3 or 5 fractions for vestibular schwannomas: comparative assessment from a single institution.

PURPOSE: The optimal treatment strategy for vestibular schwannoma (VS) is not known, and different radiation techniques and fractionation regimens are currently being used. This report aimed to assess outcomes after LINAC-based radiosurgery (SRS) and hypofractionated radiotherapy (hypo-FSRT) and identify possible differences in outcomes between hypo-FSRT delivered in 3 or 5 fractions. METHODS: From 2005 to 2017, 136 patients underwent treatment with radiotherapy for VS. Thirty-seven patients received SRS (12 Gy), and 99 received hypo-FSRT. Hypo-FSRT was delivered in 3 fractions (total 18-21 Gy, n = 39) and 5 fractions (total 25 Gy, n = 60). RESULTS: The median follow-up was 57 months. Eight patients had progression requiring surgery, corresponding to an overall local control rate of 93.4%, with no significant difference between the fractionation schedules. A correlation with borderline significance (p = 0.052) was detected between cystic tumors and local failure. A tendency toward a higher incidence of local failure was observed after 2015 when SRS treatment increased and included slightly larger tumors. Hearing preservation was observed in 35% of patients and 36% of patients experienced acute side effects, but persistent facial or trigeminal nerve toxicity was rare. CONCLUSION: SRS and hypo-FSRT with 3 or 5 fractions provided a high rate of local control with no significant differences between treatment schedules. SRS is a well-documented radiation technique for VS and is the recommendation for small- to medium-sized tumors. This report demonstrates excellent long-term outcomes after hypo-FSRT; this regimen can be delivered safely and is an alternative for selected patients.

Comparative Effectiveness of Prostate Cancer Treatment Options: Limitations of Retrospective Analysis of Cancer Registry Data.

PURPOSE: Retrospective analyses of cancer registry and institutional data have consistently found better survival after radical prostatectomy versus radiation therapy, which contrasts with findings from a randomized trial. This is likely because of the inability of retrospective studies to fully account for comorbidity differences across treatment groups because of the lack of detailed data in the registries. We use a unique population-based data set with detailed data regarding comorbidities and functional limitations to assess whether this can provide valid comparisons of survival across prostate cancer treatment groups. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (MHOS) data set results from a linkage between the SEER database and the MHOS database, which includes detailed information regarding patient-reported comorbidity and functional limitations. We analyzed 3102 patients with prostate cancer in SEER-MHOS and used latent class analysis to identify the healthiest group with minimal comorbidity burden and functional limitations. Among the healthiest group, we examined overall survival across treatments using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Three distinct health groups were identified using latent class analysis; the healthiest group comprised 57% of the cohort and had a 10-year overall survival of 67%. Other health groups had higher rates of comorbidities or functional limitations. Among the healthiest group, 10-year overall survival differed across treatment groups: no local treatment (55%), external beam radiation therapy (69%), brachytherapy (76%), and radical prostatectomy (85%). Survival curves for the 3 treated groups separated at 4 years of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the detailed health status information available in SEER-MHOS, our retrospective analysis could not fully account for patient selection biases across prostate cancer treatment groups. These findings highlight an important limitation of retrospective studies using population-based data sets and serve as a reminder to interpret results with caution.

Factors Associated With Treatment of Clinical Stage I Non-Small-cell Lung Cancer: A Population-based Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The present study examined clinical stage I non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment in the population-based California Cancer Registry. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The characteristics associated with first clinical stage I NSCLC treatment (surgery, radiation, no local therapy) from 2003 to 2014 were identified using logistic regression. Survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard analyses. RESULTS: Surgery was used in most patients who met the inclusion criteria (14,545 of 19,893; 73.1%), although relatively similar numbers had undergone radiation (n = 2848; 14.3%) or not received therapy (n = 2500; 12.6%). Surgery use ranged from 68.5% to 77.2% patients annually. The percentage of patients with no therapy decreased from 18.1% (315 of 1737) in 2003 to 10.3% (176 of 1703) in 2014, and radiation use increased from 10.7% (185 of 1737) in 2003 to 21.2% (361 of 1703) in 2014. Patients who did not receive therapy were more likely to be older, not white, male, and unmarried, to have no insurance or public insurance other than Medicare, to live in a lower socioeconomic status neighborhood, to have been seen at a non-National Cancer Institute cancer center hospital or hospital serving lower socioeconomic status patients, and to have larger tumors. The 5-year all-cause survival after no therapy (12.7%) was significantly worse than that after surgery (64.9%) or radiation (21.5%; P < .0001). CONCLUSION: In the present population-based analysis, surgery was the most common treatment for clinical stage I NSCLC but was not used for almost 27% of patients. Radiation use increased and the proportion of patients who did not receive any therapy decreased over time.

Survival After Conservative Management Versus External Beam Radiation Therapy in Elderly Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare survival in elderly men with clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa) according to treatment type, defined as radiation therapy (RT) with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) versus conservative management (observation). METHODS AND MATERIALS: In the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database, we identified 23,790 patients aged 80 years or more with clinically localized PCa treated with either RT or observation between 1991 and 2009. Competing risks analyses focused on cancer-specific mortality and other-cause mortality, after accounting for confounders. All analyses were repeated after stratification according to grade (well-differentiated vs moderately differentiated vs poorly differentiated disease), race, and United States region, in patients with no comorbidities and in patients with at least 1 comorbidity. Analyses were repeated within most contemporary patients, namely those treated between 2001 and 2009. RESULTS: Radiation therapy was associated with more favorable cancer-specific mortality rates than observation in patients with moderately differentiated disease (hazard ratio [HR] 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66-0.94; P=.009) and in patients with poorly differentiated disease (HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.49-0.69; P<.001). Conversely, the benefit of RT was not observed in well-differentiated disease. The benefit of RT was confirmed in black men (HR 0.54; 95% CI 0.35-0.83; P=.004), across all United States regions (all P≤.004), in the subgroups of the healthiest patients (HR 0.67; 95% CI 0.57-0.78; P<.001), in patients with at least 1 comorbidity (HR 0.69; 95% CI 0.56-0.83; P<.001), and in most contemporary patients (HR 0.55; 95% CI 0.46-0.66; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Radiation therapy seems to be associated with a reduction in the risk of death from PCa relative to observation in elderly patients with clinically localized PCa, except for those with well-differentiated disease.

Survival Outcomes of Whole-Pelvic Versus Prostate-Only Radiation Therapy for High-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients With Use of the National Cancer Data Base.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: The addition of whole pelvic (WP) compared with prostate-only (PO) radiation therapy (RT) for clinically node-negative prostate cancer remains controversial. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the survival benefit of adding WPRT versus PO-RT for high-risk, node-negative prostate cancer, using the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with high-risk prostate cancer treated from 2004 to 2006, with available data for RT volume, coded as prostate and pelvis (WPRT) or prostate alone (PO-RT) were included. Multivariate analysis (MVA) and propensity-score matched analysis (PSM) were performed. Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) based on overall survival (OS) using Gleason score (GS), T stage, and pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was also conducted. RESULTS: A total of 14,817 patients were included: 7606 (51.3%) received WPRT, and 7211 (48.7%) received PO-RT. The median follow-up time was 81 months (range, 2-122 months). Under MVA, the addition of WPRT for high-risk patients had no OS benefit compared with PO-RT (HR 1.05; P=.100). On subset analysis, patients receiving dose-escalated RT also did not benefit from WPRT (HR 1.01; P=.908). PSM confirmed no survival benefit with the addition of WPRT for high-risk patients (HR 1.05; P=.141). In addition, RPA was unable to demonstrate a survival benefit of WPRT for any subset. Other prognostic factors for inferior OS under MVA included older age (HR 1.25; P<.001), increasing comorbidity scores (HR 1.46; P<.001), higher T stage (HR 1.17; P<.001), PSA (HR 1.81; P<.001), and GS (HR 1.29; P<.001), and decreasing median county household income (HR 1.15; P=.011). Factors improving OS included the addition of androgen deprivation therapy (HR 0.92; P=.033), combination external beam RT plus brachytherapy boost (HR 0.71; P<.001), and treatment at an academic/research institution (HR 0.84; P=.002). CONCLUSION: In the largest reported analysis of WPRT for patients with high-risk prostate cancer treated in the dose-escalated era, the addition of WPRT demonstrated no survival advantage compared with PO-RT.

Estimating the burden of recurrent events in the presence of competing risks: the method of mean cumulative count.

Cumulative incidence has been widely used to estimate the cumulative probability of developing an event of interest by a given time, in the presence of competing risks. When it is of interest to measure the total burden of recurrent events in a population, however, the cumulative incidence method is not appropriate because it considers only the first occurrence of the event of interest for each individual in the analysis: Subsequent occurrences are not included. Here, we discuss a straightforward and intuitive method termed "mean cumulative count," which reflects a summarization of all events that occur in the population by a given time, not just the first event for each subject. We explore the mathematical relationship between mean cumulative count and cumulative incidence. Detailed calculation of mean cumulative count is described by using a simple hypothetical example, and the computation code with an illustrative example is provided. Using follow-up data from January 1975 to August 2009 collected in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, we show applications of mean cumulative count and cumulative incidence for the outcome of subsequent neoplasms to demonstrate different but complementary information obtained from the 2 approaches and the specific utility of the former.

Cost-effectiveness of stereotactic radiosurgery with and without whole-brain radiotherapy for the treatment of newly diagnosed brain metastases.

OBJECT: Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) alone is increasingly used in patients with newly diagnosed brain metastases. Stereotactic radiosurgery used together with whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) reduces intracranial failure rates, but this combination also causes greater neurocognitive toxicity and does not improve survival. Critics of SRS alone contend that deferring WBRT results in an increased need for salvage therapy and in higher costs. The authors compared the cost-effectiveness of treatment with SRS alone, SRS and WBRT (SRS+WBRT), and surgery followed by SRS (S+SRS) at the authors' institution. METHODS: The authors retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 289 patients in whom brain metastases were newly diagnosed and who were treated between May 2001 and December 2007. Overall survival curves were plotted using the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariate proportional hazards analysis (MVA) was used to identify factors associated with overall survival. Survival data were complete for 96.2% of patients, and comprehensive data on the resource use for imaging, hospitalizations, and salvage therapies were available from the medical records. Treatment costs included the cost of initial and all salvage therapies for brain metastases, hospitalizations, management of complications, and imaging. They were computed on the basis of the 2007 Medicare fee schedule from a payer perspective. Average treatment cost and average cost per month of median survival were compared. Sensitivity analysis was performed to examine the impact of variations in key cost variables. RESULTS: No significant differences in overall survival were observed among patients treated with SRS alone, SRS+WBRT, or S+SRS with respective median survival of 9.8, 7.4, and 10.6 months. The MVA detected a significant association of overall survival with female sex, Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) score, primary tumor control, absence of extracranial metastases, and number of brain metastases. Salvage therapy was required in 43% of SRS-alone and 26% of SRS+WBRT patients (p < 0.009). Despite an increased need for salvage therapy, the average cost per month of median survival was $2412 per month for SRS alone, $3220 per month for SRS+WBRT, and $4360 per month for S+SRS (p < 0.03). Compared with SRS+WBRT, SRS alone had an average incremental cost savings of $110 per patient. Sensitivity analysis confirmed that the average treatment cost of SRS alone remained less than or was comparable to SRS+WBRT over a wide range of costs and treatment efficacies. CONCLUSIONS: Despite an increased need for salvage therapy, patients with newly diagnosed brain metastases treated with SRS alone have similar overall survival and receive more cost-effective care than those treated with SRS+WBRT. Compared with SRS+WBRT, initial management with SRS alone does not result in a higher average cost.

Risk-adapted targeted intraoperative radiotherapy versus whole-breast radiotherapy for breast cancer: 5-year results for local control and overall survival from the TARGIT-A randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The TARGIT-A trial compared risk-adapted radiotherapy using single-dose targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT) versus fractionated external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for breast cancer. We report 5-year results for local recurrence and the first analysis of overall survival. METHODS: TARGIT-A was a randomised, non-inferiority trial. Women aged 45 years and older with invasive ductal carcinoma were enrolled and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive TARGIT or whole-breast EBRT, with blocks stratified by centre and by timing of delivery of targeted intraoperative radiotherapy: randomisation occurred either before lumpectomy (prepathology stratum, TARGIT concurrent with lumpectomy) or after lumpectomy (postpathology stratum, TARGIT given subsequently by reopening the wound). Patients in the TARGIT group received supplemental EBRT (excluding a boost) if unforeseen adverse features were detected on final pathology, thus radiotherapy was risk-adapted. The primary outcome was absolute difference in local recurrence in the conserved breast, with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 2·5% at 5 years; prespecified analyses included outcomes as per timing of randomisation in relation to lumpectomy. Secondary outcomes included complications and mortality. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00983684. FINDINGS: Patients were enrolled at 33 centres in 11 countries, between March 24, 2000, and June 25, 2012. 1721 patients were randomised to TARGIT and 1730 to EBRT. Supplemental EBRT after TARGIT was necessary in 15·2% [239 of 1571] of patients who received TARGIT (21·6% prepathology, 3·6% postpathology). 3451 patients had a median follow-up of 2 years and 5 months (IQR 12-52 months), 2020 of 4 years, and 1222 of 5 years. The 5-year risk for local recurrence in the conserved breast was 3·3% (95% CI 2·1-5·1) for TARGIT versus 1·3% (0·7-2·5) for EBRT (p=0·042). TARGIT concurrently with lumpectomy (prepathology, n=2298) had much the same results as EBRT: 2·1% (1·1-4·2) versus 1·1% (0·5-2·5; p=0·31). With delayed TARGIT (postpathology, n=1153) the between-group difference was larger than 2·5% (TARGIT 5·4% [3·0-9·7] vs EBRT 1·7% [0·6-4·9]; p=0·069). Overall, breast cancer mortality was much the same between groups (2·6% [1·5-4·3] for TARGIT vs 1·9% [1·1-3·2] for EBRT; p=0·56) but there were significantly fewer non-breast-cancer deaths with TARGIT (1·4% [0·8-2·5] vs 3·5% [2·3-5·2]; p=0·0086), attributable to fewer deaths from cardiovascular causes and other cancers. Overall mortality was 3·9% (2·7-5·8) for TARGIT versus 5·3% (3·9-7·3) for EBRT (p=0·099). Wound-related complications were much the same between groups but grade 3 or 4 skin complications were significantly reduced with TARGIT (four of 1720 vs 13 of 1731, p=0·029). INTERPRETATION: TARGIT concurrent with lumpectomy within a risk-adapted approach should be considered as an option for eligible patients with breast cancer carefully selected as per the TARGIT-A trial protocol, as an alternative to postoperative EBRT. FUNDING: University College London Hospitals (UCLH)/UCL Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre, UCLH Charities, National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme, Ninewells Cancer Campaign, National Health and Medical Research Council, and German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.