RESUMEN
The COVID-19 pandemic caused widespread disruptions in cancer care. We hypothesized that the greatest disruptions in diagnosis occurred in screen-detected cancers. We identified patients (≥18 years of age) with newly diagnosed cancer from 2019 to 2020 in the US National Cancer Database and calculated the change in proportion of early-stage to late-stage cancers using a weighted linear regression. Disruptions in early-stage diagnosis were greater than in late-stage diagnosis (17% vs 12.5%). Melanoma demonstrated the greatest relative decrease in early-stage vs late-stage diagnosis (22.9% vs 9.2%), whereas the decrease was similar for pancreatic cancer. Compared with breast cancer, cervical, melanoma, prostate, colorectal, and lung cancers showed the greatest disruptions in early-stage diagnosis. Uninsured patients experienced greater disruptions than privately insured patients. Disruptions in cancer diagnosis in 2020 had a larger impact on early-stage disease, particularly screen-detected cancers. Our study supports emerging evidence that primary care visits may play a critical role in early melanoma detection.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Detección Precoz del Cáncer , Melanoma , Estadificación de Neoplasias , Neoplasias , Pandemias , Humanos , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/diagnóstico , Masculino , Femenino , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Detección Precoz del Cáncer/estadística & datos numéricos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Melanoma/epidemiología , Melanoma/diagnóstico , Neoplasias/diagnóstico , Neoplasias/epidemiología , Neoplasias de la Próstata/diagnóstico , Neoplasias de la Próstata/epidemiología , Pacientes no Asegurados/estadística & datos numéricos , Neoplasias de la Mama/diagnóstico , Neoplasias de la Mama/epidemiología , Neoplasias Colorrectales/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Colorrectales/epidemiología , Neoplasias Pulmonares/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Pulmonares/epidemiología , Adulto , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/epidemiología , Neoplasias del Cuello Uterino/diagnóstico , Neoplasias del Cuello Uterino/epidemiología , Neoplasias del Cuello Uterino/virología , Atención Primaria de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Seguro de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Neoplasias Cutáneas/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Cutáneas/epidemiología , Diagnóstico Tardío/estadística & datos numéricos , Bases de Datos Factuales , SARS-CoV-2/aislamiento & purificación , Modelos LinealesRESUMEN
PURPOSE: Previous comparative effectiveness studies have not demonstrated a benefit of proton beam therapy (PBT) compared with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer. An updated comparison of GI and genitourinary (GU) toxicity is needed. METHODS: We investigated the SEER-Medicare linked database, identifying patients with localized prostate cancer diagnosed from 2010 to 2017. Procedure and diagnosis codes indicative of treatment-related toxicity were identified. As a sensitivity analysis, we also identified toxicity based only on procedure codes. Patients who underwent IMRT and PBT were matched 2:1 on the basis of clinical and sociodemographic characteristics. We then compared GI and GU toxicity at 6, 12, and 24 months after treatment. RESULTS: The final sample included 772 PBT patients matched to 1,544 IMRT patients. The frequency of GI toxicity for IMRT versus PBT was 3.5% versus 2.5% at 6 months (P = .18), 9.5% versus 10.2% at 12 months (P = .18), and 20.5% versus 23.4% at 24 months (P = .11). The frequency of only procedure codes indicative of GI toxicity for IMRT versus PBT was too low to be reported and not significantly different. The frequency of GU toxicity for IMRT versus PBT was 6.8% versus 5.7% (P = .30), 14.3% versus 12.2% (P = .13), and 28.2% versus 25.8% (P = .21) at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively. When looking only at procedure codes, the frequency of GU toxicity for IMRT was 1.0% at 6 months, whereas it was too infrequent to report for PBT (P = .64). GU toxicity for IMRT versus PBT was 3.3% versus 2.1% (P = .10), and 8.7% versus 6.7% (P = .10) at 12 and 24 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: In this observational study, there were no statistically significant differences between PBT and IMRT in terms of GI or GU toxicity.
Asunto(s)
Fotones , Neoplasias de la Próstata , Terapia de Protones , Radioterapia de Intensidad Modulada , Humanos , Masculino , Neoplasias de la Próstata/radioterapia , Terapia de Protones/efectos adversos , Anciano , Radioterapia de Intensidad Modulada/efectos adversos , Fotones/efectos adversos , Fotones/uso terapéutico , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Programa de VERF , Traumatismos por Radiación/etiología , Traumatismos por Radiación/epidemiología , Estados Unidos/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
Purpose: The emerging online adaptive radiation therapy (OART) treatment strategy based on cone beam computed tomography allows for real-time replanning according to a patient's current anatomy. However, implementing this procedure requires a new approach across the patient's care path and monitoring of the "black box" adaptation process. This study identifies high-risk failure modes (FMs) associated with AI-driven OART and proposes an interdisciplinary workflow to mitigate potential medical errors from highly automated processes, enhance treatment efficiency, and reduce the burden on clinicians. Methods and Materials: An interdisciplinary working group was formed to identify safety concerns in each process step using failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA). Based on the FMEA results, the team designed standardized procedures and safety checklists to prevent errors and ensure successful task completion. The Risk Priority Numbers (RPNs) for the top twenty FMs were calculated before and after implementing the proposed workflow to evaluate its effectiveness. Three hundred seventy-four adaptive sessions across 5 treatment sites were performed, and each session was evaluated for treatment safety and FMEA assessment. Results: The OART workflow has 4 components, each with 4, 8, 13, and 4 sequentially executed tasks and safety checklists. Site-specific template preparation, which includes disease-specific physician directives and Intelligent Optimization Engine template testing, is one of the new procedures introduced. The interdisciplinary workflow significantly reduced the RPNs of the high-risk FMs, with an average decrease of 110 (maximum reduction of 305.5 and minimum reduction of 27.4). Conclusions: This study underscores the importance of addressing high-risk FMs associated with AI-driven OART and emphasizes the significance of safety measures in its implementation. By proposing a structured interdisciplinary workflow and integrated checklists, the study provides valuable insights into ensuring the safe and efficient delivery of OART while facilitating its effective integration into clinical practice.
RESUMEN
Purpose/Objectives: Retrospective analysis suggests that dose escalation to a biologically effective dose of more than 70 Gy may improve overall survival in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), but such treatments in practice are limited by proximity of organs at risk (OARs). We hypothesized that CT-guided online adaptive radiotherapy (OART) can account for interfraction movement of OARs and allow for safe delivery of ablative doses. Materials/Methods: This is a single institution retrospective analysis of patients with PDAC treated with OART on the Ethos platform (Varian Medical Systems, a Siemens Healthineers Company, Palo Alto). All patients were treated to 40 Gy in 5 fractions. PTV overlapping with a 5 mm planning risk volume expansion on the stomach, duodenum and bowel received 25 Gy. Initial treatment plans were created conventionally. For each fraction, PTV and OAR volumes were recontoured with AI assistance after initial cone beam CT (CBCT). The adapted plan was calculated, underwent QA, and then compared to the scheduled plan. A second CBCT was obtained prior to delivery of the selected plan. Total treatment time (first CBCT to end of radiation delivery) and active physician time (first to second CBCT) were recorded. PTV_4000 V95 %, PTV_2500 V9 5%, and D0.03 cc to stomach, duodenum and bowel were reported for scheduled (S) and adapted (A) plans. CTCAEv5.0 toxicities were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using a two-sided T test and α of 0.05. Results: 21 patients with unresectable or locally-recurrent PDAC were analyzed, with a total of 105 fractions. Average total time was 29 min and 16 s (16:36-49:40) and average active physician time was 19:41 min (9:25-39:34). All fractions were treated with adapted plans. 97 % of adapted plans met PTV_4000 V95.0 % >95.0 % coverage goal and 100 % of adapted plans met OAR dose constraints. Median follow up was 6.6 months. Only 1 patient experienced acute grade 3+ toxicity directly attributable to radiation. Only 1 patient experienced late grade 3+ toxicity directly attributable to radiation. Conclusions: Daily CT-based OART was associated with significantly reduced dose OARs while achieving superior PTV coverage. Given the relatively quick total treatment time, radiation delivery was generally well tolerated and easily incorporated into the clinic workflow. Our initial clinical experience demonstrates OART allows for safe dose escalation in the treatment of PDAC.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL) has been rapidly rising in the US and around the world, leading to a mandated "black-box" label on all silicone- and saline-filled implants by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Because regulatory decisions in the US and around the world have been influenced primarily by risk estimates derived from cancer registries, it is important to determine their validity in identifying cases of ALCL. METHOD: We reviewed all cases of ALCL submitted to the New York State Cancer Registry from a large comprehensive cancer center in New York City from 2007 to 2019. To determine the possibility of misdiagnosis or under-diagnosis of ALCL cases reported to cancer registries, we accessed the sensitivity and specificity of the ICD-O-3 codes 9714 (ALCL) and 9702 (Mature T-cell lymphoma, not otherwise specified [T-NOS]) to identify pathologically-proven ALCL. RESULTS: We reviewed 2286,164 pathology reports from 47,466 unique patients with primary cancers. Twenty-eight cases of histologically-proven ALCL were identified. The sensitivity and specificity of the ICD-O-3 code 9714 (ALCL) were 82% and 100%, respectively. The sensitivity of the combined codes 9714/9702 (ALCL/T-NOS) was 96% and the specificity was 44%. CONCLUSION: Previous epidemiological studies that influenced regulatory decisions by the FDA may have systematically underestimated the risk of ALCL by at least 20%. We encourage updated global risk estimates of breast ALCL using methods that ensure adequate case ascertainment.
Asunto(s)
Implantes de Mama , Linfoma Anaplásico de Células Grandes , Sistema de Registros , Humanos , Linfoma Anaplásico de Células Grandes/epidemiología , Linfoma Anaplásico de Células Grandes/etiología , Linfoma Anaplásico de Células Grandes/diagnóstico , Femenino , Implantes de Mama/efectos adversos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Adulto , Ciudad de Nueva York/epidemiología , Anciano , Neoplasias de la Mama/patología , Neoplasias de la Mama/epidemiología , Sensibilidad y EspecificidadRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: IDH-wildtype (-wt) status is a pre-requisite for the diagnosis of glioblastoma (GBM); however, IDH-wt gliomas with low grade or anaplastic morphology have historically been excluded from GBM trials and may represent a distinct prognostic entity. While alkylating agent chemotherapy improves overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for IDH-wt GBM and also IDH-mutant gliomas, irrespective of grade, the benefit for IDH-wt diffuse histologic lower grade gliomas is unclear. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials for World Health Organization (WHO) grade 2-3 gliomas (2009 to present) to determine the effect of alkylating chemotherapy on IDH-wt and -mutant gliomas using a random-effects model with inverse-variance pooling. RESULTS: We identified six trials with 1,204 patients (430 IDH-wt, 774 IDH-mutant) that evaluated alkylating chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone, allowing us to perform an analysis focused on the value of adding alkylating chemotherapy to radiotherapy. For patients with IDH-wt tumors, alkylating chemotherapy added to radiotherapy was associated with improved PFS (HR:0.77 [95%CI 0.62-0.97], P=.03) but not OS (HR:0.87 [95%CI 0.64-1.18], P=.17). For patients with IDH-mutant tumors, alkylating chemotherapy added to radiotherapy improved both OS (HR:0.52 [95%CI 0.42-0.64], P<.001) and PFS (HR=0.47 [95%CI 0.39-0.57], P<.001) compared to radiotherapy alone. The magnitude of benefit was similar for IDH-mutant gliomas with or without 1p19q-codeletion. CONCLUSIONS: Alkylating chemotherapy reduces mortality by 48% and progression by 53% for patients with IDH-mutant gliomas. Optimal management of IDH-wt diffuse histologic lower grade gliomas remains to be determined, as there is little evidence supporting an OS benefit from alkylating chemotherapy.