Trends in intensity modulated radiation therapy use for locally advanced rectal cancer at National Comprehensive Cancer Network centers.

PURPOSE: Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has been rapidly incorporated into clinical practice because of its technological advantages over 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (CRT). We characterized trends in IMRT utilization in trimodality treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer at National Comprehensive Cancer Network cancer centers between 2005 and 2011. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Using the prospective National Comprehensive Cancer Network Colorectal Cancer Database, we determined treatment patterns for 976 patients with stage II-III rectal cancer who received pelvic radiation therapy at contributing centers between 2005 and 2011. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with IMRT versus 3-dimensional CRT. Radiation therapy compliance and time to completion were used to compare acute toxicity. RESULTS: A total of 947 patients (97%) received 3-dimensional CRT (80%) or IMRT (17%). Ninety-eight percent of these patients received radiation therapy preoperatively, and 81% underwent definitive resection. IMRT use increased from <13% pre-2009 to >30% in 2010 and thereafter, with significant variability among institutions (range, 0%-43%). Other factors associated with IMRT use included age ≥65 years, dose >50.4 Gy, African-American race, and no transabdominal surgery. Rates of and time to radiation therapy completion were similar between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although most patients with stage II-III rectal cancer at queried National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers between 2005 and 2011 received 3-dimensional CRT, significant and increasing numbers received IMRT. IMRT utilization is highly variable among institutions and not uniform among sociodemographic groups but may be more consistently embraced in specific clinical settings. Given this trend, comparative-effectiveness research is needed to evaluate the benefits of IMRT for rectal cancer.

Incidence of minimally invasive colorectal cancer surgery at National Comprehensive Cancer Network centers.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic colectomy has been shown to have equivalent oncologic outcomes to open colectomy for the management of colon cancer, but its adoption nationally has been slow. This study investigates the prevalence and factors associated with laparoscopic colorectal resection at National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) centers. METHODS: Data on patients undergoing surgery for colon and rectal cancer at NCCN centers from 2005 to 2010 were obtained from chart review of medical records for the NCCN Outcomes Project and included information on socioeconomic status, insurance coverage, comorbidity, and physician-reported Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status. Associations between receipt of minimally invasive surgery and patient and clinical variables were analyzed with univariate and multivariable logistic regression. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: A total of 4032 patients, diagnosed between September 2005 and December 2010, underwent elective colon or rectal resection for cancer at NCCN centers. Median age of colon cancer patients was 62.6 years, and 49% were men. The percent of colon cancer patients treated with minimally invasive surgery (MIS) increased from 35% in 2006 to 51% in 2010 across all centers but varied statistically significantly between centers. On multivariable analysis, factors associated with minimally invasive surgery for colon cancer patients who had surgery at an NCCN institution were older age (P = .02), male sex (P = .006), fewer comorbidities (P ≤ .001), lower final T-stage (P < .001), median household income greater than or equal to $80000 (P < .001), ECOG performance status = 0 (P = .02), and NCCN institution (P ≤ .001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of MIS increased at NCCN centers. However, there was statistically significant variation in adoption of MIS technique among centers.

Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy use in patients with stage II/III rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant therapy: a national comprehensive cancer network analysis.

PURPOSE: Practice guidelines recommend that patients who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation for locally advanced rectal cancer complete postoperative adjuvant systemic chemotherapy, irrespective of tumor downstaging. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Colorectal Cancer Database tracks longitudinal care for patients treated at eight specialty cancer centers across the United States and was used to evaluate how frequently patients with rectal cancer who were treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy also received postoperative systemic chemotherapy. Patient and tumor characteristics were examined in a multivariable logistic regression model. RESULTS: Between September 2005 and December 2010, 2,073 patients with stage II/III rectal cancer were enrolled in the database. Of these, 1,193 patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy were in the analysis, including 203 patients not receiving any adjuvant chemotherapy. For those seen by a medical oncologist, the most frequent reason chemotherapy was not recommended was comorbid illness (25 of 50, 50%); the most frequent reason chemotherapy was not received even though it was recommended or discussed was patient refusal (54 of 74, 73%). After controlling for NCCN Cancer Center and clinical TNM stage in a multivariable logistic model, factors significantly associated with not receiving adjuvant chemotherapy were age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥ 1, on Medicaid or indigent compared with private insurance, complete pathologic response, presence of re-operation/wound infection, and no closure of ileostomy/colostomy. CONCLUSION: Even at specialty cancer centers, a sizeable minority of patients with rectal cancer treated with curative-intent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy do not complete postoperative chemotherapy. Strategies to facilitate the ability to complete this third and final component of curative intent treatment are necessary.

Concordance with NCCN Colorectal Cancer Guidelines and ASCO/NCCN Quality Measures: an NCCN institutional analysis.

BACKGROUND: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Outcomes Database was created to assess concordance to evidence- and consensus-based guidelines and to measure adherence to quality measures on an ongoing basis. The Colorectal Cancer Database began in 2005 as a collaboration among 8 NCCN centers. METHODS: Newly diagnosed colon and rectal cancer patients presenting to 1 of 8 NCCN centers between September 1, 2005, and May 21, 2008, were eligible for analysis of concordance with NCCN treatment guidelines for colorectal cancer and with a set of quality metrics jointly developed by ASCO and NCCN in 2007. Adherence rates were determined for each metric. Center-specific rates were benchmarked against mean concordance rates for all participating centers. RESULTS: A total of 3443 patients were evaluable. Mean concordance rates with NCCN colorectal cancer guidelines and ASCO/NCCN quality measures were generally high ( >or= 90%). However, relatively low mean concordance rates were noted for adjuvant chemotherapy treatment recommendations within 9 months of diagnosis of stage II to III rectal cancer (81%), and neoadjuvant chemoradiation in clinical T4 rectal primaries (83%). These low rates of concordance seemed to be consistent across centers. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to guidelines and quality measures is generally high at institutions participating in the NCCN colorectal cancer database. Lack of documentation, patient refusal, delayed treatment initiation, and lack of consensus about whether treatment was essential were the primary reasons for nonconcordance. Measurement of concordance and the reasons for nonconcordance enable participating centers to understand and improve their care delivery systems.