Prophylactic Cranial Irradiation for Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Retrospective Analysis.

PURPOSE: Extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (esSCLC) is an incurable disease and represents a therapeutic challenge because of its poor prognosis. Studies in prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) in esSCLC have shown a decreased incidence of symptomatic brain metastases in patients who respond to systemic chemotherapy. However, its effect on overall survival is debatable. We evaluated the benefit of PCI in patients with esSCLC in terms of overall survival, progression-free survival, incidence of brain metastases, recurrence rate, and exposure to postrecurrence therapies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed electronic charts from patients diagnosed with esSCLC from 2008 to 2014 at our institution. All patients had negative baseline brain imaging before chemotherapy and PCI and received at least 4 cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy in the first-line setting without progressive disease on follow-up. PCI was performed at the discretion of the treating physician. Analyses were based on descriptive statistics. Survival curves were calculated by Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Among 46 eligible patients, 16 (35%) received PCI and 30 (65%) did not. Compared with no PCI, PCI led to improved progression-free survival (median, 10.32 v 7.66 months; hazard ratio, 0.4521; 95% CI, 0.2481 to 0.8237; P < .001) and overall survival (median, 20.94 v 11.05 months; hazard ratio, 0.2655; 95% CI, 0.1420 to 0.4964; P < .001) as well as lower incidence of brain metastases (19% v 53%; P = .0273) and higher exposure to second-line chemotherapy (87% v 57%; P = .0479). CONCLUSION: Careful patient selection for PCI can improve not only brain metastases control and higher second-line chemotherapy exposure but also patient survival.

Integrated care pathway for rectal cancer treatment: health care resource utilization, costs, and outcomes.

AIM: Managed Flow C20 (MFC20) is an integrated care pathway (ICP) for rectal cancer implemented at a public teaching hospital. This study aims to quantify resource utilization and estimate direct costs and outcomes associated with the use of this ICP. METHODS: We evaluated consecutive rectal cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by surgery, comparing the period before the ICP implementation (Pre-MFC20 group) and after (MFC20 group). We assessed times between treatment steps and quantified the resources utilized, as well as their costs. RESULTS: There were 112 patients in the Pre-MFC20 group and 218 in the MFC20 group. The mean treatment intervals were significantly shorter in the MFC20 group - from the first medical consultation to nCRT (48.3 vs. 87.5 days; P < 0.001); and from nCRT to surgery (14.8 vs. 23.0 weeks; P < 0.001) - as was the mean total treatment time (192.0 vs. 290.2 days; P < 0.001). Oncology consultations, computed tomography, MRI, and radiotherapy sessions were utilized more frequently in the Pre-MFC20 group (P < 0.001). The median per-patient cost was US$11 180.92 in the Pre-MFC20 group, compared with US$10 412.88 in the MFC20 group (P = 0.125). Daily hospital charges and consultations were the major determinants of the total cost of the treatment. There was no statistical difference in overall survival in the time periods examined. CONCLUSION:: Implementation of a rectal cancer ICP reduced all treatment intervals and promoted rational utilization of oncology consultations and imaging, without increment in per-patient costs or detrimental effects in overall survival.