Hazardous Attitudes: Physician Decision Making in Radiation Oncology.

Purpose: The Federal Aviation Administration quantifies hazardous attitudes (HAs) among pilots using a scale. HAs have been linked to aviation risk. We assessed the influence of HAs and other factors in treatment decision making in radiation oncology (RO). Methods and Materials: An anonymous survey was sent to 809 radiation oncologists in US cities housing the top 25 cancer centers. The survey included an HA scale adapted for RO and presented 9 cases assessing risk-tolerant radiation therapy prescribing habits and compliance with the American Society for Radiation Oncology's Choosing Wisely recommendations. Demographic and treatment decision data were dichotomized to identify factors associated with prescribing habits using univariable and multivariable (MVA) logistic regression analyses. Results: A total of 139 responses (17.1%) were received, and 103 were eligible for analysis. Among respondents, 40% were female, ages were evenly distributed, and 83% were in academics. Median scores for all attitudes (macho, anti-authority, worry, resignation, and impulsivity) were below the aviation thresholds for hazard and data from surgical specialties. On MVA, responders >50 years old with >5 years' experience were 4.45 times more likely to recommend risk-tolerant radiation (P = .016). Macho attitude was negatively associated with Choosing Wisely compliant treatments (odds ratio [OR], 0.12; P = .001). Physicians who reported having previously retreated the supraclavicular fossa without complication were more likely to recommend retreatment in medically unfit patients if they felt the complication was avoided owing to careful planning (OR, 5.2; P = .008). Conclusions: To our knowledge, this represents the first study analyzing physician attitudes in RO and their effect on self-reported treatment decisions. This work suggests that attitude may be among the factors that influence risk-tolerant prescribing practices and compliance with Choosing Wisely recommendations.

Drivers of Medicare Spending: A 15-Year Review of Radiation Oncology Charges Allowed by the Medicare Physician/Supplier Fee-for-Service Program Compared With Other Specialties.

PURPOSE: In 2019, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services proposed a new radiation oncology alternative payment model aimed at reducing expenditures. We examined changes in aggregate physician Medicare charges allowed per specialty to provide contemporary context to proposed changes and hypothesize that radiation oncology charges remained stable through 2017. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Medicare physician/supplier utilization, program payments, and balance billing for original Medicare beneficiaries, by physician specialty, were analyzed from 2002 to 2017. Total allowed charges under the physician/supplier fee-for-service program, inflation-adjusted charges, and percent of total charges billed per specialty were examined. We adjusted for inflation using the consumer price index for medical care from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. RESULTS: Total allowed charges increased from $83 billion in 2002 to $138 billion in 2017. The specialties accounting for the most charges billed to Medicare were internal medicine and ophthalmology. Radiation oncology charges accounted for 1.2%, 1.6%, and 1.4% of total charges allowed by Medicare in 2002, 2012, and 2017, respectively. Radiation oncology charges allowed increased 44% from 2002 to 2012 ($987.6 million to $1.42 billion) but decreased by 19% from 2012 to 2017 ($1.15 billion), adjusted for inflation. Total charges allowed by internal medicine decreased 2% from 2002 to 2012 ($8.53 to $8.36 billion), adjusted for inflation, and decreased 16% from 2012 to 2017 ($7.05 billion). When adjusting for inflation, ophthalmology charges increased 18% from 2002 to 2012 ($4.53 to $5.36 billion) and increased 3% from 2012 to 2017 ($5.5 billion). CONCLUSIONS: Radiation oncology physician charges represent a small fraction of total Medicare expenses and are not a driver for Medicare spending. Aggregate inflation-adjusted charges by radiation oncology have dramatically declined in the past 5 years and represent a stable fraction of total Medicare charges. The need to target radiation oncology with cost-cutting measures may be overstated.

Multi-institutional analysis of stereotactic body radiation therapy for operable early-stage non-small cell lung carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Although stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is the standard of care for inoperable early-stage non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC), its role for medically operable patients remains controversial. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a multi-institutional study to assess post-SBRT disease control and survival outcomes in medically operable patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study including patients with biopsy-proven cT1-2N0M0 NSCLC treated with definitive SBRT (2006-2015). Per patient charts, inoperability referred to documentation of poor surgical candidacy with a given rationale for lack of resection. Charts of operable patients contained documentation of patients refusing surgery or choosing SBRT, without a documented rationale for inoperability. Subjects were excluded in cases of ambiguity regarding the aforementioned definitions and/or lack of clearly documented operability status. Endpoints included local failure (LF) and regional-distant failure, both evaluated with Fine and Gray competing risks regression; Kaplan-Meier methodology analyzed overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Of 952 patients, 408 (42.9%) were operable, and 544 (57.1%) were inoperable. Median follow-up was 22 months. Two-year LF was 9.7% in operable patients and 8.2% in inoperable patients (p = 0.36). There was no statistical difference in regional-distant failure (p = 0.55) between cohorts. Operable patients experienced statistically higher OS (p = 0.04), but not PFS (p = 0.11). Respective 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS in operable patients were 85.4%, 66.2%, and 51.2%. CONCLUSIONS: Although patients with operable NSCLC experience higher OS than their inoperable counterparts, disease-related outcomes are similar. These results may better inform shared decision-making between medically operable patients and their multidisciplinary providers.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy with adjuvant systemic therapy for early-stage non-small cell lung carcinoma: A multi-institutional analysis.

PURPOSE: Although adjuvant systemic therapy (ST) is often recommended for the treatment of patients with high-risk, early-stage non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) after surgery, there is little evidence supporting the use of ST with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using a multi-institutional database to identify consecutive patients with T1-3N0M0 NSCLC treated with definitive SBRT from 2006-2015. Treatment groups were defined as those who received SBRT + ST or SBRT alone. Regional-distant failure (RDF) was analyzed with Fine and Gray competing risks regression. Progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression. Additional comparisons were made after 2:1 nearest-neighbor propensity-score matching on clinical risk factors. RESULTS: We identified 54 patients who received SBRT + ST. The most common ST regimen was a platinum doublet (n = 38; 70.4%). Compared with patients receiving SBRT (n = 1269), SBRT + ST patients were younger (median age: 70 v 77 years, p < 0.001), had larger tumors (>3 cm: 38.9% v 21.6%, p = 0.02) and higher T-stage (T2-3: 42.6% v 22.5%, p = 0.002). Compared with SBRT patients, SBRT + ST patients had lower 2-year RDF (3.1% v 16.9%, p = 0.02). On multivariable analysis, SBRT + ST was associated with reduced RDF (HR: 0.15, 95%CI: 0.04-0.62), with a trend toward improved PFS (HR: 0.70, 95%CI: 0.48-1.03), but not OS (HR: 0.74, 95%CI: 0.49-1.11). After propensity-score matching, the SBRT + ST cohort demonstrated improved RDF (HR: 0.17, 95%CI: 0.04-0.76) and PFS (HR: 0.59, 95%CI: 0.38-0.93). CONCLUSION: In this multi-institutional analysis, adjuvant ST was independently associated with reduced RDF in early-stage NSCLC patients treated with SBRT.

Cost-effectiveness of stereotactic radiosurgery versus whole-brain radiation therapy for up to 10 brain metastases.

OBJECTIVE The JLGK0901 study found that stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is a safe and effective treatment option for treating up to 10 brain metastases. The purpose of this study is to determine the cost-effectiveness of treating up to 10 brain metastases with SRS, whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT), or SRS and immediate WBRT (SRS+WBRT). METHODS A Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of SRS, WBRT, and SRS+WBRT in patients with 1 or 2-10 brain metastases. Transition probabilities were derived from the JLGK0901 study and modified according to the recurrence rates observed in the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 9508 and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 22952-26001 studies to simulate the outcomes for patients who receive WBRT. Costs are based on 2015 Medicare reimbursements. Health state utilities were prospectively collected using the Standard Gamble method. End points included cost, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was $100,000 per QALY. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses explored uncertainty with regard to the model assumptions. RESULTS In patients with 1 brain metastasis, the ICERs for SRS versus WBRT, SRS versus SRS+WBRT, and SRS+WBRT versus WBRT were $117,418, $51,348, and $746,997 per QALY gained, respectively. In patients with 2-10 brain metastases, the ICERs were $123,256, $58,903, and $821,042 per QALY gained, respectively. On the sensitivity analyses, the model was sensitive to the cost of SRS and the utilities associated with stable post-SRS and post-WBRT states. In patients with 2-10 brain metastases, SRS versus WBRT becomes cost-effective if the cost of SRS is reduced by $3512. SRS versus WBRT was also cost effective at a WTP of $200,000 per QALY on the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS The most cost-effective strategy for patients with up to 10 brain metastases is SRS alone relative to SRS+WBRT. SRS alone may also be cost-effective relative to WBRT alone, but this depends on WTP, the cost of SRS, and patient preferences.

The Effect of Biologically Effective Dose and Radiation Treatment Schedule on Overall Survival in Stage I Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients Treated With Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: To determine the effect of biologically effective dose (BED10) and radiation treatment schedule on overall survival (OS) in patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) undergoing stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Using data from 65 treatment centers in the United States, we retrospectively reviewed the records of T1-2 N0 NSCLC patients undergoing SBRT alone from 2006 to 2014. Biologically relevant covariates, including dose per fraction, number of fractions, and time between fractions, were used to quantify BED10 and radiation treatment schedule. The linear-quadratic equation was used to calculate BED10 and to generate a dichotomous dose variable of <105 Gy versus ≥105 Gy BED10. The primary outcome was OS. We used the Kaplan-Meier method, the log-rank test, and Cox proportional hazards regression with propensity score matching to determine whether prescription BED10 was associated with OS. RESULTS: We identified 747 patients who met inclusion criteria. The median BED10 was 132 Gy, and 59 (7.7%) had consecutive-day fractions. Median follow-up was 41 months, and 452 patients (60.5%) had died by the conclusion of the study. The 581 patients receiving ≥105 Gy BED10 had a median survival of 28 months, whereas the 166 patients receiving <105 Gy BED10 had a median survival of 22 months (log-rank, P=.01). Radiation treatment schedule was not a significant predictor of OS on univariable analysis. After adjusting for T stage, sex, tumor histology, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, BED10 ≥105 Gy versus <105 Gy remained significantly associated with improved OS (hazard ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.62-0.98, P=.03). Propensity score matching on imbalanced variables within high- and low-dose cohorts confirmed a survival benefit with higher prescription dose. CONCLUSIONS: We found that dose escalation to 105 Gy BED10 and beyond may improve survival in NSCLC patients treated with SBRT.

Patient-reported quality of life after stereotactic body radiation therapy versus moderate hypofractionation for clinically localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Evaluate changes in bowel, urinary and sexual patient-reported quality of life following treatment with moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (<5Gray/fraction) or stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT;5-10Gray/fraction) for prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a pooled multi-institutional analysis of men treated with moderate hypofractionation or SBRT, we compared minimally detectable difference in bowel, urinary and sexual quality of life at 1 and 2years using chi-squared analysis and logistic regression. RESULTS: 378 men received moderate hypofractionation compared to 534 men who received SBRT. After 1year, patients receiving moderate hypofractionation were more likely to experience worsening in bowel symptoms (39.5%) compared to SBRT (32.5%; p=.06), with a larger difference at 2years (37.4% versus 25.3%, p=.002). Similarly, patients receiving moderate fractionation had worsening urinary symptom score compared to patients who underwent SBRT at 1 and 2years (34.7% versus 23.1%, p<.001; and 32.8% versus 14.0%, p<.001). There was no difference in sexual symptom score at 1 or 2years. After adjusting for age and cancer characteristics, patients receiving SBRT were less likely to experience worsening urinary symptom scores at 2years (odds ratio: 0.24[95%CI: 0.07-0.79]). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received SBRT or moderate hypofractionation have similar patient-reported change in bowel and sexual symptoms, although there was worse change in urinary symptoms for patients receiving moderate hypofractionation.

Health State Utilities for Patients with Brain Metastases.

PURPOSE:  Estimating the cost-effectiveness of whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), including Gamma Knife radiosurgery (GKRS), requires the quantitative measurement of patients' health states after treatment. We sought to quantify individuals' preferences for the relevant health states after WBRT or GKRS for brain metastases on a 0 to 1 scale, where 1 is perfect health and 0 is death. METHODS:  We prospectively measured utilities in patients with brain metastases evaluated at Yale for consideration of WBRT and/or GKRS, as well as oncology nurses who had cared for patients with brain metastases before and after WBRT or GKRS, using the Standard Gamble (SG) technique. Demographic information was also collected. Nonparametric tests were used to compare potential differences in utility values and for subgroups based on demographic characteristics. RESULTS:  There were 24 patients and 31 nurses who completed the study between December 2013 and May 2015. Median utilities ranged from 0.85 for the status-post (S/P) GKRS state to 0.25 (for neurologic dying). The median utility of being S/P WBRT was 0.70 compared to 0.85 S/P GKRS (p < 0.001). The cognitive decline from WBRT was associated with a notably low utility score of 0.30. There were no statistically significant differences between patients' and nurses' median utility scores. CONCLUSIONS:  These SG utilities provide unique insights into brain metastases-related health states from the patient and provider perspective. As perceived by individuals with direct knowledge of the health states in question, WBRT has a significantly lower utility compared to GKRS. Cognitive decline following WBRT is associated with significant perceived reduction in quality of life. Differences in the relative importance of overall survival and quality of life with treatment existed between patients with different stages of disease. These utilities can be used to calculate quality-adjusted life expectancy in cost-effectiveness evaluations of SRS and WBRT.

Incorporating Androgen Deprivation With Dose-Escalated External-Beam Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer.

The Oncology Grand Rounds series is designed to place original reports published in the Journal into clinical context. A case presentation is followed by a description of diagnostic and management challenges, a review of the relevant literature, and a summary of the authors' suggested management approaches. The goal of this series is to help readers better understand how to apply the results of key studies, including those published in Journal of Clinical Oncology, to patients seen in their own clinical practice.A 71-year-old man was seen by his primary care physician for routine evaluation in early 2015. On digital rectal examination, his prostate was moderately enlarged, although he had no obvious areas of palpable disease. His prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level was 7.1 ng/mL. A standard ultrasound-guided biopsy of his prostate revealed a 60-mL prostate volume and a single core (out of 12) of Gleason 3 + 3 disease. He chose to undergo surveillance. Six months later, his PSA level had risen to 10.0 ng/mL; there was still no palpable disease on digital rectal examination. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of his prostate and pelvis revealed two suspicious intraprostatic lesions with restricted diffusion, focal and earlier enhancement with contrast than adjacent normal prostate, and hypointense features on T2-weighted imaging; these findings were highly suspicious for high-grade prostate cancer (Fig 1). Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy of each lesion yielded a total of four positive biopsy cores of Gleason 4 + 3 = 7, involving 50% to 80% of each core, with perineural invasion noted. The patient's medical history is notable for overweight (but not morbidly obese), hypercholesterolemia, hypertension, cataract surgeries, and inguinal hernia repair, but the patient is otherwise healthy. He has decided against prostatectomy and brachytherapy because of strong personal preference. In particular, he wanted to avoid anesthesia, and was concerned about the potential for greater urinary incontinence and/or urinary irritation associated with these treatments compared with external-beam radiotherapy (RT).(1,2).

Academic and Resident Radiation Oncologists' Attitudes and Intentions Regarding Radiation Therapy near the End of Life.

OBJECTIVES: There has been increasing scrutiny about cancer treatment for patients very near the end of life (EoL), yet a substantial number receive palliative radiation therapy (RT) in this setting. Our aim was to document the attitudes and intentions of thought leaders and trainees in giving RT near the EoL. METHODS: We distributed an anonymous survey to 473 radiation oncologists and residents. The survey examined the clinical and psychosocial factors considered as well as intentions and expectations in the delivery of RT near the EoL. Factors surrounding unfinished treatment courses, and the formative factors that shape opinions about RT at the EoL were also explored. RESULTS: We received 139 responses (29%). Eighty-nine percent of respondents worked at academic institutions. The factors that respondents most often consider very or extremely important to offer RT near the EoL were the preference of the patient to be treated (94%), the ability to tolerate treatment (88%), and palliative intent (70%). After instances when their patients were unable to complete treatment near the EoL, 42% of respondents said they would prescribe a shorter treatment the next time they see a similar patient. Personal experience (71%) was most often listed as very or extremely important in shaping their opinions about RT near the EoL. CONCLUSIONS: Survey respondents, 89% of whom were academic radiation oncologists, have a positive view of palliative RT near the EoL. They favor shorter fractionation for patients near the EoL. Personal experience is most important in shaping practices and attitudes.

Decision analysis of stereotactic radiation surgery versus stereotactic radiation surgery and whole-brain radiation therapy for 1 to 3 brain metastases.

PURPOSE: Although whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) is effective for controlling intracranial disease, it is also associated with neurocognitive side effects. It is unclear whether a theoretically improved quality of life after stereotactic radiation surgery (SRS) alone relative to that after SRS with adjuvant WBRT would justify the omission of WBRT, given the higher risk of intracranial failure. This study compares SRS alone with SRS and WBRT, to evaluate the theoretical benefits of intracranial tumor control with adjuvant WBRT against its possible side effects, using quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) as a primary endpoint. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A Markov decision analysis model was used to compare QALE in a cohort of patients with 1 to 3 brain metastases and Karnofsky performance status of at least 70. Patients were treated with SRS alone or with SRS immediately followed by WBRT. Patients treated with SRS alone underwent surveillance magnetic resonance imaging and received salvage WBRT if they developed intracranial relapse. All patients whose cancer relapsed after WBRT underwent simulation as dying of intracranial progression. Model parameters were estimated from published literature. RESULTS: Treatment with SRS yielded 6.2 quality-adjusted life months (QALMs). The addition of initial WBRT reduced QALE by 1.2 QALMs. On one-way sensitivity analysis, the model was sensitive only to a single parameter, the utility associated with the state of no evidence of disease after SRS alone. At values greater than 0.51, SRS alone was preferred. CONCLUSIONS: In general, SRS alone is suggested to have improved quality of life in patients with 1 to 3 brain metastases compared to SRS and immediate WBRT. Our results suggest that immediate treatment with WBRT after SRS can be reserved for patients who would have a poor performance status regardless of treatment. These findings are stable under a wide range of assumptions.

Predictive factors for radiation pneumonitis in Hodgkin lymphoma patients receiving combined-modality therapy.

PURPOSE: This study sought to quantify the risk of radiation pneumonitis (RP) in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) patients receiving mediastinal radiation therapy (RT) and to identify predictive factors for RP. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We identified 75 patients with newly diagnosed HL treated with mediastinal RT and 17 patients with relapsed/refractory HL treated with mediastinal RT before or after transplant. Lung dose-volumetric parameters including mean lung dose and percentage of lungs receiving 20 Gy were calculated. Factors associated with RP were explored by use of the Fisher exact test. RESULTS: RP developed in 7 patients (10%) who received mediastinal RT as part of initial therapy (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Grade 1 in 6 cases). A mean lung dose of 13.5 Gy or greater (p = 0.04) and percentage of lungs receiving 20 Gy of 33.5% or greater (p = 0.009) significantly predicted for RP. RP developed in 6 patients (35%) with relapsed/refractory HL treated with peri-transplant mediastinal RT (Grade 3 in 4 cases). Pre-transplant mediastinal RT, compared with post-transplant mediastinal RT, significantly predicted for Grade 3 RP (57% vs. 0%, p = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: We identified threshold lung metrics predicting for RP in HL patients receiving mediastinal RT as part of initial therapy, with the majority of cases being of mild severity. The risk of RP is significantly higher with peri-transplant mediastinal RT, especially among those who receive pre-transplant RT.