RESUMO
PURPOSE: For men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated with definitive therapy, the addition of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) reduces the risk of distant metastasis and cancer-related mortality. However, the absolute benefit of ADT varies by baseline cancer risk. Estimates of prognosis have improved over time, and little is known about ADT decision making in the modern era. We sought to characterize variability and identify factors associated with intended ADT use within the Michigan Radiation Oncology Quality Consoritum (MROQC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with localized prostate cancer undergoing definitive radiation therapy were enrolled from June 9, 2020, to June 26, 2023 (n = 815). Prospective data were collected using standardized patient, physician, and physicist forms. Intended ADT use was prospectively defined and was the primary outcome. Associations with patient, tumor, and practice-related factors were tested with multivariable analyses. Random intercept modeling was used to estimate facility-level variability. RESULTS: Five hundred seventy patients across 26 facilities were enrolled with intermediate-risk disease. ADT was intended for 46% of men (n = 262/570), which differed by National Comprehensive Cancer Network favorable intermediate-risk (23.5%, n = 38/172) versus unfavorable intermediate-risk disease (56.3%, n = 224/398; P < .001). After adjusting for the statewide case mix, the predicted probability of intended ADT use varied significantly across facilities, ranging from 15.4% (95% CI, 5.4%-37.0%) to 71.7% (95% CI, 57.0%-82.9%), with P < .01. Multivariable analyses showed that grade group 3 (OR, 4.60 [3.20-6.67]), ≥50% positive cores (OR, 2.15 [1.43-3.25]), and prostate-specific antigen 10 to 20 (OR, 1.87 [1.24-2.84]) were associated with ADT use. Area under the curve was improved when incorporating MRI adverse features (0.76) or radiation treatment variables (0.76), but there remained significant facility-level heterogeneity in all models evaluated (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Within a state-wide consortium, there is substantial facility-level heterogeneity in intended ADT use for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Future efforts are necessary to identify patients who will benefit most from ADT and to develop strategies to standardize appropriate use.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Radiation therapy effectively palliates bone metastases, although variability exists in practice patterns. National recommendations advocate against using extended fractionation (EF) with courses greater than 10 fractions. We previously reported EF use of 14.8%. We analyzed practice patterns within a statewide quality consortium to assess EF use in a larger patient population after implementation of a quality measure focused on reducing EF. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients treated for bone metastases within a statewide radiation oncology quality consortium were prospectively enrolled from March 2018 through October 2020. The EF quality metric was implemented March 1, 2018. Data on patient, physician, and facility characteristics; fractionation schedules; and treatment planning and delivery techniques were collected. Multivariable binary logistic regression was used to assess EF. RESULTS: Twenty-eight facilities enrolled 1445 consecutive patients treated with 1934 plans. The median number of treatment plans per facility was 52 (range, 7-307). Sixty different fractionation schedules were used. EF was delivered in 3.4% of plans. Initially, EF use was lower than expected and remained low over time. Significant predictors for EF use included complicated metastasis (odds ratio [OR], 2.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-4.02; P = .04), lack of associated central nervous system or visceral disease (OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.2-4.2; P = .01), nonteaching versus teaching facilities (OR, 8.97; 95% CI, 2.1-38.5; P < .01), and treating physicians with more years in practice (OR, 12.82; 95% CI, 3.9-42.4; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Within a large, prospective population-based data set, fractionation schedules for palliative radiation therapy of bone metastases remain highly variable. Resource-intensive treatments including EF persist, although EF use was low after implementation of a quality measure. Complicated metastases, lack of central nervous system or visceral disease, and treatment at nonteaching facilities or by physicians with more years in practice significantly predict use of EF. These results support ongoing efforts to more clearly understand and address barriers to high-value radiation approaches in the palliative setting.
