Amy C. Moreno

Patterns of Care and Treatment Outcomes of Elderly Patients with Stage I Esophageal Cancer: Analysis of the National Cancer Data Base

Introduction: This study analyzes practice patterns, treatment‐related mortality, survival, and predictors thereof in elderly patients with early‐stage esophageal cancer (EC). Methods: The National Cancer Data Base was queried for cT1‐2 N0 EC in patients 80 years of age and older. Patients were divided into four treatment groups: observation (Obs), chemoradiotherapy (CRT), local excision (LE), and esophagectomy (Eso). Patient, tumor, and treatment parameters were extracted and compared. Analyses were performed on overall survival (OS) and postoperative 30‐ and 90‐day mortality. Results: A total of 923 patients from 2004 to 2012 were analyzed. Of these, 43% underwent clinical Obs, 22% underwent CRT, 25% underwent LE, and 10% underwent Eso. Patients undergoing Obs were older, had more comorbidities, were treated at nonacademic centers, and lived 25 miles or less from the facility. Patients receiving an operation (Eso or LE) were more often younger, male, white, and in the top income quartile. The postoperative 30‐day mortality rates in the LE and Eso groups were 1.3% and 9.6%, respectively (p < 0.001) and increased to 2.6% and 20.2% at 90 days, respectively (p < 0.001). The 5‐year OS rate was 7% for Obs, 20% for CRT, 33% for LE, and 45% for Eso (p < 0.001). Multivariate analyses showed improved OS with any local definitive therapy: CRT (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.34–0.52, p < 0.001), LE (HR = 0.3, 95% CI: 0.24–0.38, p < 0.001), and Eso (HR = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.23–0.44, p < 0.001). Conclusions: There are noteworthy demographic, socioeconomic, and regional disparities influencing management of elderly patients with stage I EC. Despite high rates of Obs, careful consideration of all local therapy options is warranted, given the improved outcomes with treatment.

Advances in Radiotherapy Management of Esophageal Cancer

Radiation therapy (RT) as part of multidisciplinary oncologic care has been marked by profound advancements over the past decades. As part of multimodality therapy for esophageal cancer (EC), a prime goal of RT is to minimize not only treatment toxicities, but also postoperative complications and hospitalizations. Herein, discussion commences with the historical approaches to treating EC, including seminal trials supporting multimodality therapy. Subsequently, the impact of RT techniques, including three-dimensional conformal RT, intensity-modulated RT, and proton beam therapy, is examined through available data. We further discuss existing data and the potential for further development in the future, with an appraisal of the future outlook of technological advancements of RT for EC.

Performance/outcomes data and physician process challenges for practical big data efforts in radiation oncology

It is an exciting time for big data efforts in radiation oncology. The use of big data to help aid both outcomes and decision-making research is becoming a reality. However, there are true challenges that exist in the space of gathering and utilizing performance and outcomes data. Here, we summarize the current state of big data in radiation oncology with respect to outcomes and discuss some of the efforts and challenges in radiation oncology big data.

Sequential versus concurrent chemoradiation therapy by surgical margin status in resected non-small cell lung cancer

Background: Postoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) can be delivered sequentially (sCRT) or concurrently (cCRT). Without high-volume data, current guidelines recommend either option for patients with negative margins (M-) and cCRT for those with positive margins (M+). In this study, survival was compared between sCRT versus cCRT for M- and M+ disease; survival in patients who underwent sCRT was also assessed with chemotherapy-first versus radiotherapy (RT)-first. Methods: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients with primary NSCLC undergoing surgery followed by CRT. Patients were excluded if they received neoadjuvant chemotherapy or RT. Both M- and M+ (including R1 and R2) subcohorts were evaluated. Multivariable logistic regression ascertained factors associated with cCRT delivery. Kaplan-Meier analysis evaluated overall survival (OS); Cox proportional hazards modeling determined variables associated with OS. Propensity score matching aimed to address group imbalances and indication biases. Results: Of 4,921 total patients, 3,475 (71%) were M-, 1,446 (29%) were M+, 2,271 (46%) received sCRT, and 2,650 (54%) underwent cCRT. Median OS among the sCRT and cCRT groups in patients who were M- was 54.6 versus 39.5 months, respectively (P<.001); differences persisted following propensity score matching (P<.001). In the overall M+ cohort, outcomes for sCRT and cCRT were 36.3 versus 30.5 months (P=.011), but showed equipoise following matching (P=.745). In the R1 and R2 subsets, no differences in OS were seen between cohorts (P=.368 and .553, respectively). When evaluating the sCRT population, there were no OS differences between chemotherapy-first and RT-first after matching (P=.229). Conclusions: Postoperative sCRT was associated with improved survival compared with cCRT in patients with M- disease, with statistical equipoise in those with M+ disease. Differential sequencing of sCRT does not appear to affect survival.

Practice patterns and outcomes of chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for older patients with nasopharyngeal cancer

Older patients are at increased risk of toxicities from aggressive oncologic therapy and of nononcologic death. A meta‐analysis of non‐nasopharyngeal head and neck cancers showed no statistical benefit in adding chemotherapy to radiotherapy (RT) in older patients; another meta‐analysis of RT versus chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in NPC found advantages to CRT, but vastly under‐represented patients ≥70 years old. This is the largest study to date evaluating outcomes of CRT versus RT alone in this population. The National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) was queried for primary nasopharyngeal cancer cases (2004–2013) in patients ≥70 years old receiving RT alone or CRT. Patients with unknown RT/chemotherapy and T1N0 or M1 disease were excluded. Logistic regression analysis ascertained factors associated with CRT delivery. Kaplan–Meier analysis evaluated overall survival (OS) between both cohorts. Cox proportional hazards modeling determined variables associated with OS. In total, 930 patients were analyzed (n = 713 (77%) CRT, n = 217 (23%) RT). Groups were relatively balanced; CRT was less frequently delivered in patients with advancing age, lower nodal burden, and females (P < 0.05 for all). Median OS in the CRT and RT groups were 35.3 versus 20.0 months, respectively (P = 0.002). On multivariate analysis, independent predictors of OS included age, comorbidities, income and insurance status, tumor grade, and stage (P < 0.05 for all). Notably, receipt of chemotherapy independently predicted for improved OS (P = 0.036). CRT, compared to RT alone, was independently associated with improved survival in NPC patients ≥70 years old. CRT appears to be a promising approach in this population, but treatment‐related toxicity risks should continue to be weighed against potential oncologic benefits.

MRI Image-Guided Low-Dose Rate Brachytherapy for Prostate Cancer

Permanent prostate brachytherapy is recognized as a standard of care for localized prostate cancer. Although most physicians performing permanent prostate implants have more commonly utilized ultrasound-guided techniques, MRI-guided radiosurgery (MARS) has emerged as an exciting advancement in the field. Compared to ultrasound and CT, MRI can reduce the level of target volume uncertainty given its superior soft tissue delineation. In this chapter, we will focus on essential concepts pertaining to MRI-guided LDR prostate brachytherapy for the management of localized prostate cancer including proper patient selection, pretreatment planning, implanting techniques, and postimplant assessment.