Andre A. Konski

Disadvantage of Men Living Alone Participating in Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Head and Neck Trials

PURPOSEnThis study evaluated whether males without partners were disadvantaged for survival in Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) head and neck cancer clinical trials.nnnMETHODSnPatients treated on three RTOG trials were studied. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine if sex and the interaction between sex and marital/partner status were independent prognostic variables for overall survival controlling for Karnofsky performance status, tumor stage, nodal stage, primary site, and protocol treatment.nnnRESULTSnA total of 1,901 patients (1,509 men) were entered onto the three RTOG trials, with 1,822 (1,438 men) analyzable patients. Prognostic variables independent of disease-related variables for survival in multivariate analyses restricted to men were age, marital/partner status, and income.nnnCONCLUSIONnThe apparent disadvantage of unpartnered men is striking, even after controlling for disease and other demographic variables. Possible explanations could easily be tested in observational studies, leading to evaluation of simple interventions to improve their outcome.

Systematic review of the cost effectiveness of radiation therapy for prostate cancer from 2003 to 2013.

BackgroundProstate cancer remains a prevalent diagnosis with a spectrum of treatment choices that offer similar oncologic outcomes but differing side effect profiles and associated costs. As the technology for prostate radiation therapy has advanced, its associated costs have escalated, thus making cost-effectiveness analyses critical to assess the value of competing treatment options, including watchful waiting, surgery, brachytherapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), 3D-conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT), proton beam therapy (PBT), and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT).ObjectiveThe aim of this systematic review was to identify articles that performed a cost-effectiveness analysis on different radiation treatment options for localized prostate cancer, summarize their findings, and highlight the main drivers of cost effectiveness.MethodsA literature search was performed on two databases, PubMed and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry (https://research.tufts-nemc.org/cear4), using search terms that included ‘prostate’, ‘cost effectiveness prostate radiation’ and ‘cost analysis comparative effectiveness prostate radiation’. Studies were included in this review if the cost data were from 2002 or later, and outcomes reported both cost and effectiveness, preferably including a cost–utility analysis with the outcome of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio with quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) as the effectiveness measure.ResultsThere were 14 articles between 2003 and 2013 that discussed cost effectiveness of prostate radiotherapy in men over the age of 65. All but four of the papers were from the US; the others were from Canada and the UK. The majority of the papers used Markov decision analysis and estimated cost from a payer’s perspective, usually from Medicare reimbursement data. Assumptions for the model and utilities to calculate QALYs were estimated using published literature at the time of the analysis. Each analysis had a sensitivity analysis to compensate for the uncertainty of the model inputs. The main drivers of cost effectiveness were the cost of the radiation treatment and the differential QALYs accrued because of different treatment-related morbidities. Brachytherapy was consistently found to be more cost effective when compared with surgery and other radiation treatment options. IMRT was cost effective when compared with 3D-CRT. PBT was not found to be cost effective in any of the analyses, mostly due to the high costs of PBT. SBRT was the newest technology that was analyzed, and it was also found to be cost effective compared with IMRT and PBT.ConclusionsCost-effectiveness research of prostate radiation treatments allows patients, providers, and payers to better understand the true value of each treatment choice. Due to the variation in each of these analyses (e.g., costing, and disease and complication assumptions, etc.), it is difficult to generalize the results. One must be careful in drawing conclusions from these studies and extrapolating to individual patients, particularly with the clear utility dependence seen in the majority of these studies.

Increased Time From Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation to Surgery Is Associated With Higher Pathologic Complete Response Rates in Esophageal Cancer

BACKGROUNDnThe interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiation treatment and surgery has been described as an important predictor of pathologic response to therapy in nonesophageal cancer sites. We retrospectively reviewed our experience with patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation and esophagectomy to better understand the impact of the timing of surgery on pathologic complete response rates in esophageal cancer.nnnMETHODSnTwo hundred thirty-one sequentially treated patients from 2000 to 2011 were identified for this study; 88 of these patients completed neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by esophagectomy at our institution. The interval between completion of chemoradiation and surgery was calculated for each patient. The patients were categorized into quartiles and also into 3-week interval groups. Treatment factors and surgical morbidity data, including the estimated blood loss and length of operative stay, were also assessed.nnnRESULTSnQuartiles for the neoadjuvant chemoradiation to surgery interval were less than 45 days, 46 to 50 days, 51 to 63 days, and 64+ days. Corresponding pathologic complete response rates were 12.5%, 20.0%, 22.7%, and 40.9% (p = 0.03). Results for 3-week intervals were similar (p = 0.02). There was no association between increasing time interval between the ending of neoadjuvant chemoradiation to surgery and length of stay longer than 2 weeks.nnnCONCLUSIONSnA longer interval between completion of neoadjuvant chemoradiation and surgery was associated with higher pathologic complete response rates without an impact on surgical morbidity.

Effect of the Addition of Cetuximab to Paclitaxel, Cisplatin, and Radiation Therapy for Patients With Esophageal Cancer: The NRG Oncology RTOG 0436 Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance The role of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibition in chemoradiation strategies in the nonoperative treatment of patients with esophageal cancer remains uncertain. Objective To evaluate the benefit of cetuximab added to concurrent chemoradiation therapy for patients undergoing nonoperative treatment of esophageal carcinoma. Design, Setting, and Participants A National Cancer Institute (NCI) sponsored, multicenter, phase 3, randomized clinical trial open to patients with biopsy-proven carcinoma of the esophagus. The study accrued 344 patients from 2008 to 2013. Interventions Patients were randomized to weekly concurrent cisplatin (50 mg/m2), paclitaxel (25 mg/m2), and daily radiation of 50.4 Gy/1.8 Gy fractions with or without weekly cetuximab (400 mg/m2 on day 1 then 250 mg/m2 weekly). Main Outcomes and Measures Overall survival (OS) was the primary endpoint, with a study designed to detect an increase in 2-year OS from 41% to 53%; 80% power and 1-sided &agr;u2009=u2009.025. Results Between June 30, 2008, and February 8, 2013, 344 patients were enrolled. This analysis used all data received at NRG Oncology through April 12, 2015. Sixteen patients were ineligible, resulting in 328 evaluable patients, 159 in the experimental arm and 169 in the control arm. Patients were well matched between the treatment arms for patient and tumor characteristics: 263 (80%) with T3 or T4 disease, 215 (66%) N1, and 62 (19%) with celiac nodal involvement. Incidence of grade 3, 4, or 5 treatment-related adverse events at any time was 71 (46%), 35 (23%), or 6 (4%) in the experimental arm and 83 (50%), 28 (17%), or 2 (1%) in the control arm, respectively. A clinical complete response (cCR) rate of 81 (56%) was observed in the experimental arm vs 92 (58%) in the control arm (Fisher exact test, Pu2009=u2009.66). No differences were seen in cCR between treatment arms for either histology (adenocarcinoma or squamous cell). Median follow-up for all patients was 18.6 months. The 24- and 36-month local failure for the experimental arm was 47% (95% CI, 38%-57%) and 49% (95% CI, 40%-59%) vs 49% (95% CI, 41%-58%) and 49% (95% CI, 41%-58%) for the control arm (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.66-1.28; Pu2009=u2009.65). The 24- and 36-month OS rates for the experimental arm were 45% (95% CI, 37%-53%) and 34% (95% CI, 26%-41%) vs 44% (95% CI, 36%-51%) and 28% (95% CI, 21%-35%) for the control arm (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.70-1.16; Pu2009=u2009.47). Conclusions and Relevance The addition of cetuximab to concurrent chemoradiation did not improve OS. These phase 3 trial results point to little benefit to current EGFR-targeted agents in an unselected patient population, and highlight the need for predictive biomarkers in the treatment of esophageal cancer. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00655876

Radiation Oncology Practice: Adjusting to a New Reimbursement Model

PURPOSEnUse of hypofractionation is increasing in radiation oncology because of several factors. The effects of increasing hypofractionation use on departments and staff currently based on fee-for-service models are not well studied.nnnMETHODSnWe modeled the effects of moving to hypofractionation for prostate, breast, and lung cancer and palliative treatments in a typical-sized hospital-based radiation oncology department. Year 2015 relative value unit (RVU) data were used to determine changes in reimbursement. The change in number of fractions was used to model the effects on machine volume, staff time, and workforce predictions.nnnRESULTSnThe per-case marginal reduction in technical revenue was

CogState computerized memory tests in patients with brain metastases: Secondary endpoint results of NRG oncology RTOG 0933

1,777,

Final Results of NRG Oncology RTOG 0246: An Organ Preserving Selective Resection Strategy in Esophageal Cancer Patients Treated with Definitive Chemoradiation.

4,297,

Patterns and predictors of failure following tri-modality therapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer.

9,041, and

ACR Appropriateness Criteria ® Resectable Pancreatic Cancer

9,498 for palliative and breast, prostate, and lung cancer cases, respectively. The physician reduction per case in RVUs was 5.22, 10.44, 43.02, and 43.02 respectively. A department could anticipate an annual reduction in technical revenue of

A Medicare cost analysis of MRI- versus CT-based high-dose-rate brachytherapy of the cervix: Can MRI-based planning be less costly?

540,661 and a reduction in workflow of approximately five patients or 1 to 1.5 hours per day from a hypofractionation rate of 40%.nnnCONCLUSIONnThe move to hypofractionation in the United States will lead to increased pressures on departments to address budget shortfalls resulting from the decrease in per-patient revenue. This may be done through a combination of an increase in patient volume, recognition of the increased skill sets required to deliver hypofractionated radiotherapy, delay in capital purchases, and/or reduction in staff. In a value-based environment, these evolutions should improve the value proposition of radiation oncology over a fee-for-service model.