Deborah Schrag

Overview of the SEER-Medicare data: content, research applications, and generalizability to the United States elderly population.

Background. The Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare–linked database combines clinical information from population-based cancer registries with claims information from the Medicare program. The use of this database to study cancer screening, treatment, outcomes, and costs has grown in recent years. Research Design. This paper provides an overview of the SEER-Medicare files for investigators interested in using these data for epidemiologic and health services research. The overview includes a description of the linkage of SEER and Medicare data and the files included as part of SEER-Medicare. The paper also describes the types of research projects that have been undertaken using the SEER-Medicare data. The overview concludes with a comparison of selected characteristics of elderly persons residing in the SEER areas to the US total aged. Results. The paper identifies a number of potential uses of the SEER-Medicare data. The comparison of the elderly population in SEER areas to the US total shows that in the SEER areas there are a lower percentage of white persons and individuals living in poverty, and a higher percentage of urban-dwellers than the US total. Elderly persons in the SEER regions also have higher rates of HMO enrollment and lower rates of cancer mortality. Conclusions. The SEER-Medicare data are a unique resource that can be used for a variety of health services research projects. Although there are some differences between the elderly residing in the SEER areas and the US total, the SEER-Medicare data offer a large population-based cohort that can be used to longitudinally track care for persons over the course of cancer diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up.

Cetuximab Shows Activity in Colorectal Cancer Patients With Tumors That Do Not Express the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor by Immunohistochemistry

PURPOSE To establish evidence of activity, or lack thereof, of cetuximab-based therapy in patients with refractory colorectal cancer with tumors that do not demonstrate epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Pharmacy computer records were reviewed to identify all patients who received cetuximab at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in a nonstudy setting during the first 3 months of cetuximabs commercial availability. Medical records of these patients were then reviewed to identify colorectal cancer patients who had experienced failure with a prior irinotecan-based regimen and who had a pathology report indicating an EGFR-negative tumor by IHC. Pathology slides from these patients were reviewed by a reference pathologist to confirm EGFR negativity, and computed tomography scans during cetuximab-based therapy were reviewed by a reference radiologist. Response rates were reported using WHO criteria. RESULTS Sixteen chemotherapy-refractory, EGFR-negative colorectal cancer patients who received cetuximab in a nonstudy setting were identified. Fourteen of these patients received cetuximab plus irinotecan, and two received cetuximab monotherapy. In the 16 patients, four major objective responses were seen (response rate, 25%; 95% CI, 4% to 46%). CONCLUSION Colorectal cancer patients with EGFR-negative tumors have the potential to respond to cetuximab-based therapies. EGFR analysis by current IHC techniques does not seem to have predictive value, and selection or exclusion of patients for cetuximab therapy on the basis of currently available EGFR IHC does not seem warranted.

American Society of Clinical Oncology Recommendations on Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Stage II Colon Cancer

PURPOSE To address whether all medically fit patients with curatively resected stage II colon cancer should be offered adjuvant chemotherapy as part of routine clinical practice, to identify patients with poor prognosis characteristics, and to describe strategies for oncologists to use to discuss adjuvant chemotherapy in practice. METHODS An American Society of Clinical Oncology Panel, in collaboration with the Cancer Care Ontario Practice Guideline Initiative, reviewed pertinent information from the literature through May 2003. RESULTS A literature-based meta-analysis found no evidence of a statistically significant survival benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II patients. Recommendations The routine use of adjuvant chemotherapy for medically fit patients with stage II colon cancer is not recommended. However, there are populations of patients with stage II disease that could be considered for adjuvant therapy, including patients with inadequately sampled nodes, T4 lesions, perforation, or poorly differentiated histology. CONCLUSION Direct evidence from randomized controlled trials does not support the routine use of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with stage II colon cancer. Patients and oncologists who accept the relative benefit in stage III disease as adequate indirect evidence of benefit for stage II disease are justified in considering the use of adjuvant chemotherapy, particularly for those patients with high-risk stage II disease. The ultimate clinical decision should be based on discussions with the patient about the nature of the evidence supporting treatment, the anticipated morbidity of treatment, the presence of high-risk prognostic features on individual prognosis, and patient preferences. Patients with stage II disease should be encouraged to participate in randomized trials.

The Influence of Hospital Volume on Survival after Resection for Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND Among patients who have undergone high-risk operations for cancer, postoperative mortality rates are often lower at hospitals where more of these procedures are performed. We undertook a population-based study to estimate the extent to which the number of procedures performed at a hospital (hospital volume) is associated with survival after resection for lung cancer. METHODS We studied patients 65 years old or older who received a diagnosis of stage I, II, or IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer between 1985 and 1996, resided in 1 of the 10 study areas covered by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, and underwent surgery at a hospital that participates in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2118 patients and 76 hospitals). RESULTS The volume of procedures at the hospital was positively associated with the survival of patients (P<0.001). Five years after surgery, 44 percent of patients who underwent operations at the hospitals with the highest volume were alive, as compared with 33 percent of those who underwent operations at the hospitals with the lowest volume. Patients at the highest-volume hospitals also had lower rates of postoperative complications (20 percent vs. 44 percent) and lower 30-day mortality (3 percent vs. 6 percent) than those at the lowest-volume hospitals. CONCLUSIONS Patients who undergo resection for lung cancer at hospitals that perform large numbers of such procedures are likely to survive longer than patients who have such surgery at hospitals with a low volume of lung-resection procedures.

Gemcitabine Plus Bevacizumab Compared With Gemcitabine Plus Placebo in Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: Phase III Trial of the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB 80303)

PURPOSE The combination of gemcitabine plus bevacizumab produced a 21% response rate and a median survival of 8.8 months in a multicenter phase II trial in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. These encouraging data led Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) to conduct a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized phase III trial of gemcitabine/bevacizumab versus gemcitabine/placebo in advanced pancreatic cancer patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS Eligible patients had no prior therapy for advanced disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0 to 2, no tumor invasion of adjacent organs, and no increased bleeding risk. The primary end point was overall survival. Patients were stratified by performance status, extent of disease, and prior radiotherapy. Patients received gemcitabine at 1,000 mg/m(2) over 30 minutes on days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days and bevacizumab at 10 mg/kg or placebo on days 1 and 15 every 28 days. RESULTS Between June 2004 and April 2006, 602 patients were enrolled onto the study and 535 were treated. Median overall survival was 5.8 months for gemcitabine/bevacizumab and 5.9 months for gemcitabine/placebo (P = .95). Median progression-free survival was 3.8 and 2.9 months, respectively (P = .07). Overall response rates were 13% and 10%, respectively. Patients with a performance status of 0, 1, and 2 survived a median of 7.9, 4.8, and 2.4 months, respectively. The only statistically significant differences in grades 3 and 4 toxicity occurred for hypertension (10% v 3%; P < .001) and proteinuria (5% v 1%; P = .002); venous thrombosis grade > or = 3 was equivalent in both arms (14% and 15%, respectively). CONCLUSION The addition of bevacizumab to gemcitabine does not improve survival in advanced pancreatic cancer patients.

Decision Analysis — Effects of Prophylactic Mastectomy and Oophorectomy on Life Expectancy among Women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutations

BACKGROUND Women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations have an increased risk of breast cancer and ovarian cancer. Prophylactic mastectomy and oophorectomy are often considered as ways of reducing these risks, but the effect of the procedures on life expectancy has not been established. METHODS In a decision analysis, we compared prophylactic mastectomy and prophylactic oophorectomy with no prophylactic surgery among women who carry mutations in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene. We used available data about the incidence of cancer, the prognosis for women with cancer, and the efficacy of prophylactic mastectomy and oophorectomy in preventing breast and ovarian cancer to estimate the effects of these interventions on life expectancy among women with different levels of risk of cancer. RESULTS We calculated that, on average, 30-year-old women who carry BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations gain from 2.9 to 5.3 years of life expectancy from prophylactic mastectomy and from 0.3 to 1.7 years of life expectancy from prophylactic oophorectomy, depending on their cumulative risk of cancer. Gains in life expectancy decline with age at the time of prophylactic surgery and are minimal for 60-year-old women. Among 30-year-old women, oophorectomy may be delayed 10 years with little loss of life expectancy. CONCLUSIONS On the basis of a range of estimates of the incidence of cancer, prognosis, and efficacy of prophylactic surgery, our model suggests that prophylactic mastectomy provides substantial gains in life expectancy and prophylactic oophorectomy more limited gains for young women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations.

How To Build and Interpret a Nomogram for Cancer Prognosis

Nomograms are widely used for cancer prognosis, primarily because of their ability to reduce statistical predictive models into a single numerical estimate of the probability of an event, such as death or recurrence, that is tailored to the profile of an individual patient. User-friendly graphical interfaces for generating these estimates facilitate the use of nomograms during clinical encounters to inform clinical decision making. However, the statistical underpinnings of these models require careful scrutiny, and the degree of uncertainty surrounding the point estimates requires attention. This guide provides a nonstatistical audience with a methodological approach for building, interpreting, and using nomograms to estimate cancer prognosis or other health outcomes.

American Society of Clinical Oncology Statement: A Conceptual Framework to Assess the Value of Cancer Treatment Options

Health care costs in the United States present a major challenge to the national economic well being. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has projected that US health care spending will reach

American Society of Clinical Oncology Guidance Statement: The Cost of Cancer Care

4.3 trillion and account for 19.3% of the national gross domestic product by 2019.1 This growth in spending—both in absolute terms and as a proportion of our gross domestic product—has not been accompanied by commensurate improvements in health outcomes, despite expenditures far exceeding those of other countries.2–4 One of the fastest growing components of US health care costs is cancer care, the cost of which is now estimated to increase from

American Society of Clinical Oncology 2009 Clinical Evidence Review on Radiofrequency Ablation of Hepatic Metastases From Colorectal Cancer

125 billion in 2010 to