Analysis of Radiation Facility Volume and Survival in Men With Lymph Node-Positive Prostate Cancer Treated With Radiation and Androgen Deprivation Therapy

Hospital factors determining overall survival in cancer patients undergoing curative treatment

BACKGROUND

In oncology, overall survival (OS) and quality of life (QoL) are key indicators. The factors that affect OS and QoL include tumor-related characteristics (stage and grade), patient-related factors (performance status and comorbidities), and cancer-directed therapy (CDT)-related aspects. In addition, external factors such as governance or policy (e.g., inaccessibility to CDT, increased distance to service, poor socioeconomic status, lack of insurance), and hospital-related factors (e.g., facility volume and surgeon volume) can influence OS and QoL.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The primary objective of this narrative review was to identify hospital-related factors that affect OS and QoL in patients receiving curative CDT. The authors defined extrinsic factors that can be modified at the hospital level as "hospital-related" factors. Only factors supported by randomized controlled trials (RCT), systematic reviews (SR) and/or meta-analyses (MA), and population database (PDB) analyses that address the relationship between OS and hospital factors were considered.

RESULTS

The literature review found that high hospital or oncologist volume, adherence to evidence-based medicine (EBM), optimal time-to-treatment initiation (TTI), and decreased overall treatment time (OTT) increase OS in patients undergoing curative CDT. The use of case management strategies was associated with better symptom management and treatment compliance, but had a mixed effect on QoL. The practice of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in cancer patients did not result in an increase in OS. There was insufficient evidence to support the impact of factors such as teaching or academic centers, hospital infrastructure, and treatment compliance on OS and QoL.

CONCLUSION

The authors conclude that hospital policies should focus on increasing hospital and oncologist volume, adhering to EBM, optimizing TTI, and reducing OTT for cancer patients receiving curative treatment.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Association Between Radiation Therapy Treatment Volume and Patient Outcomes

PURPOSE

Evidence of a volume-outcome association in cancer surgery has shaped the centralization of cancer services; however, it is unknown whether a similar association exists for radiation therapy. The objective of this study was to determine the association between radiation therapy treatment volume and patient outcomes.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

This systematic review and meta-analysis included studies that compared outcomes of patients who underwent definitive radiation therapy at high-volume radiation therapy facilities (HVRFs) versus low-volume facilities (LVRFs). The systematic review used Ovid MEDLINE and Embase. For the meta-analysis, a random effects model was used. Absolute effects and hazard ratios (HRs) were used to compare patient outcomes.

RESULTS

The search identified 20 studies assessing the association between radiation therapy volume and patient outcomes. Seven of the studies looked at head and neck cancers (HNCs). The remaining studies covered cervical (4), prostate (4), bladder (3), lung (2), anal (2), esophageal (1), brain (2), liver (1), and pancreatic cancer (1). The meta-analysis demonstrated that HVRFs were associated with a lower chance of death compared with LVRFs (pooled HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.87- 0.94). HNCs had the strongest evidence of a volume-outcome association for both nasopharyngeal cancer (pooled HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.89) and nonnasopharyngeal HNC subsites (pooled HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75-0.84), followed by prostate cancer (pooled HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.98). The remaining cancer types showed weak evidence of an association. The results also demonstrate that some centers defined as HVRFs are undertaking very few procedures per annum (<5 radiation therapy cases per year).

CONCLUSIONS

An association between radiation therapy treatment volume and patient outcomes exists for most cancer types. Centralization of radiation therapy services should be considered for cancer types with the strongest volume-outcome association, but the effect on equitable access to services needs to be explicitly considered.

Neoadjuvant Radiotherapy Facility Type Affects Anastomotic Complications After Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Esophagectomy is a complex oncologic surgery that results in lower perioperative morbidity and mortality when performed in high-volume hospitals by experienced surgeons; however, limited data exists evaluating the importance of neoadjuvant radiotherapy delivery at high- versus low-volume centers. We sought to compare postoperative toxicity among patients treated with preoperative radiotherapy delivered at an academic medical center (AMC) versus community medical centers (CMC).

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing esophagectomy for locally advanced esophageal or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer at an academic medical center between 2008 and 2018 were reviewed. Associations between patient factors and treatment-related toxicities were calculated in univariate (UVA) and multivariable analyses (MVA).

RESULTS

One hundred forty-seven consecutive patients were identified: 89 CMC and 58 AMC. Median follow-up was 30 months (0.33-124 months). Most patients were male (86%) with adenocarcinoma (90%) located in the distal esophagus or GEJ (95%). Median radiation dose was 50.4 Gy between groups. Radiotherapy at CMCs resulted in higher rates of re-operation after esophagectomy (18% vs 7%, p = 0.055) and increased rates of anastomotic leak (38% vs 17%, p < 0.01). On MVA, radiation at a CMC remained predictive of anastomotic leak (OR 6.13, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Esophageal cancer patients receiving preoperative radiotherapy had higher rates of anastomotic leaks when radiotherapy was completed at a community medical center versus academic medical center. Explanations for these differences are uncertain but further exploratory analyses regarding dosimetry and radiation field size are warranted.

The benefit for radiotherapy at specialised sarcoma centres: A systematic review and clinical practice guidelines from the Australia and New Zealand Sarcoma Association

Patients with sarcoma are best managed at specialised sarcoma centres as supported by published literature. Optimal management requires multidisciplinary team input to formulate the diagnosis and treatment sequencing taking into consideration multiple clinical and pathologic factors. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the impact on outcomes of radiotherapy at specialised sarcoma centres. A systematic review was conducted using the population, intervention, comparison and outcome model. A literature search was performed using Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central databases for publications from 1990 to February 2022 that evaluated the local control, survival and toxicity of radiotherapy at specialised sarcoma centres. A total of 21 studies were included (17 cancer registry studies, four retrospective comparative studies). Four studies reported the local recurrence endpoint when radiotherapy was part of limb conservation treatment and showed better conformity to clinical practice guidelines and an improved local recurrence free rate when radiotherapy treatment is supported through, but may not be necessarily delivered at a specialised sarcoma centres. Only one retrospective study analysed toxicity specifically and demonstrated that patients who received preoperative radiotherapy at community centres compared to radiotherapy at a specialised sarcoma centre were more likely to develop a major wound complication. Fourteen studies reported overall survival, and 12 of these showed significantly better 5-year overall survival for patients managed at specialised sarcoma centres, however the specific impact of radiotherapy delivered at sarcoma centres could not be determined. In conclusion, patients with sarcoma should be managed through specialised sarcoma centres for better oncological outcomes. Radiotherapy in specialised sarcoma centre is associated with a lower rate of wound complications and may contribute to improved oncological outcomes as part of the limb conservation treatment at a specialised sarcoma centre.

Case volume regionalization and volume-based outcome differences in cutaneous head and neck melanoma

BACKGROUND

Hospital volume has emerged as a prognostic factor in oncology but is not currently known whether volume is associated with improved outcomes for cutaneous head and neck (HN) melanoma.

METHODS

A total of 556 079 cutaneous melanoma cases reported by the 2004-2016 National Cancer Database were separated into two cohorts (HN and non-HN) and facilities within each cohort were classified by case volume. Analysis employed chi-square, analysis of variance, Kaplan-Meier, and Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

Only 41 facilities (3.1% of 1326) treating HN melanoma and 50 facilities (3.7% of 1344) treating non-HN melanoma were classified as high-volume facilities (HVFs). The estimated 5-year overall survival (OS) was 62.7% (standard error [SE]: 0.4%) for patients with HN at low-volume facilities (LVFs), 69.3% (SE: 0.4%) at IVFs, and 71.8% (SE 0.4%) at HVFs (p < 0.001). Differences in OS remained significant between HVFs versus LVFs after adjusting for confounders.

CONCLUSION

Volume is independently associated with OS and improved surgical outcomes for HN melanoma.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Radical Prostatectomy versus IMRT with Long-Term Hormone Therapy for Relatively Young Patients with High- to Very High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer

Simple Summary

That the definitive optimal treatments for relatively young men (aged ≤ 65 years) with high- or very high-risk localized prostate cancer (HR/VHR-LPC) are radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiation plus antiandrogen therapy (RT-ADT) is controversial. To the best of our knowledge, our study is the first and largest to examine biochemical failure (BF), all-cause death, locoregional recurrence, and distant metastasis in relatively young men with HR/VHR-LPC as defined by National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk strata. After head-to-head propensity score matching was used to balance the potential confounders, a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to analyze oncologic outcomes. In relatively young men with HR/VHR-LPC, RP and RT-ADT yielded similar oncologic outcomes and RP reduced the risk of BF compared with RT-ADT.

Abstract

That intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plus antiandrogen therapy (IMRT-ADT) and radical prostatectomy (RP) are the definitive optimal treatments for relatively young patients (aged ≤ 65 years) with high- or very high-risk localized prostate cancer (HR/VHR-LPC), but remains controversial. We conducted a national population-based cohort study by using propensity score matching (PSM) to evaluate the clinical outcomes of RP and IMRT-ADT in relatively young patients with HR/VHR-LPC. Methods: We used the Taiwan Cancer Registry database to evaluate clinical outcomes in relatively young (aged ≤ 65 years) patients with HR/VHR-LPC, as defined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk strata. The patients had received RP or IMRT-ADT (high-dose, ≥72 Gy plus long-term, 1.5–3 years, ADT). Head-to-head PSM was used to balance potential confounders. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to analyze oncologic outcomes. Results: High-dose IMRT-ADT had a higher risk of biochemical failure (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 2.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.56–2.65, p < 0.0001) compared with RP; IMRT-ADT did not have an increased risk of all-cause death (aHR = 1.2, 95% CI 0.65–2.24, p = 0.564), locoregional recurrence (aHR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.67–1.06, p = 0.3524), or distant metastasis (aHR = 1.03, 95% CI 0.56–1.9, p = 0.9176) compared with RP. Conclusion: In relatively young patients with HR/VHR-LPC, RP and IMRT-ADT yielded similar oncologic outcomes and RP reduced the risk of biochemical failure compared with IMRT-ADT.