1
|
Rodriguez ER, Tonn T, Jafry M, Ahmed S, Cuglievan B, Livingston JA, Flowers CR, Aune GJ, Albritton KH, Roth ME, Xiao Q, Hildebrandt MAT. Neighborhood-level social determinants of health burden among adolescent and young adult cancer patients and impact on overall survival. JNCI Cancer Spectr 2024; 8:pkae062. [PMID: 39051679 PMCID: PMC11337577 DOI: 10.1093/jncics/pkae062] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/10/2024] [Revised: 03/12/2024] [Accepted: 07/19/2024] [Indexed: 07/27/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation has been linked to adverse health outcomes, yet it is unclear whether neighborhood-level social determinants of health (SDOH) measures affect overall survival in adolescent and young adult patients with cancer. METHODS This study used a diverse cohort of adolescent and young adult patients with cancer (N = 10 261) seen at MD Anderson Cancer Center. Zip codes were linked to Area Deprivation Index (ADI) values, a validated neighborhood-level SDOH measure, with higher ADI values representing worse SDOH. RESULTS ADI was statistically significantly worse (P < .050) for Black (61.7) and Hispanic (65.3) patients than for White patients (51.2). Analysis of ADI by cancer type showed statistically significant differences, mainly driven by worse ADI in patients with cervical cancer (62.3) than with other cancers. In multivariable models including sex, age at diagnosis, cancer diagnosis, and race and ethnicity, risk of shorter survival for people residing in neighborhoods with the least favorable ADI quartile was greater than for individuals in the most favorable ADI quartile (hazard ratio = 1.09, 95% confidence interval = 1.00 to 1.19, P = .043). CONCLUSION Adolescent and young adult patients with cancer and the worst ADI values experienced a nearly 10% increase in risk of dying than patients with more favorable ADI values. This effect was strongest among White adolescent and young adult survivors. Although the magnitude of the effect of ADI on survival was moderate, the presence of a relationship between neighborhood-level SDOH and survival among patients who received care at a tertiary cancer center suggests that ADI is a meaningful predictor of survival. These findings provide intriguing evidence for potential interventions aimed at supporting adolescent and young adult patients with cancer from disadvantaged neighborhoods.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elizabeth R Rodriguez
- Department of Lymphoma/Myeloma, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
- UTHealth Houston McGovern Medical School, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Tori Tonn
- Department of Lymphoma/Myeloma, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
- San Juan Bautista School of Medicine, Caguas, PR, USA
| | - Midhat Jafry
- Department of Lymphoma/Myeloma, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
- UTHealth Houston McGovern Medical School, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Sairah Ahmed
- Department of Lymphoma/Myeloma, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Branko Cuglievan
- Division of Pediatrics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - J Andrew Livingston
- Department of Sarcoma Medical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Christopher R Flowers
- Department of Lymphoma/Myeloma, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Gregory J Aune
- UTHealth San Antonio Greehey Children’s Cancer Research Institute, San Antonio, TX, USA
| | | | - Michael E Roth
- Division of Pediatrics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Qian Xiao
- Department of Epidemiology, UTHealth School of Public Health, Houston, TX, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Friborg J, Jensen K, Eriksen JG, Samsøe E, Maare C, Farhadi M, Sibolt P, Nielsen M, Andersen M, Holm AIS, Skyt P, Smulders B, Johansen J, Overgaard J, Grau C, Hansen CR. Considerations for study design in the DAHANCA 35 trial of protons versus photons for head and neck cancer. Radiother Oncol 2024; 190:109958. [PMID: 37871751 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109958] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/09/2022] [Revised: 08/10/2023] [Accepted: 09/26/2023] [Indexed: 10/25/2023]
Abstract
Proton radiotherapy offers a dosimetric advantage compared to photon therapy in sparing normal tissue, but the clinical evidence for toxicity reductions in the treatment of head and neck cancer is limited. The Danish Head and Neck Cancer Group (DAHANCA) has initiated the DAHANCA 35 randomised trial to clarify the value of proton therapy (NCT04607694). The DAHANCA 35 trial is performed in an enriched population of patients selected by an anticipated benefit of proton therapy to reduce the risk of late dysphagia or xerostomia based on normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) modelling. We present our considerations on the trial design and a test of the selection procedure conducted before initiating the randomised study.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J Friborg
- Danish Center of Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark; Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet, Denmark. %
| | - K Jensen
- Danish Center of Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark
| | - J G Eriksen
- Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark; Aarhus University Hospital, Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Denmark
| | - E Samsøe
- Department of Oncology, Zealand University Hospital Næstved, Denmark
| | - C Maare
- Department of Oncology, Copenhagen University Hospital - Herlev and Gentofte, Denmark
| | - M Farhadi
- Department of Oncology, Zealand University Hospital Næstved, Denmark
| | - P Sibolt
- Department of Oncology, Copenhagen University Hospital - Herlev and Gentofte, Denmark
| | - M Nielsen
- Department of Oncology, Aalborg University Hospital, Denmark
| | - M Andersen
- Department of Oncology, Aalborg University Hospital, Denmark
| | - A I S Holm
- Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark
| | - P Skyt
- Danish Center of Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark
| | - B Smulders
- Danish Center of Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark; Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet, Denmark
| | - J Johansen
- Department of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Denmark
| | - J Overgaard
- Aarhus University Hospital, Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Denmark
| | - C Grau
- Danish Center of Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark
| | - C R Hansen
- Danish Center of Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark; Department of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Denmark; Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Mazzola G, Bergamaschi L, Pedone C, Vincini M, Pepa M, Zaffaroni M, Volpe S, Rombi B, Doyen J, Fossati P, Haustermans K, Høyer M, Langendijk J, Matute R, Orlandi E, Rylander H, Troost E, Orecchia R, Alterio D, Jereczek-Fossa B. Patients' needs in proton therapy: A survey among ten European facilities. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2023; 43:100670. [PMID: 37736140 PMCID: PMC10509656 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2023.100670] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/17/2023] [Revised: 07/30/2023] [Accepted: 08/19/2023] [Indexed: 09/23/2023] Open
Abstract
Aims The number of Proton Therapy (PT) facilities is still limited worldwide, and the access to treatment could be characterized by patients' logistic and economic challenges. Aim of the present survey is to assess the support provided to patients undergoing PT across Europe. Methods Through a personnel contact, an online questionnaire (62 multiple-choice and open-ended questions) via Microsoft Forms was administered to 10 European PT centers. The questionnaire consisted of 62 questions divided into 6 sections: i) personal data; ii) general information on clinical activity; iii) fractionation, concurrent systemic treatments and technical aspects of PT facility; iv) indication to PT and reimbursement policies; v) economic and/ or logistic support to patients vi) participants agreement on statements related to the possible limitation of access to PT. A qualitative analysis was performed and reported. Results From March to May 2022 all ten involved centers filled the survey. Nine centers treat from 100 to 500 patients per year. Paediatric patients accounted for 10-30%, 30-50% and 50-70% of the entire cohort for 7, 2 and 1 center, respectively. The most frequent tumours treated in adult population were brain tumours, sarcomas and head and neck carcinomas; in all centers, the mean duration of PT is longer than 3 weeks. In 80% of cases, the treatment reimbursement for PT is supplied by the respective country's Health National System (HNS). HNS also provides economic support to patients in 70% of centers, while logistic and meal support is provided in 20% and 40% of centers, respectively. PT facilities offer economic and/or logistic support in 90% of the cases. Logistic support for parents of pediatric patients is provided by HNS only in one-third of centers. Overall, 70% of respondents agree that geographic challenges could limit a patient's access to proton facilities and 60% believe that additional support should be given to patients referred for PT care. Conclusions Relevant differences exist among European countries in supporting patients referred to PT in their logistic and economic challenges. Further efforts should be made by HNSs and PT facilities to reduce the risk of inequities in access to cancer care with protons.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- G.C. Mazzola
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - L. Bergamaschi
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - C. Pedone
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - M.G. Vincini
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - M. Pepa
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - M. Zaffaroni
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - S. Volpe
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - B. Rombi
- Proton Therapy Center, Trento, Italy
| | - J. Doyen
- Centre Antoine Lacassagne, Nice, France
| | - P. Fossati
- MedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Wiener Neustadt, Austria
| | | | - M. Høyer
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - J.A. Langendijk
- University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - R. Matute
- Centro de Protonterapia Quironsalud, Madrid, Spain
| | - E. Orlandi
- CNAO National Center for Oncological Hadrontherapy, Pavia, Italy
| | | | - E.G.C. Troost
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Dresden, Germany
- OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology: Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden; Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
- Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
| | - R. Orecchia
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - D. Alterio
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - B.A. Jereczek-Fossa
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Fakhry JS, Pena MJ, Pomputius A, Giap F, Vega RBM. Racial and Ethnic Demographic Reporting in Phase 2 Proton Therapy Clinical Trials: A Review. Int J Part Ther 2023; 10:51-58. [PMID: 37823018 PMCID: PMC10563665 DOI: 10.14338/ijpt-22-00042.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/18/2022] [Accepted: 03/27/2023] [Indexed: 10/13/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose Equitable inclusion of racial and ethnic participation in clinical trials is crucial to improving disparities in health care, especially for historically marginalized populations. Our study aims to describe the racial and ethnic demographics of patients enrolled in published phase 2 clinical trials involving proton therapy in the United States. Materials and Methods Published manuscripts were identified in PubMed, Embase, World of Science, and Cochrane. Phase 2 trials evaluating proton therapy for US patients were included. For each article in the study, data were collected comprising authors, title, and publication year, and clinical trial numbers were verified. Additional data included tumor site, primary institution, sample size, reported race/ethnicity, and raw number/percentile of race/ethnicity. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were used. Results Overall, 970 titles were identified; 636 remained after duplicate screening, and 75 full-text articles were assessed. We identified 38 eligible manuscripts for inclusion comprising 2648 patients. Only 15 (39%) of the publications reported race/ethnicity. Of these, 8 (21%) and 10 (26%) documented Hispanic or Black trial participants, respectively; however, only 6 (16%) documented trial participation for both Hispanic and Black patients. Of the 1409 patients with a documented race/ethnicity, 89.0% (n = 1254) were non-Hispanic white, 5.3% (n = 75) were Black, and 2.2% (n = 31) were Hispanic. Other and unknown race/ethnicity comprised the remaining patients (3.5%; n = 49). Conclusion We identified underreporting of demographic data in published phase 2 proton therapy trials, which unfortunately mirrored underreporting for cancer drug clinical trials. We also noted dramatic Black and Hispanic patient underrepresentation across the trials in which race and ethnicity are reported. Findings highlight the urgent need to identify and address barriers to proton therapy trials for Black and Hispanic patients ensuring clinical trials in radiation oncology are representative of the patients seen in clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jonathan S. Fakhry
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - M. Juliana Pena
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Ariel Pomputius
- University of Florida Health Science Center Libraries, Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - Fantine Giap
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Raymond B. Mailhot Vega
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Diaz Pardo A, Mamon H, Jimenez R. Hypofractionation: Contracting or Expanding Disparities in the Receipt of Radiation Therapy? JCO Oncol Pract 2023; 19:67-69. [PMID: 36623231 DOI: 10.1200/op.22.00798] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/11/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
| | - Harvey Mamon
- Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
| | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Rhodes SS, Berlin E, Yegya-Raman N, Doucette A, Gentile M, Freedman GM, Taunk NK. Factors Associated With Travel Distance in the Receipt of Proton Breast Radiation Therapy. Int J Part Ther 2022; 9:1-9. [PMID: 36721480 PMCID: PMC9875828 DOI: 10.14338/ijpt-22-00018.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/15/2022] [Accepted: 08/16/2022] [Indexed: 02/03/2023] Open
Abstract
Introduction Proton radiation therapy (PBT) may reduce cardiac doses in breast cancer treatment. Limited availability of proton facilities could require significant travel distances. This study assessed factors associated with travel distances for breast PBT. Materials and Methods Patients receiving breast PBT at the University of Pennsylvania from 2010 to 2021 were identified. Demographic, cancer, and treatment characteristics were summarized. Straight-line travel distances from the department to patients' addresses were calculated using BatchGeo. Median and mean travel distances were reported. Given non-normality of distribution of travel distances, Wilcoxon rank sum or Kruskal-Wallis test was used to determine whether travel distances differed by race, clinical trial participation, disease laterality, recurrence, and prior radiation. Results Of 1 male and 284 female patients, 67.8% were White and 21.7% Black. Median travel distance was 13.5 miles with interquartile range of 6.1 to 24.8 miles, and mean travel distance was 13.5 miles with standard deviation of 261.4 miles. 81.1% of patients traveled less than 30 and 6.0% more than 100 miles. Black patients' travel distances were significantly shorter than White patients' and non-Black or non-White patients' travel distances (median = 4.5, 16.5, and 11.3 miles, respectively; P < .0001). Patients not on clinical trials traveled more those on clinical trials (median = 14.7 and 10.2 miles, respectively; P = .032). There was no difference found between travel distances of patients with left-sided versus right-sided versus bilateral disease (P = .175), with versus without recurrent disease (P = .057), or with versus without prior radiation (P = .23). Conclusion This study described travel distances and demographic and clinicopathologic characteristics of patients receiving breast PBT at the University of Pennsylvania. Black patients traveled less than White and non-Black or non-White patients and comprised a small portion of the cohort, suggesting barriers to travel and PBT. Patients did not travel further to receive PBT for left-sided or recurrent disease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sylvia S. Rhodes
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Eva Berlin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Nikhil Yegya-Raman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Abigail Doucette
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Michelle Gentile
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Gary M. Freedman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Neil K. Taunk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Nogueira LM, Sineshaw HM, Jemal A, Pollack CE, Efstathiou JA, Yabroff KR. Association of Race With Receipt of Proton Beam Therapy for Patients With Newly Diagnosed Cancer in the US, 2004-2018. JAMA Netw Open 2022; 5:e228970. [PMID: 35471569 PMCID: PMC9044116 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.8970] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Black patients are less likely than White patients to receive guideline-concordant cancer care in the US. Proton beam therapy (PBT) is a potentially superior technology to photon radiotherapy for tumors with complex anatomy, tumors surrounded by sensitive tissues, and childhood cancers. OBJECTIVE To evaluate whether there are racial disparities in the receipt of PBT among Black and White individuals diagnosed with all PBT-eligible cancers in the US. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This cross-sectional study evaluated Black and White individuals diagnosed with PBT-eligible cancers between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2018, in the National Cancer Database, a nationwide hospital-based cancer registry that collects data on radiation treatment, even when it is received outside the reporting facility. American Society of Radiation Oncology model policies were used to classify patients into those for whom PBT is the recommended radiation therapy modality (group 1) and those for whom evidence of PBT efficacy is still under investigation (group 2). Propensity score matching was used to ensure comparability of Black and White patients' clinical characteristics and regional availability of PBT according to the National Academy of Medicine's definition of disparities. Data analysis was performed from October 4, 2021, to February 22, 2022. EXPOSURE Patients' self-identified race was ascertained from medical records. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The main outcome was receipt of PBT, with disparities in this therapy's use evaluated with logistic regression analysis. RESULTS Of the 5 225 929 patients who were eligible to receive PBT and included in the study, 13.6% were Black, 86.4% were White, and 54.3% were female. The mean (SD) age at diagnosis was 63.2 (12.4) years. Black patients were less likely to be treated with PBT than their White counterparts (0.3% vs 0.5%; odds ratio [OR], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.64-0.71). Racial disparities were greater for group 1 cancers (0.4% vs 0.8%; OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.44-0.55) than group 2 cancers (0.3% vs 0.4%; OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.70-0.80). Racial disparities in PBT receipt among group 1 cancers increased over time (annual percent change = 0.09, P < .001) and were greatest in 2018, the most recent year of available data. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this cross-sectional study, Black patients were less likely to receive PBT than their White counterparts, and disparities were greatest for cancers for which PBT was the recommended radiation therapy modality. These findings suggest that efforts other than increasing the number of facilities that provide PBT will be needed to eliminate disparities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Leticia M. Nogueira
- Department of Surveillance and Health Equity Science, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Helmneh M. Sineshaw
- Department of Surveillance and Health Equity Science, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Ahmedin Jemal
- Department of Surveillance and Health Equity Science, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Craig E. Pollack
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Johns Hopkins School of Nursing, Baltimore, Maryland
| | | | - K. Robin Yabroff
- Department of Surveillance and Health Equity Science, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia
| |
Collapse
|