National practice patterns of proton versus photon therapy in the treatment of adult patients with primary brain tumors in the United States

Association of Race With Receipt of Proton Beam Therapy for Patients With Newly Diagnosed Cancer in the US, 2004-2018

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.

Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Model and Large Urban Academic Centers: Future Implications for Patients and Providers

The radiation oncology alternative payment model (RO-APM) was developed by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, a part of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, as a vehicle to optimize value for patients undergoing radiation therapy. By shifting reimbursement away from fee-for-service and toward a prospective bundled payment system, the RO-APM is intended to bend the cost curve in radiation oncology while preserving or even enhancing outcomes. As with prior large-scale policy initiatives, the nature and magnitude of the RO-APM's impact on care delivery will vary substantially depending on a host of local factors, including practice setting. Urban academic centers play a key role in radiation oncology by spearheading innovation, managing the most complicated cases, training the next generation of radiation oncologists, and often caring for vulnerable patient populations. Thus, to protect patients' access to this high-quality cancer care, it will be crucial to characterize the RO-APM's projected impact on large urban academic institutions before its implementation, including possible unintended adverse consequences. Here, we provide an overview of this seismic change in radiation oncology reimbursement and discuss its unique potential implications for large urban academic institutions as a means to facilitate necessary preparations and inform future revisions to the model.

Cost-Effectiveness Models of Proton Therapy for Head and Neck: Evaluating Quality and Methods to Date

PURPOSE

Proton beam therapy (PBT) is associated with less toxicity relative to conventional photon radiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer (HNC). Upfront delivery costs are greater, but PBT can provide superior long-term value by minimizing treatment-related complications. Cost-effectiveness models (CEMs) estimate the relative value of novel technologies (such as PBT) as compared with the established standard of care. However, the uncertainties of CEMs can limit interpretation and applicability. This review serves to (1) assess the methodology and quality of pertinent CEMs in the existing literature, (2) evaluate their suitability for guiding clinical and economic strategies, and (3) discuss areas for improvement among future analyses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed was queried for CEMs specific to PBT for HNC. General characteristics, modeling information, and methodological approaches were extracted for each identified study. Reporting quality was assessed via the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 24-item checklist, whereas methodologic quality was evaluated via the Philips checklist. The Cooper evidence hierarchy scale was employed to analyze parameter inputs referenced within each model.

RESULTS

At the time of study, only 4 formal CEMs specific to PBT for HNC had been published (2005, 2013, 2018, 2020). The parameter inputs among these various Markov cohort models generally referenced older literature, excluding many clinically relevant complications and applying numerous hypothetical assumptions for toxicity states, incorporating inputs from theoretical complication-probability models because of limited availability of direct clinical evidence. Case numbers among study cohorts were low, and the structural design of some models inadequately reflected the natural history of HNC. Furthermore, cost inputs were incomplete and referenced historic figures.

CONCLUSION

Contemporary CEMs are needed to incorporate modern estimates for toxicity risks and costs associated with PBT delivery, to provide a more accurate estimate of value, and to improve their clinical applicability with respect to PBT for HNC.

Patterns of Proton Beam Therapy Use in Clinical Practice Between 2007 and 2019 in Korea

Purpose

Proton beam therapy (PBT) is a state-of-the-art technology employed in radiotherapy (RT) for cancer patients. This study characterized how PBT has been used in clinical practice in Korea.

Materials and Methods

Patients who received any type of RT between 2007 and 2019 were identified from the radiation oncology registry of the two PBT facilities operating in Korea (National Cancer Center and Samsung Medical Center). The χ2 test was used to identify patient- and treatment-related characteristics associated with the receipt of PBT.

Results

A total of 54,035 patients had been treated with some form of RT in the two institutions, of whom 5,398 received PBT (10.0%). The number of patients who receive PBT has gradually increased since PBT first started, from 162 patients in 2007 to 1304 patients in 2019. Among all types of cancer, PBT use in liver cancer has been steadily increasing from 20% in 2008-2009 to 32% in 2018-2019. In contrast, that in prostate cancer has been continuously decreasing from 20% in 2008-2009 to <10% in 2018-2019. Male sex, very young or old age, stage I-II disease, residency in non-capital areas, a definitive setting, a curative treatment aim, enrollment in a clinical trial, re-irradiation and insurance coverage were significantly associated with the receipt of PBT (all p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Since PBT started in Korea, the number of patients receiving PBT has increased to more than 1,000 per year and treatment indications have expanded. Liver cancer is the most common primary tumor among all PBT cases in Korea.

Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Recurrent Glioblastoma Treated with Proton Beam Therapy Reirradiation: Analysis of the Multi-Institutional Proton Collaborative Group Registry

Purpose

As a means of limiting normal tissue toxicity, proton-beam therapy (PBT) is an emerging radiation modality for glioblastoma (GBM) reirradiation. However, data for recurrent GBM treated with PBT reirradiation is limited. Therefore, we analyzed treatment patterns, toxicities, and clinical outcomes of patients with recurrent GBM treated with PBT reirradiation using the multi-institutional Proton Collaborative Group registry.

Methods and Materials

Prospectively collected data for patients with recurrent GBM who underwent PBT while enrolled in Proton Collaborative Group study 01-009 (NCT01255748) were analyzed. We evaluated overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and toxicity. Toxicities were scored per the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0. Descriptive statistics were used to report patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics. Multivariable analyses (MVA) for toxicity were conducted using logistic regression. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate OS and PFS. MVA for OS and PFS was conducted using Cox proportional-hazards models. The SAS statistical software was used for the analysis.

Results

We identified 45 recurrent patients with GBM who underwent PBT reirradiation between 2012 and 2018. The median time between initial GBM diagnosis and recurrence was 20.2 months. The median follow-up time from PBT reirradiation was 10.7 months. Median PFS was 13.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.23-20.0 months) and median OS was 14.2 months (95% CI, 9.6-16.9 months) after PBT reirradiation. One patient experienced an acute grade 3 toxicity, 4 patients experienced late grade 3 toxicity (no grade ≥4 toxicities). MVA revealed that prior surgery was associated with a 91.3% decreased hazard of death (hazard ratio: 0.087; 95% CI, 0.02-0.42; P < .01). No explanatory variables were associated with PFS or grade 3 toxicities.

Conclusions

This is the largest series to date reporting outcomes for PBT reirradiation of patients with recurrent GBM. Our analysis indicates that PBT is well tolerated and offers efficacy rates comparable with previously reported photon reirradiation.

Proton beam re-irradiation for gastrointestinal malignancies: a systematic review

Background

Radiotherapy (RT) is part of the standard of care management of most gastrointestinal (GI) cancers. Even with advanced RT, systemic therapy, and surgical techniques, locoregional recurrences or second primary cancers can still occur within previously irradiated fields, which can present challenges in delivering effective and safe treatment. Options for reirradiation are often limited, but given the favorable dosimetric aspects of proton-beam RT, it may provide an effective and safe re-irradiation option for patients with recurrent or second primary GI cancers.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement protocol, assessing for reports of proton-beam reirradiation for recurrent or second primary GI cancers, primarily via PubMed. From the initial 373 articles identified, 7 articles were ultimately included in the analysis.

Results

The 7 included studies reported on proton-beam re-irradiation for the following disease sites: esophageal (n=2), pancreas (n=1), liver (n=2), rectal (n=1), and anal (n=1). Study sizes varied from as few as 1 to as many as 83 patients. Across studies, in patients who presented with tumor-related symptoms, palliation (stability/improvement) was achieved in 80-100% of the cases. Local control rates, with variable follow-up, ranged from 36-100%. All median overall survival values, when reported, were greater than 1 year. Across both liver studies, there were no cases of radiation-induced liver disease (RILD) from proton-beam re-irradiation. Across all studies, there were 2 acute (esophagopleural fistula in esophageal cancer, small bowel perforation in pancreatic cancer) and 1 late (esophageal ulcer in esophageal cancer) grade 5 toxicities, all favored to be due to progressive disease, rather than proton-beam re-irradiation. Two studies (1 esophageal, 1 rectal) generated comparison photon plans. One found that proton therapy reduced mean heart and lung doses, spinal cord dose, and lung V5Gy as compared to photon treatment, while resulting in higher lung V20Gy and V30Gy. The other found that protons decreased bowel V10Gy, V20Gy, and the dose to 200 and 150 cc of bowel, as compared to photons.

Conclusions

Based upon the published experiences, proton-beam re-irradiation for recurrent or second primary GI cancers appears effective for palliation, with good disease-control, limited toxicity, favorable dosimetry, and overall compares well with published non-proton-beam experiences. Given short follow-up, additional studies are warranted to determine if dosimetric advantages from proton therapy will translate into comparative toxicity benefits.

Proton beam therapy utilization in adults with primary brain tumors in the United States

The utilization of proton beam therapy (PBT) as the primary treatment of adults with primary brain tumors (APBT) was evaluated through query of the National Cancer Database (NCDB) between the years 2004 and 2015. International Classification of Diseases for Oncology code for each patient was stratified into six histology categories; high-grade gliomas, medulloblastomas, ependymomas, other gliomas, other malignant tumors, or other benign intracranial tumors. Demographics of the treatment population were also analyzed. A total of 1,296 patients received PBT during the 11-year interval for treatment of their primary brain tumor. High-grade glioma, medulloblastoma, ependymoma, other glioma, other malignant, and other benign intracranial histologies made up 39%, 20%, 13%, 12%, 13%, and 2% of the cohort, respectively. The number of patients treated per year increased from 34 to 300 in years 2004 to 2015. Histologies treated with PBT varied over the 11-year interval with high-grade gliomas comprising 75% and 45% at years 2004 and 2015, respectively. The majority of the patient population was 18-29 years of age (59%), Caucasian race (73%), had median reported income of over $63,000 (46%), were privately insured (68%), and were treated at an academic institution (70%). This study characterizes trends of malignant and benign APBT histologies treated with PBT. Our data from 2004 through 2015 illustrates a marked increase in the utilization of PBT in the treatment of APBT and shows variability in the tumor histology treated over this time.

Association of cancer center type with treatment patterns and overall survival for patients with sacral and spinal chordomas: an analysis of the National Cancer Database from 2004 to 2015

OBJECTIVE

Chordomas of the spine and sacrum are a rare but debilitating cancer and require complex multidisciplinary care. Studies of other such rare cancers have demonstrated an association of high-volume and/or multidisciplinary centers with improved outcomes and survival. Such an association has been proposed for chordomas, but evidence to support this claim is lacking. The authors performed a study to investigate if treatment facility type is associated with patterns of care and survival for patients with spinal and sacral chordomas by assessing records from a US-based cancer database.

METHODS

In this observational retrospective cohort study, the authors identified 1266 patients from the National Cancer Database with vertebral column or sacral chordomas diagnosed between 2004 and 2015. The primary study outcome was overall survival, and secondary outcomes included odds of receiving treatment and time to treatment, defined as radiation therapy, surgery, and/or any treatment, including surgery, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, or participation in clinical trials. The results were adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, level of education, income, and Charlson/Deyo score.

RESULTS

Of the 1266 patients identified, the mean age at diagnosis was 59.70 years (SD 16.2 years), and the patients were predominantly male (n = 791 [62.50%]). Patients treated at community cancer programs demonstrated an increased risk of death (HR 1.98, 95% CI 1.13-3.47, p = 0.018) when compared to patients treated at academic/research programs (ARPs). The median survival was longest for those treated at ARPs (131.45 months) compared to community cancer programs (79.34 months, 95% CI 48.99-123.17) and comprehensive community cancer programs (CCCPs) (109.34 months, 95% CI 84.76-131.45); 5-year survival rates were 76.08%, 52.71%, and 61.57%, respectively. Patients treated at community cancer programs and CCCPs were less likely to receive any treatment compared to those treated at ARPs (OR 6.05, 95% CI 2.62-13.95, p < 0.0001; OR 3.74, 95% CI 2.23-6.28, p < 0.0001, respectively). Patients treated at CCCPs and community cancer programs were less likely to receive surgery than those treated at ARPs (OR 2.69, 95% CI 1.82-3.97, p = 0.010; OR = 2.64, 95% CI 1.22-5.71, p = 0.014, respectively). Patients were more likely to receive any treatment (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40-0.87, p = 0.007) and surgery (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38-0.88, p < 0.0001) within 30 days at a CCCP compared to an ARP. There were no differences in odds of receiving radiation therapy or time to radiation by facility type.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical care at an ARP is associated with increased odds of receiving treatment that is associated with improved overall survival for patients with spinal and sacral chordomas, suggesting that ARPs provide the most comprehensive specialized care for patients with this rare and devastating oncological disease.