Use of a Radiation Tumor Bed Boost After Breast-Conserving Surgery and Whole-Breast Irradiation: Time Trends and Correlates.

PURPOSE: We sought to evaluate time trends and correlates of the use of a radiation tumor bed boost (TBB) after breast-conserving surgery and either conventional or hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation (CWBI or HWBI) for patients with early stage breast cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients diagnosed between 2012 and 2016. We evaluated the utilization of TBB before and after publication of the Society of Surgical Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology margin guidelines in relation to sociodemographic variables, treatment facility, tumor characteristics, and whole-breast fractionation. RESULTS: The population included 380,387 patients, of whom 76.7% received a TBB. Utilization of TBB decreased over time (2012-2013: 79.2%; 2014: 76.6%; 2015-2016: 74.7%; P < .001); this was seen for most subgroups evaluated. Rates of TBB differed by facility type and region. There was a decrease in TBB use in patients treated with CWBI over time (2012-2013: 84.9%; 2014: 83.5%; 2015-2016: 82.3%; P < .001) but an increase among patients treated with HWBI (2012-2013: 55.5%; 2014: 60.7%; 2015-2016: 65.1%; P < .001); this was also seen for low-risk patients (age >70 years, negative margins). Among patients undergoing HWBI, TBB was more frequently used when 15 fractions were used compared with 16 fractions (76.8% vs 59.1%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of TBB decreased over time, coinciding with the publication of new margin guidelines, for patients receiving CWBI and those with negative margins, but TBB use increased for patients treated with HWBI. Hence, fractionation regimen is a critical variable in analyzing changes over time in the practice patterns of TBB.

Novel radiation therapy approaches for breast cancer treatment.

The role of radiation therapy in the management of breast cancer continues to evolve. For patients with early stage breast cancer, hypofractionated whole breast irradiation following breast conserving surgery now represents the standard of care based on randomized data with long-term efficacy and toxicity outcomes. Partial breast irradiation has been found, in several randomized trials, to be effective and appropriate in selected patients with the potential to reduce toxicities as compared to whole breast irradiation. The study of tumor biology and genetics and its role in radiation therapy decision making continues to grow and the advances may help identify patients where radiation therapy can be safely omitted, with future studies looking at de-intensification approaches. Recent randomized data has demonstrated a growing role for regional nodal irradiation in patients with more advanced disease, with future studies looking to identify whether nodal radiation is indicated following neoadjuvant chemotherapy or with certain favorable tumor biologies. While postmastectomy radiation therapy represents a standard approach for patients with locally advanced breast cancer, new data supports the role of hypofractionated regimens as well as its use in patients previously considered lower risk with unfavorable tumor biology. Oligometastatic disease represents a new area of study in breast cancer with prospective trials underway and current data supporting consideration of techniques such as stereotactic body radiation therapy in appropriately selected patients.

Implementation of an Enhanced Recovery Protocol Is Associated With On-Time Initiation of Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Delayed initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy negatively impacts long-term survival in patients with colorectal cancer. Colorectal enhanced recovery protocols result in decreased complications and length of stay; however, the impact of enhanced recovery on the timing of adjuvant chemotherapy remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify factors associated with on-time delivery of adjuvant chemotherapy after colorectal cancer surgery, hypothesizing that implementation of an enhanced recovery protocol would result in more patients receiving on-time chemotherapy. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study comparing the rate of on-time adjuvant chemotherapy delivery after colorectal cancer resection before and after implementation of an enhanced recovery protocol. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at a large academic medical center. PATIENTS: All of the patients who underwent nonemergent colorectal cancer resections for curative intent from January 2010 to June 2017, excluding patients who had no indication for adjuvant chemotherapy, had received preoperative systemic chemotherapy, or did not have medical oncology records available were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients before and enhanced recovery were compared, with the rate of on-time adjuvant chemotherapy delivery as the primary outcome. Adjuvant chemotherapy delivery was considered on time if initiated ≤8 weeks postoperatively, and treatment was considered delayed or omitted if initiated >8 weeks postoperatively (delayed) or never received (omitted). Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of on-time chemotherapy delivery. RESULTS: A total of 363 patients met inclusion criteria, with 189 patients (52.1%) undergoing surgery after enhanced recovery implementation. Groups differed in laparoscopic approach and median procedure duration, both of which were higher after enhanced recovery. Significantly more patients received on-time chemotherapy after enhanced recovery implementation (p = 0.007). Enhanced recovery was an independent predictor of on-time adjuvant chemotherapy (p = 0.014). LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by its retrospective and nonrandomized before-and-after design. CONCLUSIONS: Enhanced recovery was associated with receiving on-time adjuvant chemotherapy. As prompt initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy improves survival in colorectal cancer, future investigation of long-term oncologic outcomes is necessary to evaluate the potential impact of enhanced recovery on survival. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B21. LA IMPLEMENTACIÓN DE UN PROTOCOLO DE RECUPERACIÓN ACELERADA SE ASOCIA CON EL INICIO A TIEMPO DE QUIMIOTERAPIA ADYUVANTE EN CÁNCER COLORRECTAL:: El inicio tardío de la quimioterapia adyuvante afecta negativamente la supervivencia a largo plazo en pacientes con cáncer colorrectal. Los protocolos de recuperación acelerada colorrectales dan lugar a una disminución de las complicaciones y la duración de estancia hospitalaria; sin embargo, el impacto de la recuperación acelerada en el momento de inicio de quimioterapia adyuvante sigue siendo desconocido.Este estudio tuvo como objetivo identificar los factores asociados con la administración a tiempo de la quimioterapia adyuvante después de la cirugía de cáncer colorrectal, con la hipótesis de que la implementación de un protocolo de recuperación acelerada daría lugar a que más pacientes reciban quimioterapia a tiempo.Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo que compara la tasa de administración de quimioterapia adyuvante a tiempo después de la resección del cáncer colorrectal antes y después de la implementación de un protocolo de recuperación acelerada.Centro médico académico grande.Todos los pacientes que se sometieron a resecciones de cáncer colorrectal no emergentes con intención curativa desde enero de 2010 hasta junio de 2017, excluyendo a los pacientes que no tenían indicación de quimioterapia adyuvante, que recibieron quimioterapia sistémica preoperatoria o no tenían registros médicos de oncología disponibles.Los pacientes se compararon antes y después de la implementación de la recuperación acelerada, con la tasa de administración de quimioterapia adyuvante a tiempo como el resultado primario. La administración de quimioterapia adyuvante se consideró a tiempo si se inició ≤8 semanas después de la operación, y el tratamiento se consideró retrasado / omitido si se inició> 8 semanas después de la operación (retrasado) o nunca fue recibido (omitido). La regresión logística multivariable identificó predictores de administración de quimioterapia a tiempo.363 pacientes cumplieron con los criterios de inclusión, con 189 (52.1%) pacientes sometidos a cirugía después de la implementación de recuperación acelerada. Los grupos difirieron en el abordaje laparoscópico y la duración media del procedimiento; ambos factores fueron mayores después de la recuperación acelerada. Significativamente más pacientes recibieron quimioterapia a tiempo después de la implementación de recuperación acelerada (p = 0.007). La recuperación acelerada fue un factor predictivo independiente de quimioterapia adyuvante a tiempo (p = 0.014).Diseño retrospectivo, tipo ¨antes y después¨ no aleatorizado.La recuperación acelerada se asoció con la recepción de quimioterapia adyuvante a tiempo. Debido a que el inicio rápido de la quimioterapia adyuvante mejora la supervivencia en el cáncer colorrectal, en el futuro será necesario investigar los resultados oncológicos a largo plazo para evaluar el impacto potencial de la recuperación acelerada en la supervivencia. Vea el Resumen en Video en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B21.

Stereotactic radiosurgery for brain metastases from malignant melanoma and the impact of hemorrhagic metastases.

INTRODUCTION: Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is a common treatment modality among patients with brain metastases, particularly from malignant melanoma. Our objective was to investigate the difference in local control, toxicity, and survival among patients with hemorrhagic and solid melanoma brain metastases. METHODS: We collected demographic, treatment, local control, toxicity, and survival for 134 patients with a total of 936 intracranial melanoma metastases who underwent SRS between 1998 and 2015. Pre-radiosurgical diagnostic imaging was reviewed for evidence of hemorrhage (melanin-containing or clearly hemorrhagic). RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 92 men and 42 women with a mea age of 61.7 years (range 21.2-84.9) at the time of radiosurgery. Overall survival of patients with brain metastases from malignant melanoma was 42, 31, 12% at 12, 24, and 72 months from date of first SRS. At 6 months, 43% of the patients with hemorrhagic metastases had local tumor control compared to 83% of solid melanoma metastases (p < 0.001). No significant difference in toxicity was noted between the two groups. Factors that were significantly associated with time to local tumor progression on multivariate analysis include prior WBRT (HR 1.62, p = 0.003), prior chemotherapy (HR 0.69, p = 0.011), margin dose (HR 0.88, p < 0.001) and radiographic features of melanin deposition (HR 3.73, p < 0.001), or clear hemorrhage (HR 2.20, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that hemorrhagic intracranial melanoma metastases are associated with inferior local tumor control when treated with SRS, as compared to solid tumors. These results highlight the importance of early radiosurgery among patients with melanoma brain metastases before hemorrhage occurs.

Time-driven activity-based cost comparison of prostate cancer brachytherapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the delivery cost of frequently used radiotherapy options offered to patients with intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer using time-driven activity-based costing and compare the results with Medicare reimbursement and relative value units (RVUs). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Process maps were created to represent each step of prostate radiotherapy treatment at our institution. Salary data, equipment purchase costs, and consumable costs were factored into the cost analysis. The capacity cost rate was determined for each resource and calculated for each treatment option from initial consultation to its completion. Treatment options included low-dose-rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT), combined high-dose-rate brachytherapy single fraction boost with 25-fraction intensity-modulated radiotherapy (HDR-BT-IMRT), moderately hypofractionated 28-fraction IMRT, conventionally fractionated 39-fraction IMRT, and conventionally fractionated (2 Gy/fraction) 23-fraction pelvis irradiation with 16-fraction prostate boost. RESULTS: The total cost to deliver LDR-BT, HDR-BT-IMRT, moderately hypofractionated 28-fraction IMRT, conventionally fractionated 39-fraction IMRT, conventionally fractionated 39-fraction IMRT, and conventionally fractionated (2 Gy/fraction) 23-fraction pelvis irradiation with 16-fraction prostate boost was $2719, $6517, $4173, $5507, and $5663, respectively. Total reimbursement for each course was $3123, $10,156, $7862, $9725, and $10,377, respectively. Radiation oncology attending time was 1.5-2 times higher for treatment courses incorporating BT. Attending radiation oncologist's time consumed per RVU was higher with BT (4.83 and 2.56 minutes per RVU generated for LDR-BT and HDR-BT-IMRT, respectively) compared to without BT (1.41-1.62 minutes per RVU). CONCLUSIONS: Time-driven activity-based costing analysis identified higher delivery costs associated with prostate BT compared with IMRT alone. In light of recent guidelines promoting BT for intermediate- to high-risk disease, re-evaluation of payment policies is warranted to encourage BT delivery.

Evaluation of Delivery Costs for External Beam Radiation Therapy and Brachytherapy for Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer Using Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the delivery costs, using time-driven activity-based costing, and reimbursement for definitive radiation therapy for locally advanced cervical cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Process maps were created to represent each step of the radiation treatment process and included personnel, equipment, and consumable supplies used to deliver care. Personnel were interviewed to estimate time involved to deliver care. Salary data, equipment purchasing information, and facilities costs were also obtained. We defined the capacity cost rate (CCR) for each resource and then calculated the total cost of patient care according to CCR and time for each resource. Costs were compared with 2016 Medicare reimbursement and relative value units (RVUs). RESULTS: The total cost of radiation therapy for cervical cancer was $12,861.68, with personnel costs constituting 49.8%. Brachytherapy cost $8610.68 (66.9% of total) and consumed 423 minutes of attending radiation oncologist time (80.0% of total). External beam radiation therapy cost $4055.01 (31.5% of total). Personnel costs were higher for brachytherapy than for the sum of simulation and external beam radiation therapy delivery ($4798.73 vs $1404.72). A full radiation therapy course provides radiation oncologists 149.77 RVUs with intensity modulated radiation therapy or 135.90 RVUs with 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy, with total reimbursement of $23,321.71 and $16,071.90, respectively. Attending time per RVU is approximately 4-fold higher for brachytherapy (5.68 minutes) than 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (1.63 minutes) or intensity modulated radiation therapy (1.32 minutes). CONCLUSIONS: Time-driven activity-based costing was used to calculate the total cost of definitive radiation therapy for cervical cancer, revealing that brachytherapy delivery and personnel resources constituted the majority of costs. However, current reimbursement policy does not reflect the increased attending physician effort and delivery costs of brachytherapy. We hypothesize that the significant discrepancy between treatment costs and physician effort versus reimbursement may be a potential driver of reported national trends toward poor compliance with brachytherapy, and we suggest re-evaluation of payment policies to incentivize quality care.

Clinical outcomes of helical conformal versus nonconformal palliative radiation therapy for axial skeletal metastases.

PURPOSE: Palliative radiation therapy (RT) for bone metastases has traditionally been delivered with conventional, nonconformal RT (NCRT). Conformal RT (CRT) is potentially more complex and expensive than NCRT, but may reduce normal tissue dose and subsequently toxicity. In this retrospective analysis, we compared CRT with NCRT to investigate the association between conformality and toxicity. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A retrospective analysis of patients receiving palliative RT for axial skeletal bone metastases from 2012 to 2014 was conducted. Patient and treatment characteristics were obtained including dosimetric variables, acute toxicity, and subjective pain during treatment and in the acute posttreatment period (≤60 days after completion). Statistical analyses included t tests, χ2 tests, and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 179 patients and 254 bone metastases were identified (142 CRT, 112 NCRT). The CRT and NCRT groups were well matched for baseline characteristics (number of fractions, field size, treatment sites, and concurrent chemotherapy). In multivariate logistic regression models, technique (CRT vs NCRT) was not associated with development of acute toxicity. Regarding toxicity, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and total dose were significantly associated with a higher rate of acute toxicity during RT (odds ratios, 0.649 and 1.129 and P = .027 and .044, respectively), and only a higher number of vertebral bodies in the treatment field was significantly associated with acute toxicity post-treatment (odds ratios, 1.219, P = .028). CRT was associated with improvement in bone pain during and posttreatment (P = .049 and .045, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate no difference in acute toxicity following palliative RT with CRT compared with NCRT for painful bone metastases; however, treatment volume did predict for increased toxicity. Larger studies may further elucidate the value of CRT including the impact of dose escalation for bone metastases and differences in patient reported outcomes between RT techniques.