Variation in Androgen Deprivation Therapy Use Among Men With Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: Results From a Statewide Radiation Oncology Quality Consortium.

PURPOSE: For men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated with definitive therapy, the addition of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) reduces the risk of distant metastasis and cancer-related mortality. However, the absolute benefit of ADT varies by baseline cancer risk. Estimates of prognosis have improved over time, and little is known about ADT decision making in the modern era. We sought to characterize variability and identify factors associated with intended ADT use within the Michigan Radiation Oncology Quality Consoritum (MROQC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with localized prostate cancer undergoing definitive radiation therapy were enrolled from June 9, 2020, to June 26, 2023 (n = 815). Prospective data were collected using standardized patient, physician, and physicist forms. Intended ADT use was prospectively defined and was the primary outcome. Associations with patient, tumor, and practice-related factors were tested with multivariable analyses. Random intercept modeling was used to estimate facility-level variability. RESULTS: Five hundred seventy patients across 26 facilities were enrolled with intermediate-risk disease. ADT was intended for 46% of men (n = 262/570), which differed by National Comprehensive Cancer Network favorable intermediate-risk (23.5%, n = 38/172) versus unfavorable intermediate-risk disease (56.3%, n = 224/398; P < .001). After adjusting for the statewide case mix, the predicted probability of intended ADT use varied significantly across facilities, ranging from 15.4% (95% CI, 5.4%-37.0%) to 71.7% (95% CI, 57.0%-82.9%), with P < .01. Multivariable analyses showed that grade group 3 (OR, 4.60 [3.20-6.67]), ≥50% positive cores (OR, 2.15 [1.43-3.25]), and prostate-specific antigen 10 to 20 (OR, 1.87 [1.24-2.84]) were associated with ADT use. Area under the curve was improved when incorporating MRI adverse features (0.76) or radiation treatment variables (0.76), but there remained significant facility-level heterogeneity in all models evaluated (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Within a state-wide consortium, there is substantial facility-level heterogeneity in intended ADT use for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Future efforts are necessary to identify patients who will benefit most from ADT and to develop strategies to standardize appropriate use.

Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of 3D-Conformal Radiation Therapy Versus Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) in a Prospective Multicenter Cohort of Patients With Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Simple intensity modulation of radiation therapy reduces acute toxicity compared with 2-dimensional techniques in adjuvant breast cancer treatment, but it remains unknown whether more complex or inverse-planned intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) offers an advantage over forward-planned, 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Using prospective data regarding patients receiving adjuvant whole breast radiation therapy without nodal irradiation at 23 institutions from 2011 to 2018, we compared the incidence of acute toxicity (moderate-severe pain or moist desquamation) in patients receiving 3DCRT versus IMRT (either inverse planned or, if forward-planned, using ≥5 segments per gantry angle). We evaluated associations between technique and toxicity using multivariable models with inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting, adjusting for treatment facility as a random effect. RESULTS: Of 1185 patients treated with 3DCRT and conventional fractionation, 650 (54.9%) experienced acute toxicity; of 774 treated with highly segmented forward-planned IMRT, 458 (59.2%) did; and of 580 treated with inverse-planned IMRT, 245 (42.2%) did. Of 1296 patients treated with hypofractionation and 3DCRT, 432 (33.3%) experienced acute toxicity; of 709 treated with highly segmented forward-planned IMRT, 227 (32.0%) did; and of 623 treated with inverse-planned IMRT, 164 (26.3%) did. On multivariable analysis with inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting, the odds ratio for acute toxicity after inverse-planned IMRT versus 3DCRT was 0.64 (95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.91) with conventional fractionation and 0.41 (95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.65) with hypofractionation. CONCLUSIONS: This large, prospective, multicenter comparative effectiveness study found a significant benefit from inverse-planned IMRT compared with 3DCRT in reducing acute toxicity of breast radiation therapy. Future research should identify the dosimetric differences that mediate this association and evaluate cost-effectiveness.

Disease Control After Hypofractionation Versus Conventional Fractionation for Triple Negative Breast Cancer: Comparative Effectiveness in a Large Observational Cohort.

PURPOSE: Questions remain about whether moderately hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation is appropriate for patients with triple-negative breast cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Using the prospective database of a multicenter, collaborative quality improvement consortium, we identified patients with node-negative, triple-negative breast cancer who received whole-breast irradiation with either moderate hypofractionation or conventional fractionation. Using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), we compared outcomes using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimation method with Cox regression models estimating the hazard ratio for time-to-event endpoints between groups. RESULTS: The sample included 538 patients treated at 18 centers in 1 state in the United States, of whom 307 received conventionally fractionated whole-breast irradiation and 231 received moderately hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation. The median follow-up time was 5.0 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.77-5.15 years). The 5-year IPTW estimates for freedom from local recurrence were 93.6% (95% CI, 87.8%-96.7%) in the moderate hypofractionation group and 94.4% (95% CI, 90.3%-96.8%) in the conventional fractionation group. The hazard ratio was 1.05 (95% CI, 0.51-2.17; P = .89). The 5-year IPTW estimates for recurrence-free survival were 87.8% (95% CI, 81.0%-92.4%) in the moderate hypofractionation group and 88.4% (95% CI 83.2%-92.1%) in the conventional fractionation group. The hazard ratio was 1.02 (95% CI, 0.62-1.67; P = .95). The 5-year IPTW estimates for overall survival were 96.6% (95% CI, 92.0%-98.5%) in the moderate hypofractionation group and 93.4% (95% CI, 88.7%-96.1%) in the conventional fractionation group. The hazard ratio was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.30-1.42; P = .28). CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of outcomes in this large observational cohort of patients with triple-negative, node-negative breast cancer treated with whole-breast irradiation revealed no differences by dose fractionation. This adds evidence to support the use of moderate hypofractionation in patients with triple-negative disease.

Choosing wisely? Patterns and correlates of the use of hypofractionated whole-breast radiation therapy in the state of Michigan.

PURPOSE: Given evidence from randomized trials that have established the non-inferiority of more convenient and less costly courses of hypofractionated radiotherapy to the whole breast in selected breast cancer patients who receive lumpectomy, we sought to investigate the use of hypofractionated radiation therapy and factors associated with its use in a consortium of radiation oncology practices in Michigan. We sought to determine the extent to which variation in use occurs at the physician or practice level versus the extent to which use reflects individualization based on potentially relevant patient characteristics (such as habitus, age, chemotherapy receipt, or laterality). METHODS AND MATERIALS: We evaluated associations between receipt of hypofractionated radiation therapy and various patient, provider, and practice characteristics in a multilevel model. RESULTS: Of 1477 patients who received lumpectomy and whole-breast radiation therapy and were registered by the Michigan Radiation Oncology Quality Consortium (MROQC) from October 2011 to December 2013, 913 had T1-2, N0 breast cancer. Of these 913, 283 (31%) received hypofractionated radiation therapy. Among the 13 practices, hypofractionated radiation therapy use ranged from 2% to 80%. On multilevel analysis, 51% of the variation in the rate of hypofractionation was attributable to the practice level, 21% to the provider level, and 28% to the patient level. On multivariable analysis, hypofractionation was more likely in patients who were older (odds ratio [OR] 2.16 for age ≥50 years, P=.007), less likely in those with larger body habitus (OR 0.52 if separation between tangent entry and exit ≥25 cm, P=.002), and more likely without chemotherapy receipt (OR 3.82, P<.001). Hypofractionation use was not higher in the last 6 months analyzed: 79 of 252 (31%) from June 2013 to December 2013 and 204 of 661 (31%) from October 2011 to May 2013 (P=.9). CONCLUSIONS: Hypofractionated regimens of whole-breast radiation therapy have been variably administered in the adjuvant setting in Michigan after the publication of long-term trial results and consensus guidelines. Most of this variability is explained at the practice and provider level rather than by patient-level features, although care is being individualized to some degree.