Utilization and Survival Impact of Hypofractionated Radiotherapy in Stage I Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: The optimal fractionation schedule in unresected stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) unsuitable for stereotactic body radiation therapy is unclear. Given the lack of comparative data regarding nonstereotactic body radiation therapy schemas, we compared overall survival (OS) with hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT) versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (CFRT) and examined the OS impact of different HFRT doses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective analysis included 2159 patients from the National Cancer Database diagnosed with stage I (cT1-2aN0M0) NSCLC between 2008 and 2016. Patients underwent CFRT (70≤BED10 [biologically effective dose] <100 Gy10 in ≥30 fractions), low-dose HFRT (LD-HFRT; 70≤BED10 [assuming α/ß=10] <100 Gy10 in 11 to 24 fractions), or high-dose HFRT (HD-HFRT; 100≤BED10 ≤120 Gy10 in 6 to 10 fractions). Patients who received surgery, chemotherapy, or immunotherapy were excluded. We compared CFRT versus all HFRT, and separately CFRT versus LD-HFRT and CFRT versus HD-HFRT. OS was evaluated with the Kaplan-Meier estimator, log-rank test, and Cox regression. RESULTS: A total of 63.2% of patients underwent CFRT, 23.5% LD-HFRT, and 13.3% HD-HFRT. OS was significantly longer with HFRT versus CFRT on univariable (28.2 mo [95% CI, 25.6-31.7] vs 26.4 mo [25.0-27.9]; log-rank=0.0025) but not multivariable analysis (MVA; hazard ratio [HR] 0.90; P=0.062). MVA yielded no significant difference in OS between CFRT and LD-HFRT (HR 0.96, P=0.53). OS was significantly longer with HD-HFRT versus CFRT on MVA (HR, 0.75; P=0.003). However, on sensitivity analysis using different multivariable modeling techniques, this did not retain statistical significance (HR, 0.83; P=0.12). CONCLUSIONS: For stage I NSCLC, HFRT does not show a robust OS benefit compared with CFRT but may be preferred given the convenience and lower costs.

Hazardous Attitudes: Physician Decision Making in Radiation Oncology.

Purpose: The Federal Aviation Administration quantifies hazardous attitudes (HAs) among pilots using a scale. HAs have been linked to aviation risk. We assessed the influence of HAs and other factors in treatment decision making in radiation oncology (RO). Methods and Materials: An anonymous survey was sent to 809 radiation oncologists in US cities housing the top 25 cancer centers. The survey included an HA scale adapted for RO and presented 9 cases assessing risk-tolerant radiation therapy prescribing habits and compliance with the American Society for Radiation Oncology's Choosing Wisely recommendations. Demographic and treatment decision data were dichotomized to identify factors associated with prescribing habits using univariable and multivariable (MVA) logistic regression analyses. Results: A total of 139 responses (17.1%) were received, and 103 were eligible for analysis. Among respondents, 40% were female, ages were evenly distributed, and 83% were in academics. Median scores for all attitudes (macho, anti-authority, worry, resignation, and impulsivity) were below the aviation thresholds for hazard and data from surgical specialties. On MVA, responders >50 years old with >5 years' experience were 4.45 times more likely to recommend risk-tolerant radiation (P = .016). Macho attitude was negatively associated with Choosing Wisely compliant treatments (odds ratio [OR], 0.12; P = .001). Physicians who reported having previously retreated the supraclavicular fossa without complication were more likely to recommend retreatment in medically unfit patients if they felt the complication was avoided owing to careful planning (OR, 5.2; P = .008). Conclusions: To our knowledge, this represents the first study analyzing physician attitudes in RO and their effect on self-reported treatment decisions. This work suggests that attitude may be among the factors that influence risk-tolerant prescribing practices and compliance with Choosing Wisely recommendations.

Hypofractionated vs. standard radiotherapy for locally advanced limited-stage small cell lung cancer.

Background: Hypofractionated radiotherapy in locally advanced limited-stage small cell lung cancer is preferred in many Western countries but not used regularly in the United States. We examined practice patterns and overall survival with definitive hypofractionated radiotherapy and chemotherapy vs. standard radiotherapy in this setting. Methods: We included patients in the National Cancer Database with unresected primary stage II-III small cell lung cancer in 2008-2016 who underwent chemotherapy within six months of either hypofractionated radiotherapy (40-45 Gy/15 fractions) or standard radiotherapy (45 Gy/30 fractions or 60-70 Gy/30-35 fractions) in this retrospective cohort study. Patient characteristics were assessed with univariable and multivariable logistic regression. Kaplan-Meier estimator, log-rank test, and multivariable Cox regression were used to evaluate overall survival. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed as a sensitivity analysis. Early concurrent chemotherapy consisted of radiotherapy and chemotherapy initiated within 30 days of each other. Results: Seven thousand and one hundred forty-three patients were included: 97.9% received standard radiotherapy and 2.1% hypofractionated radiotherapy. Multivariable analysis on the whole cohort yielded comparable overall survival (HR for hypofractionated radiotherapy 1.09, CI: 0.90-1.32, P=0.37). On PSM (N=292), median overall survival was similar between standard radiotherapy [22.9 months (95% CI: 18.2-30.4 months)] vs. hypofractionated radiotherapy [21.2 months (CI: 16.3-24.7 months); P=0.13]. Overall survival was shorter with hypofractionated radiotherapy in the early concurrent chemotherapy subset (15.8 vs. 22.1 months, P=0.007) and longer with hypofractionated radiotherapy in the non-early concurrent chemotherapy subset (29.5 vs. 18.5 months, P=0.027). Conclusions: Overall survival with hypofractionated radiotherapy appears similar to standard radiotherapy in locally advanced limited-stage small cell lung cancer. Chemotherapy timing may modify the effect of fractionation on overall survival, though larger numbers must confirm. Hypofractionated radiotherapy may be considered in those unable to receive early concurrent chemotherapy.

Adjuvant external beam radiotherapy for surgically resected, nonmetastatic anaplastic thyroid cancer.

BACKGROUND: EBRT in resected, nonmetastatic anaplastic thyroid cancer (ATC) remains undefined. We evaluated patterns/outcomes with EBRT and chemotherapy in this setting. METHODS: This retrospective analysis included patients identified from the National Cancer Database with nonmetastatic ATC from 2004 to 2014 who underwent non-palliative resection. RESULTS: Our analysis included 496 patients, including 375 who underwent adjuvant EBRT (among whom 198 received concurrent chemotherapy). The median age was 68 years. On MVA, EBRT was associated with sex (OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-0.8, P = .002) and income (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.4-3.3, P < .001). EBRT was associated with longer OS on UVA (12.3 vs 9.1 months, P = .004) and MVA (HR 0.7 [CI 0.6-0.9], P = .004). Concurrent chemoradiation was associated with longer OS on UVA (14.0 vs 9.1 months, P = .003) and MVA (HR 0.6 [CI 0.5-0.8], P < .001). CONCLUSION: Adjuvant EBRT is associated with longer OS in resected, nonmetastatic ATC, with additional improved survival with concurrent chemotherapy.

Adjuvant chemotherapy and outcomes in esophageal carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Standard treatment for locally advanced esophageal cancer is neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery. The role of postoperative chemotherapy is unclear. We sought to determine the indications, patterns, and outcomes for adjuvant chemotherapy in esophageal carcinoma. METHODS: This single institution retrospective review included patients with esophageal cancer who received neoadjuvant chemoradiation and surgery at Moffitt. We identified patients in this cohort who additionally received adjuvant chemotherapy. Medical records were reviewed for demographic/clinical information. Survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by log-rank. Case-control analysis was performed using a 2:1 nearest neighbor propensity score matching algorithm, which included 92 without adjuvant chemotherapy and 46 with adjuvant chemotherapy. RESULTS: We identified 382 patients, 46 of whom received adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy were younger (60.2 vs. 63.8 years; P=0.047), more likely to have adenocarcinoma (91% vs. 85%; P=0.034), had more advanced ypT and ypN classifications (P<0.001), less response to neoadjuvant therapy (P<0.001), and more margin positivity (15% vs. 4%; P=0.007). With propensity score matching analysis, no variables were significantly different between the two matched groups. Median follow-up times for the entire cohort and for case-control analysis were 2.9 and 2.4 years, respectively. There were no significant differences in overall or recurrence-free survival (RFS) between groups in either analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The role of adjuvant chemotherapy following neoadjuvant chemoradiation and surgery in esophageal cancer is unclear. We found no significant difference in survival based on adjuvant chemotherapy. Future prospective studies should further investigate potential survival benefits and morbidity.