Search

Simple Summary: Brain metastases (BMs) are the most common brain malignancy and are projected to increase in incidence over the coming decades. Historically, brain metastasis studies have focused on improving survival outcomes, but recently, the importance of evaluating health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and cognitive function has gained recognition. Although there is a myriad of validated HRQOL and cognitive assessments available in the radiation oncology clinic, there is an urgent need to identify tools tailored to patients with BMs and to adopt a uniform set of tests that measure HRQOL and cognition. This review presents various assessments for measuring HRQOL and cognitive function, current recommendations to improve standardization, and treatments known to preserve HRQOL and cognitive function. Brain metastases (BMs) account for a disproportionately high percentage of cancer morbidity and mortality. Historically, studies have focused on improving survival outcomes, and recent radiation oncology clinical trials have incorporated HRQOL and cognitive assessments. We are now equipped with a battery of assessments in the radiation oncology clinic, but there is a lack of consensus regarding how to incorporate them in modern clinical practice. Herein, we present validated assessments for BM patients, current recommendations for future clinical studies, and treatment advances that have improved HRQOL and cognitive outcomes for BM patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Is posttreatment functional status prognostic of overall survival in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). Methods: In an HNC clinical trial, 495 patients had two posttreatment functional assessments measuring diet, public eating, and speech within 6 months. Patients were grouped by impairment (highly, moderately, modestly, or not impaired) and determined if they improved, declined, or did not change from the first assessment to the second. Multivariable Cox models estimated overall mortality. Results: Across all three scales, the change in posttreatment patient function strongly predicted overall survival. In diet, patients who declined to highly impaired had three times the mortality of patients who were not impaired at both assessments (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.60; 95% confidence interval, 2.02‐6.42). For patients improving from highly impaired, mortality was statistically similar to patients with no impairment (HR = 1.38; 95% CI, 0.82‐2.31). Conclusions: Posttreatment functional status is a strong prognostic marker of survival in patients with HNC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: We performed a systematic review to evaluate evidence regarding factors that influence patient preferences for management options for localized prostate cancer. Methods: We followed a prespecified search protocol (PROSPERO identifier CRD42014009173) to identify studies that evaluated patient preferences for prostate cancer management options for localized prostate cancer. We queried PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) Plus, and Econ-Lit databases. Two separate reviewers completed the article selection process and review, including coding of study characteristics. Study quality was scored according to the PREFS checklist, which consists of five criteria: Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, and Significance. Reviewers summarized the primary findings of each article included in the analysis. Results: Of the 606 citations identified in the literature search, there were a total of 21 articles that met all selection criteria, reporting results for a total of 4,131 subjects. Themes identified in the studies included: the importance of patient perceptions of treatment efficacy and side effects; the influence of physician recommendations on patient decision-making; and the prioritization of concerns regarding treatment side effects among those men who prefer radiation therapy or active surveillance. The articles had an average PREFS score of 3.4 (standard deviation [SD] 1.0), which is similar to a recent study for breast cancer treatment preferences. Conclusion: This systematic review of factors that influence patient preferences for prostate cancer management options identified a small, but high quality, group of articles that satisfied the selection criteria. The available evidence suggests that interventions aimed at informing patients regarding the comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer management alternatives should include the influence of physician recommendations and family members' desires on patient decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: We evaluated long-term changes in the volume and payments for radiation oncology services in the intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) era from 2000 to 2010 using a database of Medicare claims. Methods: We used the Medicare Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Master File (PSPSMF) for each year from 2000 to 2010 to tabulate the volume and payments for radiation oncology services. This database provides a summary of each billing code submitted to Medicare part B. We identified all codes used in radiation oncology services and categorized billing codes by treatment modality and place of service. Results: We focused our analysis on office-based practices. Total office-based patient volume increased 8.2% from 2000 to 2010, whereas total payments increased 217%. Increase in overall payments increased dramatically from 2000 to 2007, but subsequently plateaued from 2008 to 2010. Increases in complexity of care, and image guidance in particular, have also resulted in higher payments. Conclusion: The cost of radiation oncology services increased from 2000 to 2010, mostly due to IMRT, but also with significant contribution from increased overall complexity of care. A cost adjustment occurred after 2007, limiting further growth of payments. Future health policy studies should explore the potential for further cost containment, including differences in use between freestanding and hospital outpatient facilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Despite the rising costs in radiation oncology, the impact of health economics research on radiation therapy practice analysis patterns is unclear. We performed a systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) and cost-utility analyses (CUAs) to identify trends in reporting quality in the radiation oncology literature over time.Methods and Materials: A systematic review of radiation oncology economic evaluations up to 2014 was performed, using MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards guideline informed data abstraction variables including study demographics, economic parameters, and methodological details. Tufts Medical Center CEA registry quality scores provided a basis for qualitative assessment of included studies. Studies were stratified by 3 time periods (1995-2004, 2005-2009, and 2010-2014). The Cochran-Armitage trend test and linear trend test were used to identify trends over time.Results: In total, 102 articles were selected for final review. Most studies were in the context of a model (61%) or clinical trial (28%). Many studies lacked a conflict of interest (COI) statement (67%), a sponsorship statement (48%), a reported study time horizon (35%), and the use of discounting (29%). There was a significant increase over time in the reporting of a COI statement (P<.001), health care payer perspective (P=.019), sensitivity analyses using multivariate (P=.043) or probabilistic methods (P=.011), incremental cost-effectiveness threshold (P<.001), secondary source utility weights (P=.010), and cost effectiveness acceptability curves (P=.049). There was a trend toward improvement in Tuft scores over time (P=.065).Conclusions: Recent reports demonstrate improved reporting rates in economic evaluations; however, there remains significant room for improvement as reporting rates are still suboptimal. As fiscal pressures rise, we will rely on economic assessments to guide our practice decisions and policies. We recommend improved adherence to published guidelines and further research to determine the clinical implications of our findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]