Search

BACKGROUND Comparative effectiveness research (CER) using national registries influences cancer clinical trial design, treatment guidelines, and patient management. However, the extent to which treatment selection bias (TSB) affects overall survival (OS) in cancer CER remains poorly defined. We sought to quantify the TSB effect on OS in the setting of low-risk prostate cancer, where 10-year prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) approaches 100% regardless of treatment modality. METHODS The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database was queried for patients with low-risk prostate cancer (cT1-T2a, PSA

Purpose Peer review during physician chart rounds is a major quality assurance and patient safety step in radiation oncology. However, the effectiveness of chart rounds in detecting problematic treatment plans is unknown. We performed a prospective blinded study of error detection at chart rounds to clarify the effectiveness of this quality assurance step. Methods and Materials Radiation Oncology Incident Learning System publications were queried for problematic plans approved for treatment that would be detectable at chart rounds. A resident physician, physicist, and dosimetrist collaboratively generated 20 treatment plans with simulated errors identical in nature to those reported to the Radiation Oncology Incident Learning System. These were inserted randomly into weekly chart rounds over 9 weeks, with a median of 2 problematic plans presented per chart rounds (range, 1-4). Data were collected on detection, attendance, length, and number of cases presented at chart rounds. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and univariable logistic regression with odds ratios. Results The median length of chart rounds over the study period was 60 minutes (range, 42-79); median number of cases presented per chart rounds was 45 (range, 38-50). The overall detection rate was 55% (11 of 20). Detection rates were higher for cases presented earlier in chart rounds: 75% versus 25% of problematic plans were detected within 30 minutes of start of chart rounds versus after 30 minutes (odds ratio, 0.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.01–0.88; P = .037). Detection rates showed a trend toward increase during the study period but this was not significant: 33% in weeks 1 to 5 and 73% during weeks 6 to 9 (5.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.78–36; P = .08). Conclusions The detection of clinically significant problematic plans during chart rounds could be significantly improved. Problematic plans are more frequently detected earlier in chart rounds and inserting such plans into chart rounds may enhance detection; however, larger studies are needed to confirm these findings. A multi-institutional study is planned.

The COVID-19 pandemic largely suspended in-person scientific meetings because of risk of disease spread. In the era of vaccination and social distancing practices, meetings have begun returning to in-person formats. We surveyed attendees and potential attendees of 2 oncology meetings in the United States to identify rates of mixing behavior and the subsequent rate of self-reported COVID-19 infection.We collected via survey reported social mixing behavior and COVID-19 positivity (within 21 days of meeting conclusion) of actual and potential in-person attendees of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Quality Care Symposium held September 24 to 25, 2021, and the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Annual Meeting held October 24 to 27, 2021. Conference speakers and other participants were identified through publicly available meeting materials and targeted via e-mail when possible. Recruitment of additional attendees and potential attendees was also conducted through a sharable link promoted via oncology newsletters and social media. Descriptive statistics alone were performed owing to low COVID-19 event rates.Response rates from targeted conference participants with publicly available e-mails were 27.4% for the ASCO and 14.3% for the ASTRO meetings. The ASCO survey produced 94 responses (48 in-person attendees). The ASTRO survey produced 370 responses (267 in-person attendees). Across both meetings, 3 of 308 (1.0%) in-person attendees versus 2 of 141 (1.4%) nonattendees tested positive for COVID-19. Low COVID-19 positivity rates were reported among in-person attendees spending more (20) versus fewer (≤20) hours attending live sessions (2.2% vs 0%) and among indoor social event participants versus nonparticipants (0.8% vs 1.9%). Attendees largely felt comfortable attending additional in-person meetings after experiencing ASCO (87.5%) or ASTRO (91.9%) and felt mask compliance was good or excellent at ASCO (100%) and ASTRO (94.6%) meetings.In-person meetings do not seem to be contributing to high rates of new COVID-19 infections in the setting of vaccine and social distancing mandates, supporting paths forward for at least partially in-person conferences as COVID-19 becomes endemic.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S): Studies have suggested that prior radiation dose to normal lung tissue is associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes. However, radiation dose to the heart may be an equally important consideration, given the impact of COVID-19 on cardiovascular/thrombotic complications, and of cardiac dose on overall mortality after breast and lung radiation therapy. We hypothesized that prior heart radiation dose is independently associated with COVID-related mortality (CRM) after adjusting for prior lung radiation dose among COVID-19 positive patients. MATERIALS/METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the plans of the first 203 patients with a history of radiation therapy in our department to have a documented episode of COVID-19 infection resulting in either death or resolution. For non-metastatic patients with complete treatment plan information and a simulation scan including the entirety of the heart and lungs, we calculated mean bilateral lung dose (MLD [Gy]), bilateral lung V5 (LV5 [%]) and V20 (LV20 [%]), mean heart dose (MHD [Gy]), heart V5 (HV5 [%]), and V30 (HV30 [%]). Each dosimetric parameter was dichotomized at the upper tercile. Our primary endpoint was CRM. The relationship between dosimetric parameters and mortality was evaluated by univariable chi-square analysis and multivariable logistic regression with odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Of the 203 patients with documented COVID-19 infection included in our study, 37 experienced CRM (18%). Of the 53 non-metastatic dosimetrically evaluable patients comprising the study cohort, 9 experienced CRM (17%). The most common sites of disease in the study cohort were breast (N = 34), among whom 3 patients (9%) experienced CRM, and lung/thoracic (N = 11), among whom 4 (36%) experienced CRM. In the study cohort, median lung doses were MLD 4.7 Gy, LV5 17.9%, and LV20 8.0%; median heart doses were MHD 1.8 Gy, HV5 2.9%, and HV30 0.1%. On univariable analysis, CRM was higher for patients with MLD ≥7.2 Gy vs. < 7.2 Gy (33.3% vs. 8.6%, P = 0.033), LV5 ≥25.9% vs. < 25.9% (33.3% vs. 8.6%, P = 0.033), MHD ≥2.9 Gy vs. < 2.9 Gy (41.2% vs. 5.6%, P < 0.005), HV5 ≥9.4% vs. < 9.4% (38.9% vs. 5.7%, P = 0.007), and HV30 ≥1.9% vs. < 1.9% (41.2% vs. 5.6%, P = 0.005). Multivariable analysis showed in one model that MHD ≥2.9 Gy vs. < 2.9 Gy was associated with CRM (OR 8.7, CI 1.4-51.9, P = 0.02) while MLD ≥7.2 Gy vs. < 7.2 Gy was not (OR 2.9, CI 0.5-15.8, P = 0.22), and in another model that HV5 ≥9.4% vs. < 9.4% was associated with CRM (OR 7.4, CI 1.2-45.0, P = 0.03) while LV5 ≥25.9% vs. < 25.9% was not (OR 2.2, CI 0.4-13.1, P = 0.37). CONCLUSION: Prior heart radiation dose appeared to serve as a better predictor of COVID-related mortality than prior lung radiation dose. Future studies of the relationship between radiation therapy and COVID outcomes should include measures of heart exposure, especially given the known cardiovascular sequelae of COVID-19.

Carcinoma in situ is a rare non-invasive histology of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with excellent survival outcomes with resection. However, management of lung biopsy suggestive of in situ disease remains unclear. To inform decision-making in this scenario, we determined the rate of invasive disease presence upon resection of lesions with an initial biopsy suggestive of purely in situ disease.The study included 960 patients diagnosed with NSCLC from 2003 to 2017 in the National Cancer Database whose workup included a lung biopsy suggestive of in situ disease. Among the cohort who proceeded to resection, we identified the rate of invasive disease discovered on surgical pathology along with significant demographic and clinical contributors to invasion risk. Survival outcomes were measured for the observed cohort that did not receive local therapy after biopsy.Invasive disease was identified at resection in 49.3 % of patients. Lesion size was associated with risk of invasive disease: 35.7 % for ≤1 cm, 45.2 % for 1-2 cm, 55.7 % for 2-3 cm, and 87.5 % for 3-5 cm (p0.001). Of patients with squamous histology, 61.5 % had invasive disease versus 46.5 % with adenocarcinoma histology (p = 0.026). On multivariable logistic regression, invasive disease remained associated with tumor size (OR 1.9 per cm, 95 % CI 1.5-2.4, p0.001), and squamous histology (OR 1.8, 95 % CI 1.1-3.2, p = 0.028). Overall survival at 3 years was 51.5 % in the observed cohort.Nearly half of patients with biopsy suggestive of in situ disease had invasive disease at resection. Tumor size and histology are strong predictors of invasive disease and may be used for risk stratification. However, the findings support the practice of definitive therapy whenever feasible.

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) using national registries influences cancer clinical trial design, treatment guidelines, and patient management. However, the extent to which treatment selection bias (TSB) affects overall survival (OS) in cancer CER remains poorly defined. We sought to quantify the TSB effect on OS in the setting of low-risk prostate cancer, where 10-year prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) approaches 100% regardless of treatment modality.The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database was queried for patients with low-risk prostate cancer (cT1-T2a, PSA 10, and Gleason 6) who received radical prostatectomy (RP), brachytherapy (BT), or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) from 2005 to 2015. The TSB effect was defined as the unadjusted 10-year OS difference between modalities that was not due to differences in PCSS. Propensity score matching was used to estimate the TSB effect on OS due to measured confounders (variables present in the database and associated with OS) and unmeasured confounders.A total of 50,804 patients were included (8845 RP; 18,252 BT; 23,707 EBRT) with a median follow-up of 7.4 years. The 10-year PCSS for the entire cohort was 99%. The 10-year OS was 92.9% for RP, 83.6% for BT, and 76.9% for EBRT (p 0.001). OS differences persisted after propensity score matching of RP vs. EBRT (7.4%), RP vs. BT (4.6%), and BT vs. EBRT (3.7%) (all p 0.001). The TSB effect on 10-year OS was estimated to be 15.0% for RP vs. EBRT (8.6% measured, 6.4% unmeasured), 8.5% for RP vs. BT (4.8% measured, 3.7% unmeasured), and 6.5% for BT vs. EBRT (3.1% measured, 3.4% unmeasured).Patients with low-risk prostate cancer selected for RP exhibited large OS differences despite similar PCSS compared to radiotherapy, suggesting OS differences are almost entirely driven by TSB. The quantities of these effects are important to consider when interpreting prostate cancer CER using national registries.

This cross-sectional study examines social connectedness among Medicare beneficiaries during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Purpose While Ir-192 remains the mainstay isotope for gynecologic high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy in the U.S., Co-60 is used abroad. Co-60 has a longer half-life than Ir-192, which may lead to long-term cost savings; however, its higher energy requires greater shielding. This study analyzes Co-60 acceptability based on a one-time expense of additional shielding and reports the financial experience of Co-60 in Peru's National Cancer Institute, which uses both isotopes. Material and methods A nationwide survey was undertaken assessing physician knowledge of Co-60 and willingness-to-pay (WTP) for additional shielding, assuming a source more cost-effective than Ir-192 was available. With 440 respondents, 280 clinicians were decision-makers and provided WTPs, with results previously reported. After completing a shielding report, we estimated costs for shielding expansion, noting acceptability to decision makers' WTP. Using activity-based costing, we note the Peruvian fiscal experience. Results Shielding estimates ranged from $173,000 to $418,000. The percentage of respondents accepting high-density modular or lead shielding (for union and non-union settings) were 17.5%, 11.4%, 3.9%, and 3.2%, respectively. Shielding acceptance was associated with greater number of radiation oncologists in a respondent's department but not time in practice or the American Brachytherapy Society membership. Peru's experience noted cost savings with Co-60 of $52,400 annually. Conclusions By comparing the cost of additional shielding for a sample institution's HDR suite with radiation oncologists' WTP, this multi-institutional collaboration noted < 20% of clinicians would accept additional shielding. Despite low acceptability in the US, Co-60 demonstrates cost-favorability in Peru and may similarly in other locations.

Purpose Ir-192 is the predominant source for high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy in United States markets. Co-60, with longer half-life and fewer source exchanges, has piloted abroad with comparable clinical dosimetry but increased shielding requirements. We sought to identify practitioner knowledge of Co-60 and establish acceptable willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds for additional shielding requirements for use in future cost-benefit analysis. Methods and Materials A nationwide survey of U.S. radiation oncologists was conducted from June to July 2015, assessing knowledge of HDR sources, brachytherapy unit shielding, and factors that may influence source-selection decision-making. Self-identified decision makers in radiotherapy equipment purchase and acquisition were asked their WTP on shielding should a more cost-effective source become available. Results Four hundred forty surveys were completed and included. Forty-four percent were ABS members. Twenty percent of respondents identified Co-60 as an HDR source. Respondents who identified Co-60 were significantly more likely to be ABS members, have attended a national brachytherapy conference, and be involved in brachytherapy selection. Sixty-six percent of self-identified decision makers stated that their facility would switch to a more cost-effective source than Ir-192, if available. Cost and experience were the most common reasons provided for not switching. The most common WTP value selected by respondents was Conclusions A majority of respondents were unaware of Co-60 as a commercially available HDR source. This investigation was novel in directly assessing decision makers to establish WTP for shielding costs that source change to Co-60 may require. These results will be used to establish WTP threshold for future cost-benefit analysis.