Search

Importance: Postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) improves local-regional disease control and patient survival. Hypofractionation (HF) regimens have comparable efficacy and complication rates with improved quality of life compared with conventional fractionation (CF) schedules. However, the use of HF after mastectomy in patients undergoing breast reconstruction has not been prospectively examined., Objective: To compare HF and CF PMRT outcomes after implant-based reconstruction., Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial assessed patients 18 years or older undergoing mastectomy and immediate expander or implant reconstruction for breast cancer (Tis, TX, or T1-3) and unilateral PMRT from March 8, 2018, to November 3, 2021 (median [range] follow-up, 40.4 [15.4-63.0] months), at 16 US cancer centers or hospitals. Analyses were conducted between September and December 2023., Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to HF or CF PMRT. Chest wall doses were 4256 cGy for 16 fractions for HF and 5000 cGy for 25 fractions for CF. Chest wall toxic effects were defined as a grade 3 or higher adverse event., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the change in physical well-being (PWB) domain of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B) quality-of-life assessment tool at 6 months after starting PMRT, controlling for age. Secondary outcomes included toxic effects and cancer recurrence., Results: Of 400 women (201 in the CF arm and 199 in the HF arm; median [range] age, 47 [23-79] years), 330 patients had PWB scores at baseline and at 6 months. There was no difference in the change in PWB between the study arms (estimate, 0.13; 95% CI, -0.86 to 1.11; P = .80), but there was a significant interaction between age group and study arm (P = .03 for interaction). Patients younger than 45 years had higher 6-month absolute PWB scores if treated with HF rather than CF regimens (23.6 [95% CI, 22.7-24.6] vs 22.0 [95% CI, 20.7-23.3]; P = .047) and reported being less bothered by adverse effects (mean [SD], 3.0 [0.9] in the HF arm and 2.6 [1.2] in the CF arm; P = .02) or nausea (mean [SD], 3.8 [0.4] in the HF arm and 3.6 [0.8] in the CF arm; P = .04). In the as-treated cohort, there were 23 distant (11 in the HF arm and 12 in the CF arm) and 2 local-regional (1 in the HF arm and 1 in the CF arm) recurrences. Chest wall toxic effects occurred in 39 patients (20 in the HF arm and 19 in the CF arm) at a median (IQR) of 7.2 (1.8-12.9) months. Fractionation was not associated with chest wall toxic effects on multivariate analysis (HF arm: hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.52-2.00; P = .95). Fewer patients undergoing HF vs CF regimens had a treatment break (5 [2.7%] vs 15 [7.7%]; P = .03) or required unpaid time off from work (17 [8.5%] vs 34 [16.9%]; P = .02)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, the HF regimen did not significantly improve change in PWB compared with the CF regimen. These data add to the increasing experience with HF PMRT in patients with implant-based reconstruction., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03422003.

Importance: Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from health care are substantial and disproportionately harm persons with cancer. Emissions from a central component of oncology care, outpatient clinician visits, are not well described, nor are the reductions in emissions and human harms that could be obtained through decentralizing this aspect of cancer care (ie, telemedicine and local clinician care when possible)., Objective: To assess potential reductions in GHG emissions and downstream health harms associated with telemedicine and fully decentralized cancer care., Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study and counterfactual analyses using life cycle assessment methods analyzed persons receiving cancer care at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute between May 2015 and December 2020 as well as persons diagnosed with cancer over the same period from the Cancer in North America (CiNA) public dataset. Data were analyzed from October 2023 to April 2024., Main Outcomes and Measures: The adjusted per-visit day difference in GHG emissions in kilograms of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalents between 2 periods: an in-person care model period (May 2015 to February 2020; preperiod) and a telemedicine period (March to December 2020; postperiod), and the annual decrease in disability-adjusted life-years in a counterfactual model where care during the preperiod was maximally decentralized nationwide., Results: Of 123 890 included patients, 73 988 (59.7%) were female, and the median (IQR) age at first diagnosis was 59 (48-68) years. Patients were seen over 1.6 million visit days. In mixed-effects log-linear regression, the mean absolute reduction in per-visit day CO2 equivalent emissions between the preperiod and postperiod was 36.4 kg (95% CI, 36.2-36.6), a reduction of 81.3% (95% CI, 80.8-81.7) compared with the baseline model. In a counterfactual decentralized care model of the preperiod, there was a relative emissions reduction of 33.1% (95% CI, 32.9-33.3). When demographically matched to 10.3 million persons in the CiNA dataset, decentralized care would have reduced national emissions by 75.3 million kg of CO2 equivalents annually; this corresponded to an estimated annual reduction of 15.0 to 47.7 disability-adjusted life-years., Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that using decentralization through telemedicine and local care may substantially reduce cancer care's GHG emissions; this corresponds to small reductions in human mortality.

Importance: Patient factors help explain disparities in breast cancer treatments and outcomes., Objective: To determine the extent to which geospatial variation in initial breast cancer care can be attributed to region vs patient factors with the aim of guiding quality improvement efforts., Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a retrospective population-based cohort study from January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2016, using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database that included 31 571 patients diagnosed with stage I to III breast cancer from 2007 through 2013. Five metrics of care delivery were defined: stage I at diagnosis, chemotherapy receipt, radiation therapy receipt, endocrine therapy (ET) initiation (year 1), and ET continuation (years 3-5). Data analysis was performed from January to June 2021., Exposures: Stage I diagnosis and treatment with chemotherapy, radiation therapy, or ET., Main Outcomes and Measures: For each metric, total variance was attributed proportionally to 4 domains-random, patient factors (eg, age, race and ethnicity, socioeconomic status), region (health service area [HSA]), and unexplained-using hierarchical multivariable modeling., Results: Of 31 571 total patients (median [IQR] age, 71 [68-75] years), 19 391 (61.4%) had stage I disease at diagnosis. Among eligible patients, 17 297 of 21 190 (81.6%) received radiation therapy, 7204 of 9903 (72.8%) received chemotherapy, 13 115 of 26 855 (48.8%) initiated ET, and 13 944 of 26 855 (52.1%) continued ET. Geospatial density (ie, heat) maps highlight regional performance patterns. For all 5 metrics, region/HSA explained more observed variation (24%-48%) than patient factors (1%-4%); the largest share of variation was unexplained (35%-54%). The metrics with the largest proportion of total variance attributed to region/HSA were ET initiation and continuation (28% and 39%, respectively)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, there was substantial unexplained geospatial variation in initial breast cancer care. The variance attributed to region/HSA was multifold larger than that explained by patient factors. The importance of patient factors such as race and ethnicity notwithstanding, future quality improvement efforts should focus on reducing unwarranted geospatial variation, especially including optimizing the delivery of ET in low-performing regions.

Importance: Despite requirements of informed consent, patients with advanced cancer often receive palliative chemotherapy (PC) without understanding that the likelihood of cure is remote., Objective: To determine whether a PC educational video and booklet at treatment initiation could improve patients' understanding of its benefits and risks., Interventions: Regimen-specific PC videos and booklets presenting information about logistics, potential benefits, life expectancy (optional), adverse effects, and alternatives. Videos featured authentic patients sharing diverse experiences. After receiving treatment recommendations, research assistants distributed materials to patients for independent review., Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter randomized clinical trial of patients with advanced colorectal or pancreatic cancer starting first-line or second-line PC in 5 US cancer centers with enrollment from June 2015 to September 2017 and follow-up to December 2019., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was accurate expectations of chemotherapy benefits at 3 months, defined as responding "not at all likely" to "What is your understanding of how likely the chemotherapy is to cure your cancer?" (from the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance study). Secondary outcomes included understanding of adverse effects, decisional conflict (SURE test), regret (Decisional Regret Scale), and distress (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General emotional well-being subscale)., Results: Among 186 patients with advanced colorectal or pancreatic cancer who were starting first-line or second-line PC (94 randomized to usual care, 92 to intervention; mean [SD] age, 59.3 [12.6] [range, 28-86] years; 107 [58%] male; 118 [63.4%] colorectal and 68 [36.6%] pancreatic cancer), most patients wanted "a lot" of information or "as much information as possible" about adverse effects (149, 80.1%), likelihood of cure (148, 79.6%), and prognosis (148, 79.6%). Among the intervention arm, 59 (78%) reviewed the booklet and 30 (40%) reviewed the video within 2 weeks. The primary outcome did not differ between intervention and control arms (52.6%; 95% CI, 40.3%-65.0%; vs 55.5%; 95% CI, 45.1%-66.0%). Accurate adverse effect understanding was more common among intervention than control patients (56.0%; 95% CI, 44.3%-67.7%; vs 40.2%; 95% CI, 29.5%-50.9%; P = .05), although this did not meet the threshold for statistical significance. The intervention did not increase distress, despite frank prognostic information. Other secondary outcomes were similar., Conclusions and Relevance: Provision of an educational video and booklet did not alter patients' expectation of cure from PC. Alternative delivery strategies, such as integration with nurse teaching, could be explored in future studies., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02282722.

Importance: In a comparative clinical study with progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) as the end point, the hazard ratio (HR) is routinely used to design the study and to estimate the treatment effect at the end of the study. The clinical interpretation of the HR may not be straightforward, especially when the underlying model assumption is not valid. A robust procedure for study design and analysis that enables clinically meaningful interpretation of trial results is warranted., Objective: To discuss issues of conventional trial design and analysis and to present alternatives to the HR using a recent immunotherapy study as an illustrative example., Design, Setting, and Participants: By comparing 2 groups in a survival analysis, we discuss issues of using the HR and present the restricted mean survival time (RMST) as a summary measure of patients’ survival profile over time. We show how to use the difference or ratio in RMST between 2 groups as an alternative for designing and analyzing a clinical study with an immunotherapy study as an illustrative example., Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall survival or PFS. Group contrast measures included HR, RMST difference or ratio, and the event rate difference., Results: For the illustrative example, the HR procedure indicates that nivolumab significantly prolonged patient OS and was numerically better than docetaxel for PFS. However, the median PFS time of docetaxel was significantly better than that of nivolumab. Therefore, it may be difficult to use median OS and/or PFS to interpret of the HR value clinically. On the other hand, using RMST difference, nivolumab was significantly better than docetaxel for both OS and PFS. We also provide details regarding design of a future study with RMST-based measures., Conclusions and Relevance: The design and analysis of a conventional cancer clinical trial can be improved by adopting a robust statistical procedure that enables clinically meaningful interpretations of the treatment effect. The RMST-based quantitative method may be used as a primary tool for future cancer trials or to help us to better understand the clinical interpretation of the HR even when its model assumption is plausible.

Importance: Large regional variation exists in the use of radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Although patients who do not receive initial radiotherapy for DCIS are candidates for subsequent BCS if they experience a second breast event, many undergo mastectomy instead., Objective: To examine whether regional practice patterns of radiotherapy for DCIS affect the use of mastectomy in these patients., Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective analysis of population-based databases (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results [SEER] and SEER-Medicare). Data were obtained for 2679 women in SEER with a diagnosis of DCIS between 1990 and 2011 and for 757 women in SEER-Medicare with a DCIS diagnosis between 1991 and 2009 who had not undergone radiotherapy for DCIS and experienced a subsequent breast cancer or DCIS diagnosis., Exposures: Treatment intensity for primary DCIS (high, medium, low), as defined by separating health service areas (HSAs) into 3 clusters based on radiotherapy use., Main Outcomes and Measures: Mastectomy vs BCS at a second breast event defined as DCIS recurrence or new invasive cancer., Results: The median (SD) ages of the participants was 64 (13) years for the 2679 SEER population and 79 (6) years for the SEER-Medicare cohort. Residence in an HSA characterized by greater radiotherapy use for DCIS increased the likelihood of receiving mastectomy vs BCS at a subsequent breast event, even among women who had not previously received radiotherapy for DCIS. Adjusted odds ratios for receiving mastectomy were 1.43 (95% CI, 1.10-1.85) and 1.90 (95% CI, 1.27-2.84) in SEER and SEER-Medicare databases, respectively, among women residing in an HSA with the greatest radiotherapy use vs the least, corresponding to an adjusted increase from 40.8% to 49.6%, and from 38.6% to 54.5%., Conclusions and Relevance: Areas with more radiotherapy use for DCIS had increased use of mastectomy at the time of a second breast event even among patients eligible for breast conservation. This association suggests that physician-related factors are affecting the likelihood of breast preservation.