Search

Purpose To evaluate the relationship between race/ethnicity and breast cancer–specific survival according to subtype and explore mediating factors. Patients and Methods Participants were women presenting with stage I to III breast cancer between January 2000 and December 2007 at National Comprehensive Cancer Network centers with survival follow-up through December 2009. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to compare breast cancer–specific survival among Asians (n = 533), Hispanics (n = 1,122), and blacks (n = 1,345) with that among whites (n = 14,268), overall and stratified by subtype (luminal A like, luminal B like, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 type, and triple negative). Model estimates were used to derive mediation proportion and 95% CI for selected risk factors. Results In multivariable adjusted models, overall, blacks had 21% higher risk of breast cancer–specific death (hazard ratio [HR], 1.21; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.45). For estrogen receptor–positive tumors, black and white survival differences were greatest within 2 years of diagnosis (years 0 to 2: HR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.34 to 5.24; year 2 to end of follow-up: HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.12 to 2.00). Blacks were 76% and 56% more likely to die as a result of luminal A–like and luminal B–like tumors, respectively. No disparities were observed for triple-negative or human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–type tumors. Asians and Hispanics were less likely to die as a result of breast cancer compared with whites (Asians: HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.85; Hispanics: HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.95). For blacks, tumor characteristics and stage at diagnosis were significant disparity mediators. Body mass index was an important mediator for blacks and Asians. Conclusion Racial disparities in breast cancer survival vary by tumor subtype. Interventions are needed to reduce disparities, particularly in the first 2 years after diagnosis among black women with estrogen receptor–positive tumors.

Purpose Outcomes for early-stage breast cancer have improved. First-generation adjuvant chemotherapy trials reported a 0.27% 8-year cumulative incidence of myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myelogenous leukemia. Incomplete ascertainment and follow-up may have underestimated subsequent risk of treatment-associated marrow neoplasm (MN). Patients and Methods We examined the MN frequency in 20,063 patients with stage I to III breast cancer treated at US academic centers between 1998 and 2007. Time-to-event analyses were censored at first date of new cancer event, last contact date, or death and considered competing risks. Cumulative incidence, hazard ratios (HRs), and comparisons with Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results estimates were obtained. Marrow cytogenetics data were reviewed. Results Fifty patients developed MN (myeloid, n = 42; lymphoid, n = 8) after breast cancer (median follow-up, 5.1 years). Patients who developed MN had similar breast cancer stage distribution, race, and chemotherapy exposure but were older compared with patients who did not develop MN (median age, 59.1 v 53.9 years, respectively; P = .03). Two thirds of patients had complex MN cytogenetics. Risk of MN was significantly increased after surgery plus chemotherapy (HR, 6.8; 95% CI, 1.3 to 36.1) or after all modalities (surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation; HR, 7.6; 95% CI, 1.6 to 35.8), compared with no treatment with chemotherapy. MN rates per 1,000 person-years were 0.16 (surgery), 0.43 (plus radiation), 0.46 (plus chemotherapy), and 0.54 (all three modalities). Cumulative incidence of MN doubled between years 5 and 10 (0.24% to 0.48%); 9% of patients were alive at 10 years. Conclusion In this large early-stage breast cancer cohort, MN risk after radiation and/or adjuvant chemotherapy was low but higher than previously described. Risk continued to increase beyond 5 years. Individual risk of MN must be balanced against the absolute survival benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy.

Purpose The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) decreased fee-for-service (FFS) payments for outpatient chemotherapy. We assessed how this policy affected chemotherapy in FFS settings versus in integrated health networks (IHNs). Patients and Methods We examined 5,831 chemotherapy regimens for 3,613 patients from 2003 to 2006 with colorectal cancer (CRC) or lung cancers in the Cancer Care Outcomes Research Surveillance Consortium. Patients were from four geographically defined regions, seven large health maintenance organizations, and 15 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers. The outcome of interest was receipt of chemotherapy that included at least one drug for which reimbursement declined after the MMA. Results The odds of receiving an MMA-affected drug were lower in the post-MMA era: the odds ratio (OR) was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.59 to 0.89). Important differences across cancers were detected: for CRC, the OR was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.46 to 0.92); for non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the OR was 1.60 (95% CI, 1.09 to 2.35); and for small-cell lung cancer, the OR was 0.63 (95% CI, 0.34 to 1.16). After the MMA, FFS patients were less likely to receive MMA-affected drugs: OR, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.59 to 0.89). No pre- versus post-MMA difference in the use of MMA-affected drugs was detected among IHN patients: OR, 1.01 (95% CI, 0.66 to 1.56). Patients with CRC were less likely to receive an MMA-affected drug in both FFS and IHN settings in the post- versus pre-MMA era, whereas patients with NSCLC were the opposite: OR, 1.60 (95% CI, 1.09 to 2.35) for FFS and 6.33 (95% CI, 2.09 to 19.11) for IHNs post- versus pre-MMA. Conclusion Changes in reimbursement after the passage of MMA appear to have had less of an impact on prescribing patterns in FFS settings than the introduction of new drugs and clinical evidence as well as other factors driving adoption of new practice patterns.

Purpose The cost of cancer care continues to increase at an unprecedented rate. Concerns have been raised about financial incentives associated with the chemotherapy concession in oncology practices and their impact on treatment recommendations. Methods The objective of this study was to measure the physician-reported effects of prescribing chemotherapy or growth factors or making referrals to other cancer specialists, hospice, or hospital admissions on medical oncologists' income. US medical oncologists involved in the care of a population-based cohort of patients with lung or colorectal cancer from the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS) study were surveyed regarding their perceptions of the impact of prescribing practices or referrals on their income. Results Although most oncologists reported that their incomes would be unaffected, compared with salaried oncologists, physicians in fee-for-service practice, and those paid a salary with productivity incentives were more likely to report that their income would increase from administering chemotherapy (odds ratios [ORs], 7.05 and 7.52, respectively; both P < .001) or administering growth factors (ORs, 5.60 and 6.03, respectively; both P < .001). Conclusion A substantial proportion of oncologists who are not paid a fixed salary report that their incomes increase when they administer chemotherapy and growth factors. Further research is needed to understand the impact of these financial incentives on both the quality and cost of care.

Purpose Gene expression profile (GEP) testing is a relatively new technology that offers the potential of personalized medicine to patients, yet little is known about its adoption into routine practice. One of the first commercially available GEP tests, a 21-gene profile, was developed to estimate the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for hormone receptor–positive breast cancer (HR-positive BC). Patients and Methods By using a prospective registry data set outlining the routine care provided to women diagnosed from 2006 to 2008 with HR-positive BC at 17 comprehensive and community-based cancer centers, we assessed GEP test adoption and the association between testing and chemotherapy use. Results Of 7,375 women, 20.4% had GEP testing and 50.2% received chemotherapy. Over time, testing increased (14.7% in 2006 to 27.5% in 2008; P < .01) and use of chemotherapy decreased (53.9% in 2006 to 47.0% in 2008; P < .01). Characteristics independently associated with lower odds of testing included African American versus white race (odds ratio [OR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.92) and high school or less versus more than high school education (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.76). Overall, testing was associated with lower odds of chemotherapy use (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.80). Stratified analyses demonstrated that for small, node-negative cancers, testing was associated with higher odds of chemotherapy use (OR, 11.13; 95% CI, 5.39 to 22.99), whereas for node-positive and large node-negative cancers, testing was associated with lower odds of chemotherapy use (OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.17). Conclusion There has been a progressive increase in use of this GEP test and an associated shift in the characteristics of and overall reduction in the proportion of women with HR-positive BC receiving adjuvant chemotherapy.

Purpose To evaluate the extent to which parents of children with cancer are involved in decision making in the ways they prefer during the first year of treatment. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 194 parents of children with cancer (response rate, 70%) in their first year of cancer treatment at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Children's Hospital (Boston, MA) and the children's physicians. We measured parents' preferred and actual roles in decision making and physician perceptions of parents' preferred roles. Results Most parents (127 of 192; 66%) wanted to share responsibility for decision making with their children's physician. Although most parents (122 of 192; 64%) reported that they had their preferred role in decision making, those who did not tended to have more passive roles than they wished (47 of 70; 67%; P < .001). Parents were no more likely to hold their ideal roles in decision making when the physician accurately identified the parents' preferred role (odds ratio [OR], 1.04; P = .92). Parents were less likely to hold more passive roles than they wished in decision making when they felt that physician communication (OR, 0.39; P = .04) and information received (OR, 0.45; P = .04) had been of high quality. Parents who held more passive roles than they wished in decision making were less likely to trust their physicians' judgments (OR, 0.46; P = .03). Conclusion Most parents of children in their first year of cancer treatment participate in decision making to the extent that they wish; although, nearly one fourth hold more passive roles than desired. High-quality physician communication is associated with attainment of one's preferred role.

Purpose To assess patients' experiences with cancer care, ratings of their quality of care, and correlates of these assessments. Patients and Methods For 4,093 patients with lung cancer and 3,685 patients with colorectal cancer in multiple US regions and health care delivery systems, we conducted telephone surveys of patients or their surrogates in English, Spanish, or Chinese at 4 to 7 months after diagnosis. The surveys assessed ratings of the overall quality of cancer care and experiences with three domains of interpersonal care (physician communication, nursing care, and coordination and responsiveness of care). Results English-speaking Asian/Pacific Islander patients and Chinese-speaking patients and those in worse health reported significantly worse adjusted experiences with all three domains of interpersonal care, whereas white, black, and Hispanic patients reported generally similar experiences with interpersonal care. The overall quality of cancer care was rated as excellent by 44.4% of patients with lung cancer and 53.0% of patients with colorectal cancer, and these ratings were most strongly correlated with positive experiences with coordination and responsiveness of care (Spearman rank coefficients of 0.49 and 0.42 for lung and colorectal cancer, respectively). After multivariate adjustment, excellent ratings were less common for each cancer among black patients, English-speaking Asian/Pacific Islander patients, Chinese-speaking patients, and patients reporting worse health status (all P ≤ .05). Conclusion Patients' reports and ratings of care differed significantly by race, language, and health status. Efforts to improve patients' experiences with cancer care should focus on problems affecting Asian and Pacific Islander patients and those in worse health.

The purpose of this article is to review the literature and update analyses pertaining to the aggressiveness of cancer care near the end of life. Specifically, we will discuss trends and factors responsible for chemotherapy overuse very near death and underutilization of hospice services. Whether the concept of overly aggressive treatment represents a quality-of-care issue that is acceptable to all involved stakeholders is an open question.

Purpose Physicians sometimes selectively convey prognostic information to support patients’ hopes. However, the relationship between prognostic disclosure and hope is not known. Patients and Methods We surveyed 194 parents of children with cancer (overall response rate, 70%) in their first year of treatment at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Children's Hospital (Boston, MA), and we surveyed the children's physicians. We evaluated relationships between parental recall of prognostic disclosure by the physician and possible outcomes, including hope, trust, and emotional distress. Our main outcome was assessed by asking parents how often the way the child's oncologist communicated with them about the children's cancers made them feel hopeful. Results Nearly half of parents reported that physician communication always made them feel hopeful. Parents who reported receiving a greater number of elements of prognostic disclosure were more likely to report communication-related hope (odds ratio [OR], 1.77 per element of disclosure; P = .001), even when the likelihood of a cure was low (OR, 5.98 per element of disclosure with likelihood of a cure < 25%; P = .03). In a multivariable model, parents were more likely to report that physician communication always made them feel hopeful when they also reported receipt of more elements of prognostic disclosure (OR, 1.60; P = .03) and high-quality communication (OR, 6.58; P < .0001). Communication-related hope was inversely associated with the child's likelihood of cure (OR, 0.65; P = .005). Conclusion Although physicians sometimes limit prognostic information to preserve hope, we found no evidence that prognostic disclosure makes parents less hopeful. Instead, disclosure of prognosis by the physician can support hope, even when the prognosis is poor.

Purpose Patients often overestimate their chances of surviving cancer. Factors that contribute to accurate understanding of prognosis are not known. We assessed understanding of likelihood of cure and functional outcome among parents of children with cancer and sought to identify factors that place parents at risk for overly optimistic beliefs about prognosis. Patients and Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 194 parents of children with cancer (response rate, 70%) who were treated at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Children's Hospital in Boston, MA, and the children's physicians. Parent and physician expectations for likelihood of cure and functional outcome were compared. In 152 accurate or optimistic parents, we determined factors associated with accurate understanding of likelihood of cure compared with optimism. Results The majority of parents (61%) were more optimistic than physicians about the likelihood of cure. Parents' beliefs about other outcomes of cancer treatment were similar (quality-of-life impairment, P = .70) or more pessimistic (physical impairment, P = .01; intellectual impairment, P = .01) than physicians' beliefs. Parents and physicians were more likely to agree about chances of cure when physicians had confidence in knowledge of prognosis (odds ratio [OR] = 2.55, P = .004) and allowed parents to take their preferred decision-making role (OR = 1.89, P = .019). Conclusion Parents of children with cancer are overly optimistic about chances of cure but not about other outcomes of cancer therapy. Parents tend to be overly optimistic about cure when physicians have little confidence and when the decision-making process does not meet parents' preferences. These findings suggest that physicians are partly responsible for parents' unrealistic expectations about cure.

Purpose Content analysis of cancer-related direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA), with a focus on how benefit and risk/adverse effect information is presented, is essential to understanding its potential impact on oncology outcomes. Methods We reviewed all oncology DTCA appearing in three patient-focused cancer magazines and a sample of selected popular magazines from January 2003 to June 2006. We determined the Flesch reading ease score (FRES) for the text in each advertisement (a score ≥ 65 is readable for the average person). We also assessed the proportion, type size, and placement of benefits and risks/adverse effects, as well as the nature and content of advertising appeals. Results Of 284 advertisements identified, 49 were unique. Oncology-related DTCA was rare in the popular magazines, and appeared mostly in those aimed at female readership. About equal amounts of text were devoted to benefits and risks/adverse effects, and all text was difficult to read. The mean FRES for benefit text was 39.71; for risk/adverse effect text, it was 38.22, a difference of 1.49 (95% CI, −4.02 to 7.00). The largest font size for benefits was 4.60 mm on average; for risks/adverse effects, it was 2.38 mm, a difference of 2.22 mm (95% CI, 1.35 to 3.09). Appeals to medication effectiveness were frequent (95%) and often made with clinical trial data (61%). Conclusion Oncology print DTCA is prevalent in cancer-related, patient-directed magazines, and infrequent in the popular press. The information presented is considerably difficult to read, raising important questions about the appropriateness of direct-to-consumer marketing for oncologic medications.

Purpose Concerns about the harms of prognostic information, including distress and loss of hope, cause some physicians to avoid frank disclosure. We aimed to determine parent preferences for prognostic information about their children with cancer and the results of receiving such information. Patients and Methods We surveyed 194 parents of children with cancer (overall response rate, 70%), treated at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Children's Hospital (Boston, MA) and the children's physicians. Our main outcome measure was parent rating of prognostic information as extremely or very upsetting. Results The majority of parents desired as much information about prognosis as possible (87%) and wanted it expressed numerically (85%). Although 36% of parents found information about prognosis to be extremely or very upsetting, those parents were more likely to want additional information about prognosis than those who were less upset (P = .01). Parents who found information upsetting were no less likely to say that knowing prognosis was important (P = .39), that knowing prognosis helped in decision making (P = .40), or that hope for a cure kept them going (P = .72). Conclusion Although many parents find prognostic information about their children with cancer upsetting, parents who are upset by prognostic information are no less likely to want it. The upsetting nature of prognostic information does not diminish parents' desire for such information, its importance to decision making, or parents' sense of hope.

Purpose No systematic study has analyzed the changing patterns of use of postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) during the period of information dissemination regarding the benefit of radiation therapy in this setting. We sought to study the receipt of PMRT in elderly women in this period, using a population-based cohort of women with breast cancer. Patients and Methods Using data from the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results–Medicare database, we analyzed the use of radiation therapy between 1991 and 1999 in 19,699 women with stage I to III breast cancer who received mastectomy as definitive surgery. Multivariable logistic regression was used to investigate the association of diagnosis year and the use of PMRT, after controlling for clinical and sociodemographic factors. Results During the entire period studied, 2,160 (11.0%) patients treated with mastectomy received PMRT. The use of PMRT significantly increased in women diagnosed in 1996 (odds ratio [OR], 1.26; P = .04), 1997 (OR, 1.70; P < .0001), 1998 (OR, 1.57; P < .0001), and 1999 (OR, 1.77; P < .0001), relative to those diagnosed in 1991 after controlling for cancer, and sociodemographic and treatment characteristics. There were significant differences in the temporal trends of radiation use among different regions of the country (P < .0001), and between teaching versus nonteaching institutions (P = .04). Conclusion The use of PMRT in elderly women increased significantly during the period of data dissemination about its efficacy; however, the trends in adoption varied among different practice settings.

Purpose Hepatic metastases derive most of their blood supply from the hepatic artery; therefore, for patients with hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer, hepatic arterial infusion (HAI) of chemotherapy may improve outcome. Methods In a multi-institutional trial, 135 patients were randomly assigned to receive HAI versus systemic bolus fluorouracil and leucovorin. The primary end point was survival; secondary end points were response, recurrence, toxicity, quality of life, cost, and the influence of molecular markers. Results Overall survival was significantly longer for HAI versus systemic treatment (median, 24.4 v 20 months; P = .0034), as were response rates (47% and 24%; P = .012) and time to hepatic progression (THP; 9.8 v 7.3 months; P = .034). Time to extrahepatic progression (7.7 v 14.8 months; P = .029) was significantly shorter in the HAI group. Quality-of-life measurements showed improved physical functioning in the HAI group at the 3- and 6-month follow-up assessments. Toxicity included grade ≥ 3 neutropenia (2% and 45%; P < .01), stomatitis (0% and 24%; P < .01), and bilirubin elevation (18.6% and 0; P < .01) in the HAI and systemic treatment groups, respectively. A greater proportion of men versus women receiving HAI experienced biliary toxicity (37% and 15%, respectively; P = .05). For HAI patients with thymidylate synthase levels in tumor less than or ≥ 4, the median survival was 24 and 14 months, respectively (P = .17). Conclusion HAI therapy increased overall survival, response rate, THP, and was associated with better physical functioning compared with systemic therapy. Additional studies need to address the overall benefit and cost of new chemotherapy agents versus HAI alone or the combination of HAI with new agents.

Purpose Prior studies have demonstrated superior outcomes after a curative surgical resection of rectal cancer at hospitals where the volume of such surgeries is high. However, because these studies often lack detailed information on tumor and treatment characteristics as well as cancer recurrence, the true nature of this relation remains uncertain. Patients and Methods We studied a nested cohort of 1,330 patients with stage II and stage III rectal cancer participating in a multicenter, adjuvant chemoradiotherapy trial. We analyzed differences in rates of sphincter-preserving operations, overall survival, and cancer recurrence by hospital surgical volume. Results We observed a significant difference in the rates of abdominoperineal resections across tertiles of hospital procedure volume (46.3% for patients resected at low-volume, 41.3% at medium-volume, and 31.8% at high-volume hospitals; P < .0001), even after adjustment for tumor distance from the anal verge. However, this higher rate of sphincter-sparing operations at high-volume centers was not accompanied by any increase in recurrence rates. Hospital surgical volume did not predict overall, disease-free, recurrence-free, or local recurrence-free survival. However, among patients who did not complete the planned adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (270 patients), those who underwent surgery at low-volume hospitals had a significant increase in cancer recurrence (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.01 to 3.72; P = .04 for the trend) and a nonsignificant trend toward increased overall mortality (P = .08) and local recurrence (P = .10). In contrast, no significant volume-outcome relation was noted among patients who did complete postoperative therapy. Conclusion Using prospectively recorded data, we found that hospital surgical volume had no significant effect on rectal cancer recurrence or survival when patients completed standard adjuvant therapy. Sphincter-preserving surgery was more commonly performed at high-volume centers.

Purpose: To evaluate the use and effectiveness of cancer-directed therapy in elderly patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). Methods: We used the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Medicare database to perform a retrospective cohort study in 1,696 patients diagnosed with LAPC between 1991 and 1996. We calculated cancer-directed treatment use rates, then used logistic regression to identify patient and health system factors that were associated with receipt of treatment. Effectiveness of treatment was estimated using Cox proportional hazards models and propensity score methods. Results: In our cohort, 44% of patients received some form of cancer-directed therapy (24% radiation with concurrent chemotherapy, 13% radiation alone, and 7% chemotherapy alone). Older age, lower socioeconomic status, presence of comorbid illness, no care in a teaching hospital, and residence in the western United States were associated with a lower likelihood of receiving treatment (P ≤ .05). Among those treated, younger age and certain geographic locations were the only predictors of receiving combined-modality therapy. The adjusted hazard ratio for death associated with any treatment in the Cox model was 0.53 (P < .0001). Effectiveness estimates obtained using propensity score methods were similar. Conclusion: This analysis supports the effectiveness of cancer-directed treatment in elderly patients with LAPC, but use is low. Receipt of treatment is strongly correlated with non–disease-related factors, especially sociodemographic characteristics, indicating possible disparities in access to care.

Purpose: To use 5 years of primary data to compare the incremental cost-effectiveness of breast conservation and radiation versus mastectomy with the restriction of choice to a single therapy versus providing a choice of either therapy. Patients and Methods: We evaluated a random retrospective cohort of 2,517 Medicare beneficiaries treated for newly diagnosed stage I or II breast cancer from 1992 through 1994. The outcome measures were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and 5-year medical costs. Risk and propensity score adjustments were used in the analysis. Results: A breast conservation and radiation regimen has significantly higher costs than mastectomy in the first year after surgery; the adjusted 5-year costs are $14,054 (95% confidence interval, $9,791 to $18,312) greater than those of mastectomy. The adjusted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio comparing breast conservation and radiation to mastectomy was $219,594 per QALY for the comparison of the two strategies. If the possibility of patient choice from maintaining the availability of multiple treatments versus restricting choice to mastectomy alone provides a quality-of-life gain of 0.031 QALYs, then the cost-effectiveness ratio of this choice option is $80,440 per QALY. Conclusion: The current system of providing a choice between mastectomy and breast conservation surgery is economically attractive when the economic analysis includes the benefit of patient choice of treatment.

PURPOSE: To determine the extent to which unexplained variation in the use of chemotherapy for advanced lung cancer is due to access to oncologists’ services as opposed to treatment decisions made after seeing an oncologist. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 12,015 patients over age 65 diagnosed with metastatic lung cancer between 1991 and 1996 while living in one of 11 regions monitored by a Survival, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) tumor registry. Assessment by an oncologist and subsequent treatment with chemotherapy were determined by examining linked Medicare claims. RESULTS: Of patients who did not receive chemotherapy, 36% were never assessed by a physician who provides chemotherapy. Patients living in certain areas, those diagnosed in more recent years, and those who received care in a teaching hospital were all more likely to see a cancer specialist. These factors were unrelated to subsequent treatment decisions, however. Conversely, age and comorbidity did not have a significant effect on whether a patient was seen by an oncologist, but they were associated with the likelihood of subsequently receiving chemotherapy. Black race, probably acting as a proxy for lower socioeconomic status, was associated with both a diminished likelihood of seeing a cancer specialist and subsequently receiving chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Nonmedical factors are important determinants of whether a lung cancer patient is seen by a physician who provides chemotherapy. After seeing such a physician, treatment decisions seem to be mostly explained by appropriate medical factors. Racial and socioeconomic disparities still exist at both steps, however. As therapeutic options expand, referring physicians must ensure that biases and barriers to care do not deprive patients of the opportunity to consider all of their treatment options.

PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness of chemotherapy given to elderly patients in routine practice for stage IV non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with the efficacy observed in randomized trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used instrumental variable analysis (IVA) and propensity scores (PS) to simulate the conditions of a randomized trial in a retrospective cohort of patients over age 65 from the Survival, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) tumor registry. Geographic variation in chemotherapy use served as the instrument for the IVA analysis, and propensity scores were calculated with a logistic model based on patient disease and sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: Among 6,232 elderly patients, the instrumental variable estimate indicated an increase in median survival of 33 days and an improvement in 1-year survival of 9% attributable to chemotherapy. In a Cox regression model, chemotherapy administration was associated with a hazard ratio of 0.81 (95% confidence interval, 0.76 to 0.85). When survival was analyzed separately within propensity score quintiles, the hazard ratios were all similar, ranging from 0.78 to 0.85. These results are comparable with those of a large meta-analysis, which found a hazard ratio of 0.87 in the subgroup of patients over age 65. CONCLUSION: Chemotherapy for stage IV NSCLC seems to have effectiveness for elderly patients and those with comorbid conditions that is similar to the efficacy seen in randomized trials containing mostly younger, highly selected patients. All suitable patients should be given the opportunity to consider palliative chemotherapy for metastatic NSCLC.

PURPOSE: Although trials of adjuvant interferon alfa-2b (IFNα-2b) in high-risk melanoma patients suggest improvement in disease-free survival, it is unclear whether treatment offers improvement in overall survival. Widespread use of adjuvant IFNα-2b has been tempered by its significant toxicity. To quantify the trade-offs between IFNα-2b toxicity and survival, we assessed patient utilities for health states associated with IFN therapy. Utilities are measures of preference for a particular health state on a scale of 0 (death) to 1 (perfect health). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We assessed utilities for health states associated with adjuvant IFN among 107 low-risk melanoma patients using the standard gamble technique. Health states described four IFNα-2b toxicity scenarios and the following three posttreatment outcomes: disease-free health and melanoma recurrence (with or without IFNα-2b) leading to cancer death. We also asked patients the improvement in 5-year disease-free survival they would require to tolerate IFN. RESULTS: Utilities for melanoma recurrence with or without IFNα-2b were significantly lower than utilities for all IFNα-2b toxicities but were not significantly different from each other. At least half of the patients were willing to tolerate mild-moderate and severe IFNα-2b toxicity for 4% and 10% improvements, respectively, in 5-year disease-free survival. CONCLUSION: On average, patients rate quality of life with melanoma recurrence much lower than even severe IFNα-2b toxicity. These results suggest that recurrence-free survival is highly valued by patients. The utilities measured in our study can be applied directly to quality-of-life determinations in clinical trials of adjuvant IFNα-2b to measure the net benefit of therapy.

PURPOSE: Electron-beam boosts (EBB) are routinely added after conservative surgery and tangential radiation therapy (TRT) for early-stage breast cancer. We performed an incremental cost-utility analysis to evaluate their cost-effectiveness.METHODS: A Markov model examined the impact of adding an EBB to TRT from a societal perspective. Outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). On the basis of the Lyon trial, the EBB was assumed to reduce local recurrences by approximately 2% at 10 years but to have no impact on survival. Patients’ utilities were used to adjust for quality of life. Given the small absolute benefit of the EBB, baseline utilities were assumed to be the same with or without it, an assumption evaluated by Monte Carlo simulation. Direct medical, time, and travel costs were considered.RESULTS: Adding the EBB led to an additional cost of $2,008, an increase of 0.0065 QALYs and, therefore, an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of over $300,000/QALY. In a sensitivity analysis, the ratio was moderately sensitive to the efficacy and cost of the EBB and highly sensitive to patients’ utilities for treatment without it. Even if patients do value a small risk reduction, the mean cost-effectiveness ratio estimated by the Monte Carlo simulation remains high, at $70,859/QALY (95% confidence interval, $53,141 to $105,182/QALY).CONCLUSION: On the basis of currently available data, the cost-effectiveness ratio for the EBB is well above the commonly cited threshold for cost-effective care ($50,000/QALY). The EBB becomes cost-effective only if patients place an unexpectedly high value on the small absolute reduction in local recurrences achievable with it.

PURPOSE: Few studies have formally evaluated the relationship between costs, baseline patient characteristics, and major complications of stem-cell transplantation. We sought (1) to determine whether obtaining baseline information enabled identification of patients whose treatments would be the most costly and (2) to estimate inpatient costs for managing specific transplantation complications. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We collected inpatient costs and clinical information for 236 consecutive patients undergoing transplantation at a single institution between July 1, 1994, and February 20, 1997. Multivariable linear regression was used to evaluate the associations between baseline patient characteristics and costs of hospitalization for initial transplantation and between clinical events and such costs. RESULTS: The median initial inpatient cost in 1997 dollars was $55,500 for autologous transplantation (range, $28,200 to $148,200) and $105,300 for allogeneic transplantation (range, $32,500 to $338,000). When only baseline variables were considered, use of a mismatched allogeneic donor and year of transplantation were significant predictors of costs. No characteristics predicted which patients would incur the highest 10% of costs. When clinical events were considered, infection and in-hospital death were associated with higher costs in autologous transplant recipients ($18,400 and $20,500, respectively), whereas infection, veno-occlusive disease, acute graft-versus-host disease, and death were predicted to add between $15,300 and $28,100 each to allogeneic transplantation costs. CONCLUSION: We were not able to identify before transplantation the patients whose treatments would be the most costly. However, the association between clinical complications and higher costs suggests that prevention may have significant economic benefits. Interventions that decrease these complications may have favorable cost-benefit ratios even if they do not affect overall survival.

PURPOSE To assess patients' preferences regarding the trade-off between risks and benefits of radiation therapy after conservative surgery for early-stage breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Utilities (measures of preference) of 97 early-stage breast cancer patients treated with conservative surgery and radiation therapy and 20 medical oncology nurses were assessed for five health states using standard gambles. RESULTS Patients had the highest mean utility for treatment with conservative surgery and radiation therapy without a local recurrence (0.92), intermediate utilities for treatment with conservative surgery alone followed either by no local recurrence or by a local recurrence salvaged by conservative surgery and radiation therapy (0.88 and 0.87, respectively), and the lowest utilities for treatment with or without radiation therapy followed by a local recurrence salvaged by mastectomy and reconstructive surgery (0.82 and 0.81, respectively). All differences between health states' utilities were significant (P < .0001), except between the two intermediate and two lowest rated health states. None of the clinical or sociodemographic factors examined explained more than 5% of the variability in the patients' utilities or their differences. Nurses' utilities were similar to those of the patients. CONCLUSIONS These results strongly suggest that fear of a local recurrence and an actual local recurrence leading to mastectomy have such a negative impact on quality of life that patients are willing to accept the risks and inconvenience of radiation therapy to avoid them. There is also considerable interpatient variability that was not explained by the clinical or sociodemographic factors examined.

In 1993, the Health Services Research Committee of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) charged an Outcomes Working Group with defining the outcomes of adult and pediatric cancer treatment to be used for technology assessment and development of cancer treatment guidelines. The Working Group defined by consensus outcomes for technology assessment and guideline development, focusing on cancer treatments. The Working Group considered a variety of perspectives on outcomes, including those of patients, physicians, clinical investigators, ASCO, and policy makers. Because ASCO's guidelines will define what constitutes the best treatment and not whether that treatment should be paid for, the Working Group gave higher priority to the clinical and clinical research perspectives than to the health policy perspective. Survival is the most important outcome of cancer treatment. An improvement in at least disease-free survival is a prerequisite for recommending adjuvant therapy. In the case of metastatic cancer, treatment can be recommended even without an improvement in survival, if it improves quality of life. Quality of life includes global quality of life, as well as its physical, psychologic, and social dimensions. To be an outcome of cancer treatment, quality-of-life measures must be sensitive to clinically meaningful changes produced by treatment; evaluations must control for placebo effects and determinants of quality of life not related to cancer or its treatment. Toxicity, both short and long term, is vitally important, with the latter being particularly critical in children. The value of cancer outcomes like tumor response (eg, complete or partial response) and biomarkers (eg, CA-125) for technology assessment and guideline development depends on their ability to predict patient outcomes (survival and quality of life) or to influence decisions about treatment. Complete response is an important outcome when it predicts survival. Progression is important because it signals the need to change or stop treatment. Cost-effectiveness is an especially important outcome to consider when the benefits of treatment are modest or the costs are high. Patient outcomes (eg, survival and quality of life) should receive higher priority than cancer outcomes (eg, response rate), but both types of outcomes are important in technology assessment and guideline development. Multiple outcomes should be considered because no single outcome adequately describes the results of cancer treatment. In general, there is no minimum benefit above which treatments are justified; rather, benefits should be balanced against toxicity and cost.