Search

Purpose: To evaluate geographic heterogeneity in the delivery of hypofractionated radiation therapy (RT) for breast cancer among Medicare beneficiaries across the United States.Methods and Materials: We identified 190,193 patients from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Chronic Conditions Warehouse. The study included patients aged >65 years diagnosed with invasive breast cancer treated with breast conservation surgery followed by radiation diagnosed between 2000 and 2012. We analyzed data by hospital referral region based on patient residency ZIP code. The proportion of women who received hypofractionated RT within each region was analyzed over the study period. Multivariable logistic regression models identified predictors of hypofractionated RT.Results: Over the entire study period we found substantial geographic heterogeneity in the use of hypofractionated RT. The proportion of women receiving hypofractionated breast RT in individual hospital referral regions varied from 0% to 61%. We found no correlation between the use of hypofractionated RT and urban/rural setting or general geographic region. The proportion of hypofractionated RT increased in regions with higher density of radiation oncologists, as well as lower total Medicare reimbursements.Conclusions: This study demonstrates substantial geographic heterogeneity in the use of hypofractionated RT among elderly women with invasive breast cancer treated with lumpectomy in the United States. This heterogeneity persists despite clinical data from multiple randomized trials proving efficacy and safety compared with standard fractionation, and highlights possible inefficiency in health care delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To analyze contemporary U.S. use of minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of endometrial cancer and associated inpatient complications and costs.Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, the National Inpatient Sample database was analyzed in patients with nonmetastatic endometrial cancer who underwent hysterectomy during 2012-2013. Hierarchical multiple logistic regression and propensity score matching were used to compare complications among patients treated with open compared with minimally invasive hysterectomy surgery. Cost of care was also compared using generalized linear modeling.Results: We identified 9,799 patients; 52.4% underwent open and 47.6% minimally invasive hysterectomy. Many patients (43.4%) were treated at low-volume hospitals (less than 10 endometrial cancer cases annually). Patients were less likely to undergo open surgery in high-volume compared with low-volume hospitals (51.8% compared with 58.1%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13-0.94) and more likely to undergo open surgery in rural compared with urban teaching hospitals (75.6% compared with 51.1%, respectively; adjusted OR 14.34, 95% CI 9.66-21.27), government compared with nonprofit hospitals (61.3% compared with 51.1%, respectively; adjusted OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.15-2.39), and in patients of black (67.9%; OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.30-1.65) and "other" race (60.5%; adjusted OR 2.39, 95% CI 1.99-2.87) compared with white race (49.2%, referent). Open surgery was associated with increased perioperative complications (adjusted OR 2.80, 95% CI 2.48-3.17) and a $1,243 increase in cost per case compared with minimally invasive approaches (P<.001). Using minimally invasive surgery for 80% of study patients may have averted 2,733 complications and saved approximately $19 million.Conclusion: Most U.S. women with endometrial cancer continue to be treated with open hysterectomy surgery despite increased complication rates and financial costs associated with this approach. A disparity in endometrial cancer surgical care exists that is affected by patient race and hospital geography and cancer volumes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT) of the National Cancer Institute is widely used for estimating absolute risk of invasive breast cancer. However, the absolute risk estimates for Asian and Pacific Islander American (APA) women are based on data from white women. We developed a model for projecting absolute invasive breast cancer risk in APA women and compared its projections to those from BCRAT. Methods Data from 589 women with breast cancer (case patients) and 952 women without breast cancer (control subjects) in the Asian American Breast Cancer Study were used to compute relative and attributable risks based on the age at menarche, number of affected mothers, sisters, and daughters, and number of previous benign biopsies. Absolute risks were obtained by combining this information with ethnicity-specific data from the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program and with US ethnicity-specific mortality data to create the Asian American Breast Cancer Study model (AABCS model). Independent data from APA women in the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) were used to check the calibration and discriminatory accuracy of the AABCS model. Results The AABCS model estimated absolute risk separately for Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, Hawaiian, Other Pacific Islander, and Other Asian women. Relative and attributable risks for APA women were comparable to those in BCRAT, but the AABCS model usually estimated lower-risk projections than BCRAT in Chinese and Filipino, but not in Hawaiian women, and not in every age and ethnic subgroup. The AABCS model underestimated absolute risk by 17% (95% confidence interval = 1% to 38%) in independent data from WHI, but APA women in the WHI had incidence rates approximately 18% higher than those estimated from the SEER program. Conclusions The AABCS model was calibrated to ethnicity-specific incidence rates from the SEER program for projecting absolute invasive breast cancer risk and is preferable to BCRAT for counseling APA women. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]