Search

Background: The optimal treatment for patients with brain metastases remains controversial as the use of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) alone, replacing whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT), has increased. This study determined the patterns of care at multiple institutions before 2010 and examined whether or not survival was different between patients treated with SRS and patients treated with WBRT.Methods: This study examined the overall survival of patients treated with radiation therapy for brain metastases from non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC; initially diagnosed in 2007-2009) or breast cancer (initially diagnosed in 1997-2009) at 5 centers. Propensity score analyses were performed to adjust for confounding factors such as the number of metastases, the extent of extracranial metastases, and the treatment center.Results: Overall, 27.8% of 400 NSCLC patients and 13.4% of 387 breast cancer patients underwent SRS alone for the treatment of brain metastases. Few patients with more than 3 brain metastases or lesions ≥ 4 cm in size underwent SRS. Patients with fewer than 4 brain metastases less than 4 cm in size (n = 189 for NSCLC and n = 117 for breast cancer) who were treated with SRS had longer survival (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] for NSCLC, 0.58; 95% confidence Interval [CI], 0.38-0.87; P = .01; adjusted HR for breast cancer, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.33-0.91; P = .02) than those treated with WBRT.Conclusions: Patients treated for fewer than 4 brain metastases from NSCLC or breast cancer with SRS alone had longer survival than those treated with WBRT in this multi-institutional, retrospective study, even after adjustments for the propensity to undergo SRS. Cancer 2016;122:2091-100. © 2016 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Survival of patients with brain metastasis particularly from historically more radio-resistant malignancies remains dismal. A phase I study of concurrent bortezomib and whole brain radiotherapy was conducted to determine the tolerance and safety of this approach in patients with previously untreated brain metastasis.Methods: A phase I dose escalation study evaluated the safety of bortezomib (0.9, 1.1, 1.3, 1.5, and 1.7 mg/m2) given on days 1, 4, 8 and 11 of whole brain radiotherapy. Patients with confirmed brain metastasis were recruited for participation. The primary endpoint was the dose-limiting toxicity, defined as any ≥ grade 3 non-hematologic toxicity or grade ≥ 4 hematologic toxicity from the start of treatment to one month post irradiation. Time-to-Event Continual Reassessment Method (TITE-CRM) was used to determine dose escalation. A companion study of brain diffusion tensor imaging MRI was conducted on a subset of patients to assess changes in the brain that might predict delayed cognitive effects.Results: Twenty-four patients were recruited and completed the planned therapy. Patients with melanoma accounted for 83% of all participants. The bortezomib dose was escalated as planned to the highest dose of 1.7 mg/m2/dose. No grade 4/5 toxicities related to treatment were observed. Two patients had grade 3 dose-limiting toxicities (hyponatremia and encephalopathy). A partial or minor response was observed in 38% of patients. Bortezomib showed greater demyelination in hippocampus-associated white matter structures on MRI one month after radiotherapy compared to patients not treated with bortezomib (increase in radial diffusivity +16.8% versus 4.8%; p = 0.0023).Conclusions: Concurrent bortezomib and whole brain irradiation for brain metastasis is well tolerated at one month follow-up, but MRI changes that have been shown to predict delayed cognitive function can be detected within one month of treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: We aimed to report the final toxicity results on a radiation-dose escalation trial designed to test a hypothesis that very high doses of radiation could be safely administered to patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) by quantifying the dose-volume toxicity relationship of the lung.Methods and Materials: A total of 109 patients with unresectable or medically inoperable NSCLC were enrolled and treated with radiation-dose escalation (on the basis of predicted normal-lung toxicity) either alone or with neoadjuvant chemotherapy by use of 3D conformal techniques. Eighty-four patients (77%) received more than 69 Gy, the trial was stopped after the dose reached 103 Gy. Estimated median follow-up was 110 months.Results: There were 17 (14.6%) Grade 2 to 3 pneumonitis and 15 (13.8%) Grade 2 to 3 fibrosis and no Grade 4 to 5 lung toxicity. Multivariate analyses showed them to be (1) not associated with the dose prescribed to the tumor, and (2) significantly (p<0.001) associated with lung-dosimetric parameters such as the mean lung dose (MLD), volume of lung that received at least 20 Gy (V20), and the normal-tissue complication probability (NTCP) of the lung. If cutoffs are 30% for V20, 20 Gy for MLD, and 10% for NTCP, these factors have positive predictive values of 50% to 71% and negative predictive value of 85% to 89%.Conclusions: With long-term follow-up for toxicity, we have demonstrated that much higher doses of radiation than are traditionally administered can be safely delivered to a majority of patients with NSCLC. Quantitative lung dose-volume toxicity-based dose escalation can form the basis for individualized high-dose radiation treatment to maximize the therapeutic ratio in these patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Palliative radiation therapy for bone metastases is often viewed as a single entity, despite national guidelines providing input principally only for painful uncomplicated bone metastases. Data surrounding the treatment of bone metastases are often gleaned from questionnaires of what providers would theoretically do in practice or from population-based data lacking critical granular information. We investigated the real-world treatment of bone metastases with radiation therapy.Methods and Materials: Twenty diverse institutions across the state of Michigan had data extracted for their 10 most recent cases of radiation therapy delivered for the treatment of bone metastases at their institution between January and February 2017. Uni- and multivariable binary logistic regression was used to assess the use of single fraction (8 Gy × 1) radiation therapy.Results: A total of 196 cases were eligible for inclusion. Twenty-eight different fractionation schedules were identified. The most common schedule was 3 Gy × 10 fractions (n = 100; 51.0%), 4 Gy × 5 fractions (n = 32; 16.3%), and 8 Gy × 1 (n = 15; 7.7%). The significant predictors for the use of single fraction radiation therapy were the presence of oligometastatic disease (P = .008), previous overlapping radiation therapy (P = .050), and academic practice type (P = .039). Twenty-nine cases (14.8%) received >10 fractions (median 15, range 11-20). Intensity modulated radiation therapy was used in 14 cases (7.1%), stereotactic body radiation therapy in 11 (5.6%), and image guidance with cone beam computed tomography in 11 (5.6%). Of the cases of simple painful bone metastases (no previous surgery, spinal cord compression, fracture, soft tissue extension, or overlapping previous radiation therapy; n = 70), only 12.9% were treated with 8 Gy × 1.Conclusions: Bone metastases represent a heterogeneous disease, and radiation therapy for bone metastases is similarly diverse. Future work is needed to understand the barriers to single fraction use, and clinical trials are necessary to establish appropriate guidelines for the breadth of this complex disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Little data have been reported about the patient experience during curative radiation therapy (RT) for lung cancer in routine clinical practice or how this relates to treatment toxicity as reported by clinicians. The purpose of this study was to compare clinician-reported adverse events (AEs) with patient-reported outcomes (PROs), including both specific symptoms/side effects, as well as overall quality of life (QoL) during and after definitive RT for locally advanced lung cancer (LALC) in a large statewide cohort.Methods and Materials: PROs were prospectively collected from patients treated with definitive RT for LALC at 24 institutions within the Michigan Radiation Oncology Quality Consortium between 2012 and 2018 using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy trial outcome index. Physicians prospectively recorded AEs using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0. Patient-reported QoL changes from baseline were assessed during and after RT using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy trial outcome index. Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated for AEs and similar PROs, and a multivariable analysis was used to assess associations with QoL.Results: A total 1361 patients were included in the study, and 53% of respondents reported clinically meaningful declines in QoL at the end of RT. The correlation between clinician-reported esophagitis and patient-reported trouble swallowing was moderate (R = .67), but correlations between clinician-reported pneumonitis and patient-reported shortness of breath (R = .13) and cough (R = .09) were weak. Clinician-reported AEs were significantly associated with clinically meaningful declines in patient-reported QoL (R = - .46 for summary AE score). QoL was more strongly associated with fatigue (R = - .41) than lung-specific AEs.Conclusions: AEs are associated with clinically meaningful declines in QoL during and after RT for LALC, but associations between AEs and QoL are only modest. This highlights the importance of PRO data, and future research should assess whether earlier detection of PRO changes could allow for interventions that reduce the frequency of treatment-related clinically meaningful declines in QoL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Simple intensity modulation of radiation therapy reduces acute toxicity compared with 2-dimensional techniques in adjuvant breast cancer treatment, but it remains unknown whether more complex or inverse-planned intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) offers an advantage over forward-planned, 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT).Methods and Materials: Using prospective data regarding patients receiving adjuvant whole breast radiation therapy without nodal irradiation at 23 institutions from 2011 to 2018, we compared the incidence of acute toxicity (moderate-severe pain or moist desquamation) in patients receiving 3DCRT versus IMRT (either inverse planned or, if forward-planned, using ≥5 segments per gantry angle). We evaluated associations between technique and toxicity using multivariable models with inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting, adjusting for treatment facility as a random effect.Results: Of 1185 patients treated with 3DCRT and conventional fractionation, 650 (54.9%) experienced acute toxicity; of 774 treated with highly segmented forward-planned IMRT, 458 (59.2%) did; and of 580 treated with inverse-planned IMRT, 245 (42.2%) did. Of 1296 patients treated with hypofractionation and 3DCRT, 432 (33.3%) experienced acute toxicity; of 709 treated with highly segmented forward-planned IMRT, 227 (32.0%) did; and of 623 treated with inverse-planned IMRT, 164 (26.3%) did. On multivariable analysis with inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting, the odds ratio for acute toxicity after inverse-planned IMRT versus 3DCRT was 0.64 (95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.91) with conventional fractionation and 0.41 (95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.65) with hypofractionation.Conclusions: This large, prospective, multicenter comparative effectiveness study found a significant benefit from inverse-planned IMRT compared with 3DCRT in reducing acute toxicity of breast radiation therapy. Future research should identify the dosimetric differences that mediate this association and evaluate cost-effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Therapeutic misconception is the tendency for a clinical trial participant to overlook the scientific objective of a clinical trial and instead believe that an experimental intervention is intended for personal therapeutic benefit. We sought to evaluate this tendency in the setting of a clinical trial of a new radiation therapy technology.Methods: Patients with left-sided, node positive breast cancer enrolled in a randomized clinical trial evaluating intensity modulated radiation therapy with deep inspiration breath hold (IMRT-DIBH) versus 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT). Patients who enrolled completed surveys at baseline, after randomization, and upon completion of radiation therapy to evaluate expectations, satisfaction, and experiences.Results: Forty women participated in the survey study, with 20 in each arm. Most participants endorsed the perception that participation in the trial might result in better treatment than the current standard treatment (77%) and more medical attention than being off trial (54%). At baseline, most women (74%) believed that a new treatment technology is superior than an established one. Before randomization, 43% of participants believed IMRT-DIBH would be more effective than standard treatment with 3DCRT, none believed that 3DCRT would be more effective, 23% believed that they would be the same, and 34% did not know. None believed that IMRT-DIBH would cause worse long-term side effects, whereas 37% thought that 3DCRT would. Most (71%) reported that they would choose to be treated with IMRT-DIBH; none would have elected 3DCRT if given a choice. Nearly half (44%) in the 3DCRT arm wished that they had been assigned to the IMRT-DIBH arm; none in the IMRT-DIBH arm expressed a wish for crossover.Conclusions: Most participants reported the perception that trial participation would result in better treatment and more medical attention than off trial, hallmarks of therapeutic misconception. Our observations provide empirical evidence of a fixed belief in the superiority of new technology and highlight the importance of adjusting expectations through informed consent to mitigate therapeutic misconception. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Preclinical data and subset analyses from immunotherapy clinical trials indicate that prior radiation therapy was associated with better progression-free survival and overall survival when combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. We present a prospective study of hypofractionated image guided radiation therapy (HIGRT) to a single site of metastatic disease concurrently with atezolizumab in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.Methods and Materials: Patients meeting eligibility criteria received 1200 mg of atezolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks with concurrent 3- or 5-fraction HIGRT starting no later than the second cycle. The 3-fraction regimen employed a minimum of 8 Gy per fraction compared with 6 Gy for the 5-fraction regimen. Imaging was obtained every 12 weeks to assess response.Results: From October 2015 to February 2017, 12 patients were enrolled in the study (median age 64; range, 55-77 years). The best response by the Response Evaluation in Solid Tumors criteria was partial response in 3 and stable disease in 3, for a disease control rate of 50%. Five patients had a grade 3 immune-related adverse event, including choreoretinitis (n = 1), pneumonitis (n = 1), transaminitis (n = 1), fatigue (n = 1), and peripheral neuropathy (n = 1). The median progression-free survival was 2.3 months, and the median overall survival was 6.9 months (range, 0.4-not reached). There was no clear association between peripheral blood T cell repertoire characteristics at baseline, PD-L1, or tumor mutations and response or outcome. One long-term survivor exhibited oligoclonal T cell populations in a baseline tumor biopsy that were consistently detected in peripheral blood over the entire course of the study.Conclusions: HIGRT plus atezolizumab resulted in an overall response rate of 25% and disease control rate of 50% in this pilot study. The incidence of grade 3 adverse events was similar to that of atezolizumab alone. Alhough it was a pilot study with limited sample size, the results generated hypotheses worthy of further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Hypofractionated radiation therapy is a less burdensome and less costly approach that is efficacious for most patients with early-stage breast cancer. Concerns about racial disparities in adoption of medical advances motivate investigation of the use of hypofractionated radiation in diverse populations. The goal of our study was to determine whether hypofractionated whole breast radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery was being similarly used across racial groups in the state of Michigan.Methods and Materials: A prospectively collected statewide quality consortium database from 25 institutions was queried for patients with breast cancer who completed hypofractionated (HF) or conventionally fractionated whole breast radiation therapy from January 2012 to December 2018. We used patient-level multivariable modeling to evaluate associations between HF use and race, controlling for patient and facility factors, and multilevel modeling to account for patient clustering within facilities.Results: Of 9634 patients analyzed, 81% self-reported race as white, 17% as black, and 2% as Asian, similar to statewide and national distributions. In addition, 31.7% of whites were treated at teaching centers compared with 66.7% of blacks and 64.8% of Asians. In 2018, HF was used in 72.7% of whites versus 56.7% of blacks and 67.6% of Asians (P = .0411). On patient-level multivariable analysis, black and Asian races were significantly associated with a lower likelihood of HF receipt (P < .001), despite accounting for treatment year, age, laterality, body mass index, breast volume, comorbidities, stage, triple-negative status, intensity modulated radiation therapy use, teaching center treatment, and 2011 American Society for Radiation Oncology Hypofractionation Guideline eligibility. On multilevel analysis, race was no longer significantly associated with HF receipt.Conclusions: We observed that black and Asian patients receive hypofractionated whole breast radiation therapy less often than whites, despite more frequent treatment at teaching centers. Multilevel modeling eliminated this disparity, suggesting that differences in facility-specific HF use appear to have contributed. Further inquiry is needed to determine whether reduction of facility-level variation may reduce disparities in accessing HF treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To determine the recommended phase 2 dose of RRx-001, a radiosensitizer with vascular normalizing properties, when used with whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) for brain metastases and to assess whether quantitative changes in perfusion magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) after RRx-001 correlate with response.Methods and Materials: Five centers participated in this phase 1/2 trial of RRx-001 given once pre-WBRT and then twice weekly during WBRT. Four dose levels were planned (5 mg/m2, 8.4 mg/m2, 16.5 mg/m2, 27.5 mg/m2). Dose escalation was managed by the time-to-event continual reassessment method algorithm. Linear mixed models were used to correlate change in 24-hour T1, Ktrans (capillary permeability), and fractional plasma volume with change in tumor volume.Results: Between 2015 and 2017, 31 patients were enrolled. Two patients dropped out before any therapy. Median age was 60 years (range, 30-76), and 12 were male. The most common tumor types were melanoma (59%) and non-small cell lung cancer (18%). No dose limiting toxicities were observed. The most common severe adverse event was grade 3 asthenia (6.9%, 2 of 29). The median intracranial response rate was 46% (95% confidence interval, 24-68) and median overall survival was 5.2 months (95% confidence interval, 4.5-9.4). No neurologic deaths occurred. Among 10 patients undergoing dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, a reduction in Vp 24 hours after RRx-001 was associated with reduced tumor volume at 1 and 4 months (P ≤ .01).Conclusions: The addition of RRx-001 to WBRT is well tolerated with favorable intracranial response rates. Because activity was observed across all dose levels, the recommended phase 2 dose is 10 mg twice weekly. A reduction in fractional plasma volume on dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI 24 hours after RRx-001 suggests antiangiogenic activity associated with longer-term tumor response. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Hormone therapy without radiation therapy is considered appropriate for women age 70 or above with low-risk, hormone-positive breast cancer after partial mastectomy. However, some patients may prefer radiation without hormone therapy, for which there is minimal modern data. We modeled the comparative efficacy of aromatase inhibition alone without radiation versus radiation alone without hormone therapy.Methods and Materials: We constructed a patient-level Markov model and compared 5 years of anastrozole to a 15-fraction course of radiation without boost or anastrozole. The relative effectiveness between treatments was based on the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-21 trial, which was further adjusted such that the endocrine-alone arm matched the Cancer and Leukemia Group B 9343 and PRIME II trials. Common or severe side effects were considered. Eight survival metrics were assessed and validated against clinical trial data. The cost-efficacy of each strategy was considered using the quality-adjusted life year and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).Results: The model's predicted outcomes matched those demonstrated by modern trials. Aromatase inhibitors were superior in preventing contralateral cancers, with a small impact on the risk of distant metastatic disease. Radiation was superior in preventing ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence with a small impact on regional failure. No clinically significant differences were seen in the other 4 oncologic endpoints. Differences in quality-adjusted life years were small, but radiation therapy was $3809 more expensive over the average lifetime. The ICER suggested anastrozole was cost-effective in 62% of probabilistic simulations. However, the ICER was unstable owing to a denominator that approached zero.Conclusions: Women age 70 or above with low-risk early breast cancer who are reluctant or unable to pursue adjuvant aromatase inhibition can safely pursue adjuvant radiation alone with limited differences in outcome and a modest increase in costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Although inverse-planned intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) may allow for more conformal dose distributions, it is unknown whether using these technologies reduces cardiac or pulmonary toxicity of breast radiotherapy.Methods and Materials: A randomized controlled trial compared IMRT-DIBH versus standard, free-breathing, forward-planned, three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy in patients with left-sided, node-positive breast cancer in whom the internal mammary nodal region was targeted. Endpoints included dosimetric parameters and changes in pulmonary and cardiac perfusion and function, measured by single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) scans and pulmonary function testing performed at baseline and 1 year post treatment.Results: Of 62 patients randomized, 54 who completed all follow-up procedures were analyzed. Mean doses to the ipsilateral lung, left ventricle, whole heart, and left anterior descending coronary artery were lower with IMRT-DIBH; the percent of left ventricle receiving ≥5 Gy averaged 15.8% with standard radiotherapy and 5.6% with IMRT-DIBH (P < .001). SPECT revealed no differences in perfusion defects in the left anterior descending coronary artery territory, the study's primary endpoint, but did reveal statistically significant differences (P = .02) in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), a secondary endpoint. No differences were found for lung perfusion or function.Conclusion: The small but statistically significant benefit in preservation of cardiac LVEF observed here should motivate future studies that include LVEF as a potentially meaningful endpoint. Future studies should disaggregate the impact of IMRT from that of DIBH. Clinical practice should recognize the importance of minimizing cardiac dose, even when already low in comparison to historical levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Limited data exist regarding the range of heart doses received in routine practice with radiation therapy (RT) for breast cancer in the United States today and the potential effect of the continual assessment of the cardiac dose on practice patterns.Methods and Materials: From 2012 to 2015, 4688 patients with breast cancer treated with whole breast RT at 20 sites participating in a state-wide consortium were enrolled into a registry. The importance of limiting the cardiac dose has been emphasized in the consortium since 2012, and the mean heart dose (MHD) has been reported by each institution since 2014. The effects on the MHD were estimated for both conventional and accelerated fractionation using regression models, with technique (intensity modulated RT [IMRT] vs 3-dimensional conformal RT), deep inspiration breath hold use, patient position (supine vs prone), nodal RT (if delivered), and boost (yes vs no) as covariates.Results: For left-sided breast cancer treated with conventional fractionation, the median MHD in 2012 was 2.19 Gy versus 1.65 Gy in 2015 (P<.001). The factors that significantly increased the MHD for conventional fractionation were increased separation relative to 22 cm (1.5%/1 cm), supraclavicular or infraclavicular nodal RT (17.1%), internal mammary nodal RT (40.7%), use of a boost (20.9%), treatment year before 2015 (7.7%), and use of IMRT (20.8%). For left-sided BC treated with accelerated fractionation, the median MHD in 2012 was 1.70 Gy versus 1.22 Gy in 2015 (P<.001). The factors that significantly increased the MHD for accelerated fractionation were separation (1.7%/1 cm), use of a boost (20.0%), year before 2015 (8.5%), and use of IMRT (19.2%). The factors for both conventional fractionation and accelerated fractionation that significantly reduced the MHD were the use of deep inspiration breath hold and prone positioning.Conclusions: The MHD for left-sided breast cancer decreased during a recent 4-year period, coincident with an increased focus on cardiac sparing in the radiation oncology community in general and a state-wide consortium specifically. These data suggest a positive effect of systematically monitoring the heart dose delivered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study determined practice patterns in the staging and treatment of patients with stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) among National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) member institutions. Secondary aims were to determine trends in the use of definitive therapy, predictors of treatment type, and acute adverse events associated with primary modalities of treatment.Methods and Materials: Data from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Oncology Outcomes Database from 2007 to 2011 for US patients with stage I NSCLC were used. Main outcome measures included patterns of care, predictors of treatment, acute morbidity, and acute mortality.Results: Seventy-nine percent of patients received surgery, 16% received definitive radiation therapy (RT), and 3% were not treated. Seventy-four percent of the RT patients received stereotactic body RT (SBRT), and the remainder received nonstereotactic RT (NSRT). Among participating NCCN member institutions, the number of surgeries-to-RT course ratios varied between 1.6 and 34.7 (P<.01), and the SBRT-to-NSRT ratio varied between 0 and 13 (P=.01). Significant variations were also observed in staging practices, with brain imaging 0.33 (0.25-0.43) times as likely and mediastinoscopy 31.26 (21.84-44.76) times more likely for surgical patients than for RT patients. Toxicity rates for surgical and for SBRT patients were similar, although the rates were double for NSRT patients.Conclusions: The variations in treatment observed among NCCN institutions reflects the lack of level I evidence directing the use of surgery or SBRT for stage I NSCLC. In this setting, research of patient and physician preferences may help to guide future decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: There is currently limited information regarding the out-of-pocket expenditures (OOPE) for medical care made by elderly individuals with cancer. We sought to quantify OOPE for community-dwelling individuals age 70 or older with: 1) no cancer (No CA), 2) a history of cancer, not undergoing current treatment (CA/No Tx), and 3) a history of cancer, undergoing current treatment (CA/Tx).Methods: We used data from the 1995 Asset and Health Dynamics Study, a nationally representative survey of community-dwelling elderly individuals. Respondents identified their cancer status and reported OOPE for the prior 2 years for: 1) hospital and nursing home stays, 2) outpatient services, 3) home care, and 4) prescription medications. Using a multivariable two-part regression model to control for differences in sociodemographics, living situation, functional limitations, comorbid chronic conditions, and insurance coverage, the additional cancer-related OOPE were estimated.Results: Of the 6370 respondents, 5382 (84%) reported No CA, 812 (13%) reported CA/No Tx, and 176 (3%) reported CA/Tx. The adjusted mean annual OOPE for the No CA, CA/No Tx, and CA/Tx groups were 1210 dollars, 1450 dollars, and 1880 dollars, respectively (P < .01). Prescription medications (1120 dollars per year) and home care services (250 dollars) accounted for most of the additional OOPE associated with cancer treatment. Low-income individuals undergoing cancer treatment spent about 27% of their yearly income on OOPE compared to only 5% of yearly income for high-income individuals with no cancer history (P < .01).Conclusions: Cancer treatment in older individuals results in significant OOPE, mainly for prescription medications and home care services. Economic evaluations and public policies aimed at cancer prevention and treatment should take note of the significant OOPE made by older Americans with cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To compare different normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models to predict the incidence of radiation pneumonitis on the basis of the dose distribution in the lung.Methods and Materials: The data from 382 breast cancer, malignant lymphoma, and inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer patients from two centers were studied. Radiation pneumonitis was scored using the Southwestern Oncology Group criteria. Dose-volume histograms of the lungs were calculated from the dose distributions that were corrected for dose per fraction effects. The dose-volume histogram of each patient was reduced to a single parameter using different local dose-effect relationships. Examples of single parameters were the mean lung dose (MLD) and the volume of lung receiving more than a threshold dose (VDth). The parameters for the different NTCP models were fit to patient data using a maximum likelihood analysis.Results: The best fit resulted in a linear local dose-effect relationship, with the MLD as the resulting single parameter. The relationship between the MLD and NTCP could be described with a median toxic dose (TD50) of 30.8 Gy and a steepness parameter m of 0.37. The best fit for the relationship between the VDth and the NTCP was obtained with a Dth of 13 Gy. The MLD model was found to be significantly better than the VDth model (p <0.03). However, for 85% of the studied patients, the difference in NTCP calculated with both models was <10%, because of the high correlation between the two parameters. For dose distributions outside the range of the studied dose-volume histograms, the difference in NTCP, using the two models could be >35%. For arbitrary dose distributions, an estimate of the uncertainty in the NTCP could be determined using the probability distribution of the parameter values of the Lyman-Kutcher-Burman model.Conclusion: The maximum likelihood method revealed that the underlying local dose-effect relation for radiation pneumonitis was linear (the MLD model), rather than a step function (the VDth model). Thus, for the studied patient population, the MLD was the most accurate predictor for the incidence of radiation pneumonitis. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]