Search

Introduction: With locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC), uncontrolled local tumor growth frequently leads to mortality. Advancements in radiotherapy (RT) techniques have enabled conformal delivery of escalated‐dose RT (EDR), which may have potential local control and overall survival (OS) benefits based on retrospective and early prospective studies. With evidence for EDR emerging, we characterized the adoption of EDR across the United States and its associated outcomes. Methods: We searched the National Cancer Database for nonsurgically managed LAPC patients diagnosed between 2004 and 2019. Pancreas‐directed RT with biologically effective doses (BED10) ≥39 and ≤70 Gy was labeled conventional‐dose RT (CDR), and BED10 >70 and ≤132 Gy was labeled EDR. We identified associations of EDR and OS using logistic and Cox regressions, respectively. Results: Among the definitive therapy subset (n = 54,115) of the entire study cohort (n = 91,493), the most common treatments were chemotherapy alone (69%), chemotherapy and radiation (29%), and RT alone (2%). For the radiation therapy subset (n = 16,978), use of pancreas‐directed RT remained between 13% and 17% over the study period (ptrend > 0.999). Using multivariable logistic regression, treatment at an academic/research facility (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.46, p < 0.001) and treatment between 2016 and 2019 (aOR 2.54, p < 0.001) were associated with greater receipt of EDR, whereas use of chemotherapy (aOR 0.60, p < 0.001) was associated with less receipt. Median OS estimates for EDR and CDR were 14.5 months and 13.0 months (p < 0.0001), respectively. For radiation therapy subset patients with available survival data (n = 13,579), multivariable Cox regression correlated EDR (adjusted hazard ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.80–0.91; p < 0.001) with longer OS versus CDR. Discussion and Conclusions: Utilization of EDR has increased since 2016, but overall utilization of RT for LAPC has remained at less than one in five patients for almost two decades. These real‐world results additionally provide an estimate of effect size of EDR for future prospective trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Leaders in the oncology community are sounding a clarion call to promote "value" in cancer care decisions. Value in cancer care considers the clinical effectiveness, along with the costs, when selecting a treatment. To discuss possible solutions to the current obstacles to achieving value in the use of advanced technologies in oncology, the National Cancer Policy Forum of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine held a workshop, "Appropriate Use of Advanced Technologies for Radiation Therapy and Surgery in Oncology" in July 2015. The present report summarizes the discussions related to radiation oncology.Methods and Materials: The workshop convened stakeholders, including oncologists, researchers, payers, policymakers, and patients. Speakers presented on key themes, including the rationale for a value discussion on advanced technology use in radiation oncology, the generation of scientific evidence for value of advanced radiation technologies, the effect of both scientific evidence and "marketplace" (or economic) factors on the adoption of technologies, and newer approaches to improving value in the practice of radiation oncology. The presentations were followed by a panel discussion with dialogue among the stakeholders.Results: Challenges to generating evidence for the value of advanced technologies include obtaining contemporary, prospective, randomized, and representative comparative effectiveness data. Proposed solutions include the use of prospective registry data; integrating radiation oncology treatment, outcomes, and quality benchmark data; and encouraging insurance coverage with evidence development. Challenges to improving value in practice include the slow adoption of higher value and the de-adoption of lower value treatments. The proposed solutions focused on engaging stakeholders in iterative, collaborative, and evidence-based efforts to define value and promote change in radiation oncology practice. Recent examples of ongoing or successful responses to the discussed challenges were provided.Conclusions: Discussions of "value" have increased as a priority in the radiation oncology community. Practitioners in the radiation oncology community can play a critical role in promoting a value-oriented framework to approach radiation oncology treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose High-quality treatment for intact cervical cancer requires external radiation therapy, brachytherapy, and chemotherapy, carefully sequenced and completed without delays. We sought to determine how frequently current treatment meets quality benchmarks and whether new technologies have influenced patterns of care. Methods and Materials By searching diagnosis and procedure claims in MarketScan, an employment-based health care claims database, we identified 1508 patients with nonmetastatic, intact cervical cancer treated from 1999 to 2011, who were <65 years of age and received >10 fractions of radiation. Treatments received were identified using procedure codes and compared with 3 quality benchmarks: receipt of brachytherapy, receipt of chemotherapy, and radiation treatment duration not exceeding 63 days. The Cochran-Armitage test was used to evaluate temporal trends. Results Seventy-eight percent of patients (n=1182) received brachytherapy, with brachytherapy receipt stable over time (Cochran-Armitage P trend =.15). Among patients who received brachytherapy, 66% had high–dose rate and 34% had low–dose rate treatment, although use of high–dose rate brachytherapy steadily increased to 75% by 2011 ( P trend <.001). Eighteen percent of patients (n=278) received intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and IMRT receipt increased to 37% by 2011 ( P trend <.001). Only 2.5% of patients (n=38) received IMRT in the setting of brachytherapy omission. Overall, 79% of patients (n=1185) received chemotherapy, and chemotherapy receipt increased to 84% by 2011 ( P trend <.001). Median radiation treatment duration was 56 days (interquartile range, 47-65 days); however, duration exceeded 63 days in 36% of patients (n=543). Although 98% of patients received at least 1 benchmark treatment, only 44% received treatment that met all 3 benchmarks. With more stringent indicators (brachytherapy, ≥4 chemotherapy cycles, and duration not exceeding 56 days), only 25% of patients received treatment that met all benchmarks. Conclusion In this cohort, most cervical cancer patients received treatment that did not comply with all 3 benchmarks for quality treatment. In contrast to increasing receipt of newer radiation technologies, there was little improvement in receipt of essential treatment benchmarks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study which evaluates the racial disparities on the use of radiotherapy (RT) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) in the U.S. It states that the researchers identify beneficiaries treated with BCS in 2003 using a national Medicare database. The results show that whites are more likely to receive RT than blacks. It concludes that racial disparities in the use of RT after BCS were identified and that overcoming these disparities will improve cancer care.

Background: In epidemiologic studies, cancer stage is an important predictor of outcomes. However, cancer stage is typically unavailable in medical insurance claims datasets, thus limiting the usefulness of such data for epidemiologic studies. Therefore, we sought to develop an algorithm to predict cancer stage based on covariates available from claims-based data. Methods: We identified a cohort of 77,306 women age ≥ 66 years with stage I-IV breast cancer, using the Surveillence Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. We formulated an algorithm to predict cancer stage using covariates (demographic, tumor, and treatment characteristics) obtained from claims. Logistic regression models derived prediction equations in a training set, and equations' test characteristics (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value [NPV]) were calculated in a validation set. Results: Of the entire sample of women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer, 51% had stage I; 26% stage II; 11% stage III; and 4% stage IV disease. The equation predicting stage IV disease achieved sensitivity of 81%, specificity 89%, positive predictive value (PPV) 24%, and negative predictive value (NPV) 99%, while the equation distinguishing stage I/II from stage III disease achieved sensitivity 83%, specificity 78%, PPV 98%, and NPV 31%. Combined, the equations most accurately identified early stage disease and ascertained a sample in which 98% of patients were stage I or II. Conclusions: A claims-based algorithm was utilized to predict breast cancer stage, and was particularly successful when used to identify early stage disease. These prediction equations may be applied in future studies of breast cancer patients, substantially improving the utility of claims-based studies in this group. This method may similarly be employed to develop algorithms permitting claims-based epidemiologic studies of patients with other cancers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: For women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), radiation therapy after conservative surgery lowers the risk of recurrence. However, emerging evidence suggests that radiation therapy confers only a marginal absolute benefit for older women with DCIS. In a cohort of older women with DCIS, we sought to determine whether radiation therapy was associated with a clinically significant benefit. Methods: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database from January 1, 1992, through December 31, 1999, we identified 3409 women aged 66 years or older treated with conservative surgery for DCIS. A proportional hazards model tested whether radiation therapy was associated with a lower risk of a combined outcome, defined as a subsequent ipsilateral in situ or invasive breast cancer reported by SEER and/or a subsequent mastectomy reported by Medicare claims. The 5-year event risk was determined for patients without and with high-risk features, which were defined as at least one of the following: age 66–69 years, tumor larger than 2.5 cm, comedo histology, and/or high grade. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: Radiation therapy was associated with a lower risk for each component of the combined outcome (hazard ratio = 0.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.24 to 0.44). For high-risk patients, the 5-year event risk was 13.6% without radiation therapy versus 3.8% with radiation therapy (difference = 9.8%, 95% CI = 6.5 to 13.2; P<.001). For low-risk patients, the 5-year event risk was 8.2% without radiation therapy versus 1.0% with radiation therapy (difference = 7.2%, 95% CI = 3.6 to 10.9; P<.001). Among healthy women aged 66–79 years, the number needed to treat with radiation therapy to prevent one event in 5 years was 11 for high-risk patients and 15–16 for low-risk patients. Conclusion: For older women with DCIS, radiation therapy appears to confer a substantial benefit that remains meaningful even among low-risk patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) followed by radiotherapy is as effective as mastectomy for treatment of early invasive breast cancer. But earlier studies report low BCS use rates of 12% to 43% nationally, especially in older patients. We sought to determine current patterns and predictors of BCS use. Study Design: In a national Medicare database of all beneficiaries (age greater than 65 years) with incident invasive breast cancer treated with operation in 2003, claims codes identified BCS versus mastectomy and demographic, treatment, and geographic region covariates. The 2003 Area Resource File provided socioeconomic covariates. Logistic regression modeled predictors of BCS. Results: In 56,725 women, 59% were treated with BCS versus 41% with mastectomy. BCS was more likely in women who were younger than 70 years (odds ratio [OR], 1.37; 95% CI, 1.31 to 1.44; p < 0.001) and had lymph node-negative disease (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.52 to 1.68; p < 0.001). Socioeconomic factors influenced use, with BCS more likely in areas with low poverty (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.09; p = 0.03), high education (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.19), high density of radiation oncologists (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.59), and in metropolitan areas (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.26). Significant geographic variation existed: 70% of women were treated with BCS in northeastern New England compared with only 48% to 50% in the South (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Currently, more than half of older women across the US diagnosed with nonmetastatic invasive breast cancer treated surgically receive BCS, representing a substantial increased use compared with historical data. Lack of BCS use appears in part associated with socioeconomic disadvantage, suggesting that persistent barriers to breast conservation exist. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Purpose: To examine the frequency of guideline-concordant cancer care in elderly patients, including "older" elderly (age ≥80 years).Methods and Materials: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare dataset in patients aged ≥66 years diagnosed with nonmetastatic breast cancer (n=55,094), non-small cell lung (NSCLC) (n=36,203), or prostate cancer (n=86,544) from 2006 to 2011, chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation (RT) treatments were identified using claims. Pearson χ2 tested associations between age and guideline concordance.Results: Older patients were less likely to receive guideline-concordant curative treatment: in stage III breast cancer, receipt of postmastectomy RT (70%, 46%, and 21% in patients aged 66-79, 80-89, and ≥90 years, respectively; P<.0001); in stage I NSCLC, RT or surgery (89%, 80%, and 64% in age 66-79, 80-89, and ≥90 years; P<.0001); in stage III NSCLC, RT or surgery plus chemotherapy (79%, 58%, and 27% in age 66-79, 80-89, and ≥90 years; P<.0001); and in intermediate/high-risk prostate cancer, RT or prostatectomy (projected life expectancy >10 years: 85% and 82% in age 66-69 and 70-75 years; and ≤10 years: 70%, 42%, and 9% in age 76-79, 80-89, and ≥90 years; P<.0001). However, older patients were more likely to receive guideline-concordant de-intensified treatment: in stage I to II node-negative breast cancer, hypofractionated postlumpectomy RT (9%, 16%, and 23% in age 66-79, 80-89, and ≥90 years; P<.0001); in stage I estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer, observation after lumpectomy (12%, 42%, and 84% in age 66-79, 80-89, and ≥90 years; P<.0001); in stage I NSCLC, stereotactic body RT instead of surgery (7%, 16%, and 25% in age 66-79, 80-89, and ≥90 years; P<.0001); and in lower-risk prostate cancer, no active treatment (25%, 54%, and 68% in age 66-79, 80-89, and ≥90 years; P<.0001).Conclusion: Actual treatment of older elderly cancer patients frequently diverged from guidelines, especially in curative treatment of advanced disease. Results suggest a need for better metrics than existing guidelines alone to evaluate quality and appropriateness of care in this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Proton beam therapy is an emerging radiotherapy treatment for patients with cancer that may produce similar outcomes as traditional photon-based therapy for many cancers while delivering lower amounts of toxic radiation to surrounding tissue. Geographic proximity to a proton facility is a critical component of ensuring equitable access both for indicated diagnoses and ongoing clinical trials., Objective: To characterize the distribution of proton facilities in the US, quantify drive-time access for the population, and investigate the likelihood of long commutes for certain population subgroups., Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cross-sectional study analyzed travel times to proton facilities in the US. Census tract variables in the contiguous US were measured between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2021. Statistical analysis was performed from September to November 2023., Exposures: Drive time in minutes to nearest proton facility. Population totals and prevalence of specific factors measured from the American Community Survey: age; race and ethnicity; insurance, disability, and income status; vehicle availability; broadband access; and urbanicity., Main Outcomes and Measures: Poor access to proton facilities was defined as having a drive-time commute of at least 4 hours to the nearest location. Median drive time and percentage of population with poor access were calculated for the entire population and by population subgroups. Univariable and multivariable odds of poor access were also calculated for certain population subgroups., Results: Geographic access was considered for 327 536 032 residents of the contiguous US (60 594 624 [18.5%] Hispanic, 17 974 186 [5.5%] non-Hispanic Asian, 40 146 994 [12.3%] non-Hispanic Black, and 195 265 639 [59.6%] non-Hispanic White; 282 031 819 [86.1%] resided in urban counties). The median (IQR) drive time to the nearest proton facility was 96.1 (39.6-195.3) minutes; 119.8 million US residents (36.6%) lived within a 1-hour drive of the nearest proton facility, and 53.6 million (16.4%) required a commute of at least 4 hours. Persons identifying as non-Hispanic White had the longest median (IQR) commute time at 109.8 (48.0-197.6) minutes. Multivariable analysis identified rurality (odds ratio [OR], 2.45 [95% CI, 2.27-2.64]), age 65 years or older (OR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.06-1.11]), and living below the federal poverty line (OR, 1.22 [1.20-1.25]) as factors associated with commute times of at least 4 hours., Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study of drive-time access to proton beam therapy found that disparities in access existed among certain populations in the US. These results suggest that such disparities present a barrier to an emerging technology in cancer treatment and inhibit equitable access to ongoing clinical trials.

Background: Single-institution studies have shown the oncologic benefit of ablative liver radiotherapy (A-RT) for patients with unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). However, adoption of A-RT across the United States and its associated outcomes are unknown., Methods: We queried the National Cancer Data Base for nonsurgically managed patients with ICC diagnosed between 2004 and 2018. Patients were labeled A-RT for receipt of biologically effective doses (BED 10 ) ≥ 80.5 Gy and conventional RT (Conv-RT) for lower doses. Associations with A-RT use and overall survival were identified using logistic and Cox regressions, respectively., Results: Of 27,571 patients, the most common treatments were chemotherapy without liver RT (45%), no chemotherapy or liver RT (42%), and liver RT ± chemotherapy (13%). Use of liver RT remained constant over time. Of 1112 patients receiving liver RT with known doses, RT was 73% Conv-RT (median BED 10 , 53 Gy; median, 20 fractions) and 27% A-RT (median BED 10 , 100 Gy; median, 5 fractions). Use of A-RT increased from 5% in 2004 to 48% in 2018 (P trend < .001). With a median follow-up of 52.3 months, median survival estimates for Conv-RT and A-RT were 12.8 and 23.7 months (P < .001), respectively. On multivariable analysis, stage III and IV disease correlated with a higher risk of death, whereas chemotherapy and A-RT correlated with a lower risk., Conclusions: Although A-RT has been increasingly used, use of liver RT as a whole in the United States remained constant despite growing evidence supporting its use, suggesting continued unmet need. A-RT is associated with longer survival versus Conv-RT., Lay Summary: Bile duct cancer is a rare, deadly disease that often presents at advanced stages. Single-institution retrospective studies have demonstrated that use of high-dose radiotherapy may be associated with longer survival, but larger studies have not been conducted. We used a large, national cancer registry of patients diagnosed between 2004 and 2018 to show that liver radiotherapy use remains low in the United States, despite growing evidence that patients who receive it live longer. Furthermore, we showed that patients who received high-dose radiotherapy lived longer than those who received lower doses. Greater awareness of the benefits of liver radiotherapy is needed to improve patient outcomes., (© 2022 American Cancer Society.)

Purpose: Several definitive treatment options are available for prostate cancer, but geographic access to those options is not uniform. We created maps illustrating provider practice patterns relation to patients and assessed the influence of distance to treatment receipt., Methods and Materials: The patient cohort was created by searching the National Medicare Database for patients diagnosed and treated for prostate cancer from 2011 to 2014. The provider cohort was created by querying the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile to identify physicians who had treated patients with prostatectomy, intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), brachytherapy, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), or proton therapy. Maps detailing the location of providers were created for each modality. Multivariate multinomial logistic regressions were used to assess the association between patient-provider distance and probability of treatment., Results: Cohorts consisted of 89,902 patients treated by 5518 physicians. Substantial numbers of providers practicing established modalities (IMRT, prostatectomy, and brachytherapy) were noted in major urban centers, whereas provider numbers were reduced in rural areas, most notably for brachytherapy. Ninety percent of prostate cancer patients lived within 35.1, 28.9, and 55.6 miles of a practitioner of prostatectomy, IMRT, and brachytherapy, respectively. Practitioners of emerging modalities (SBRT and proton therapy) were predominantly concentrated in urban locations, with 90% of patients living within 128 miles (SBRT) and 374.5 miles (proton). Greater distance was associated with decreased probability of treatment (IMRT -3.8% per 10 miles; prostatectomy -2.1%; brachytherapy -2%; proton therapy -1.6%; and SBRT -1.1%)., Conclusions: Geographic disparities were noted for analyzed treatment modalities, and these disparities influenced delivery., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Recent trends in payer and patient preferences increasingly incentivize time-efficient (≤2-week treatment time) prostate cancer treatments., Methods and Materials: National Medicare claims from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2014, were analyzed to identify newly diagnosed prostate cancers. Three "radical treatment" cohorts were identified (prostatectomy, brachytherapy, and stereotactic body radiation therapy [SBRT]) and matched to an active surveillance (AS) cohort by using inverse probability treatment weighting via propensity score. Total costs at 1 year after biopsy were calculated for each cohort, and treatment-specific costs were estimated by subtracting total 1-year costs in each radical treatment group from those in the AS group., Results: Mean 1-year adjusted costs were highest among patients receiving SBRT ($26,895), lower for prostatectomy ($23,632), and lowest for brachytherapy ($19,980), whereas those for AS were $9687. Costs of radical modalities varied significantly by region, with the Mid-Atlantic and New England regions having the highest cost ranges (>$10,000) and the West South Central and Mountain regions the lowest range in costs (<$2000). Quantification of toxic effects showed that prostatectomy was associated with higher genitourinary incontinence (hazard ratio [HR] = 10.8 compared with AS) and sexual dysfunction (HR = 3.5), whereas the radiation modalities were associated with higher genitourinary irritation/bleeding (brachytherapy HR = 1.7; SBRT HR = 1.5) and gastrointestinal ulcer/stricture/fistula (brachytherapy HR = 2.7; SBRT HR = 3.0). Overall mean toxicity costs were highest among patients treated with prostatectomy ($3500) followed by brachytherapy ($1847), SBRT ($1327), and AS ($1303)., Conclusions: Time-efficient treatment techniques exhibit substantial variability in toxicity and costs. Furthermore, geographic location substantially influenced treatment costs., (Copyright © 2020 American Society for Radiation Oncology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The role of neoadjuvant short-course radiation therapy (SCRT) in treating rectal adenocarcinoma is a topic of ongoing debate. Growing interest in total neoadjuvant therapy has spurred discussion on the optimal sequence of preoperative SCRT and chemotherapy., Patients and Methods: All patients receiving SCRT (5 Gy × 5 fractions) were identified. Details about preoperative treatments, radiation toxicities, and postoperative complications were collected. Patients were divided into 2 groups: those who underwent surgery within 14 days of completing SCRT and those with a longer delay. Outcomes compared included extent of pathologic response, margin-negative resection rate, acute radiation toxicities, and postoperative complications., Results: Fifty-seven patients with locally advanced or metastatic rectal cancer received SCRT between 2008 and 2018. Thirty-nine of 57 patients underwent definitive pelvic surgery with total mesorectal excision. There were no significant differences in tumor downstaging, radial margin status, or percent tumor viability between patients with immediate surgery versus delayed surgery. The delay group had higher rates of nodal downstaging (64.7% vs. 18.2%; P = .003). There were no differences in total or grade 3+ gastrointestinal radiation toxicity, postoperative complications, reoperation, readmission, and mortality between the 2 groups., Conclusions: Though not yet common in the United States, SCRT has compared favorably with long course chemoradiation in multiple trials. Moreover, it is associated with greater efficiency and less disruption to chemotherapy. Our data show similar response and toxicity outcomes between the immediate and delay groups, suggesting SCRT is well-tolerated regardless of treatment sequence. Recently completed prospective trials may reveal the optimal preoperative treatment sequence., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The effect of surgeon factors on patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes after breast-conserving therapy (BCT) is unknown and may help patients make informed care decisions., Methods: We performed a survey study of women aged ≥ 67 years with non-metastatic breast cancer diagnosed in 2009 and treated with guideline-concordant BCT, to determine the association of surgeon factors with patient-reported outcomes. The treating surgeon was identified using Medicare claims, and surgeon factors were identified via the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile. The primary outcome was patient-reported cosmetic satisfaction measured by the Cancer Surveillance and Outcomes Research Team (CanSORT) Satisfaction with Breast Cosmetic Outcome instrument, while secondary outcomes included BREAST-Q subdomains. All patient, treatment, and surgeon covariables were included in a saturated multivariable linear regression model with backward elimination applied until remaining variables were p < 0.1., Results: Of 1650 women randomly selected to receive the questionnaire, 489 responded, of whom 289 underwent BCT. Median age at diagnosis was 72 years and the time from diagnosis to survey was 6 years. The mean adjusted CanSORT score was higher for patients treated by surgical oncologists than patients treated by non-surgical oncologists (4.01 [95% confidence interval [CI] 3.65-4.38] vs. 3.53 [95% CI 3.28-3.77], p = 0.006). Similarly, mean adjusted BREAST-Q Physical Well-Being (91.97 [95% CI 86.13-97.80] vs. 83.04 [95% CI 80.85-85.22], p = 0.006) and Adverse Radiation Effects (95.28 [95% CI 91.25-99.31] vs. 88.90 [95% CI 86.23-91.57], p = 0.004) scores were better among patients treated by surgical oncologists., Conclusions: Specialized surgical oncology training is associated with improved long-term patient-reported outcomes. These findings underscore the value of specialized training and may be useful to patients choosing their care team.

Purpose: To examine whether the implementation of Affordable Care Act (ACA) reduced the financial burden associated with cancer care among non-elderly cancer survivors., Methods: Using data from the MEPS-Experiences with Cancer Survivorship Survey, we examined whether there was a difference in financial burden associated with cancer care between 2011 (pre-ACA) and 2016 (post-ACA). Two aspects of financial burden were considered: (1) self-reported financial burden, whether having financial difficulties associated with cancer care and (2) high-burden spending, whether total out-of-pocket (OOP) spending incurred in excess of 10% or 20% of family income. Generalized linear regression models were estimated to adjust the OOP expenditures (reported in 2016 US dollar)., Results: Our sample included adults aged 18-64 with a confirmed diagnosis of any cancer in 2011 (n = 655) and in 2016 (n = 490). There was no apparent difference in the prevalence of cancer survivors reporting any financial hardship or being with high-burden spending between 2011 and 2016. The mean OOP decreased by $268 (95% CI, - 384 to - 152) after the ACA. However, we found that the mean premium payments increased by $421 (95% CI, 149 to 692) in the same period., Conclusions: The ACA was associated with reduced OOP for health services but increased premium contributions, resulting in no significant impact on perceived financial burden among non-elderly cancer survivors., Implications for Cancer Survivors: The financial hardship of cancer survivorship points to the need for the development of provisions that help cancer patients reduce both perceived and materialized burden of cancer care under ongoing health reform.

Purpose: End-of-life (EOL) chemotherapy has been described as the most widespread, wasteful, and unnecessary practice in oncology, with benchmarking aimed to reduce physician use of chemotherapy within 14 days of EOL. We evaluated the recent transformation of EOL chemotherapy and targeted therapy practices nationally., Methods: In patients older than 65 years of age who died as a result of breast (n = 19,887), lung (n = 79,613), colorectal (n = 29,844), or prostate (n = 17,910) cancer between 2007 and 2013, we evaluated the guideline-benchmarked measure of chemotherapy use within 14 days of EOL in SEER-Medicare. Comparison outcomes were nonbenchmarked measures of chemotherapy and targeted therapy across time points within 6 months of EOL. Cochran-Armitage test was used to evaluate temporal trends. Multilevel logistic models and intraclass correlation coefficient was used to evaluate variation in EOL chemotherapy use at the physician level., Results: From 2007 to 2013, chemotherapy within 14 days of EOL declined from 6.7% to 4.9% of patients ( P trend < .001; ∆ = -1.8%). Similar declines occurred for chemotherapy within 1 month ( P trend < .001; ∆ = -1.8%) and 2 months ( P trend < .001; ∆ = -1.3%) of EOL. In contrast, chemotherapy within 4 to 6 months of EOL rose ( P trend ≤ .04; ∆ = 0.7% to 1.7%), and 43.0% of all patients received chemotherapy within 6 months of EOL. Frequency of targeted therapy use across all time points within 6 months of EOL was stable to marginally rising from 2007 to 2013 ( P trend = .09 to .82; ∆ = -0.2% to 1.8%); overall, 1.2% received targeted therapy within 14 days and 3.6% within 1 month of EOL. By 2013, 13.2% of patients received any targeted therapy within 6 months of EOL. In a multilevel model, 5.19% (intraclass correlation coefficient) of variation in 14-day EOL chemotherapy was attributed to the physician level., Conclusion: With national benchmarking, chemotherapy within 14 days of EOL successfully declined to less than 5%, with comprehensive benchmark uptake by physicians. Results may inform current strategies to help to achieve high-value EOL oncology practice.

Purpose: Older women with nonmetastatic breast cancer can often choose from several surgery and radiation treatment options. Little is known regarding how these choices contribute to decisional regret, which is a negative emotion reflecting the idea that another surgery or radiation decision might have been preferable. We sought to characterize the burden of and examine potential risk factors for local therapy decisional regret among a population-based cohort of older breast cancer survivors., Methods and Materials: National Medicare claims for age ≥67 female breast cancer incident in 2009 identified patients treated with lumpectomy plus whole-breast irradiation, brachytherapy, or endocrine therapy or mastectomy with or without radiation. We sampled 330 patients per treatment group (N = 1650), of whom 1253 agreed to receive a paper survey including the Decisional Regret Scale and EQ-5D-3L Health-Utility Scale. Local therapy regret was defined as neutral or worse response to questions regarding surgery- or radiation-related decisional regret. Local therapy regret risk factors were evaluated using a multivariable generalized linear model. Association of local therapy regret with health utility was modeled using multivariable linear regression., Results: The response rate was 30.2% (n = 498 of 1650); 421 surveys were included in this analysis. Median diagnosis age was 72 years, and surveys were completed 6 years after diagnosis. Overall, 23.8% of respondents (n = 100) reported experiencing local therapy decisional regret. Type of local therapy was not associated with local therapy regret. Predictors of increased regret included black race (risk ratio [RR], 2.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.33-3.29), high school education or less (RR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.27-2.75), and axillary nodal dissection (RR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.33-3.41). Local therapy regret was not associated with health utility (P = .37)., Conclusions: Local therapy regret afflicts nearly one quarter of our cohort of older breast cancer survivors, and it is associated with black race, less education, and more extensive nodal dissection, but not breast surgery. Regret is distinct from health utility, suggesting that it is a unique psychosocial construct that merits further study and mitigation strategies., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To assess treatment patterns, outcomes, and costs for women with low-(LIR) and high-intermediate risk endometrial cancer (HIR) who are treated with and without adjuvant radiotherapy., Methods: All patients with stage I endometrioid endometrial cancer who underwent surgery from 2000 to 2011 were identified from the SEER-Medicare database. LIR was defined as G1-2 tumors with <50% myometrial invasion or G3 with no invasion. HIR was defined as G1-2 tumors with ≥50% or G3 with <50% invasion. Patients were categorized according to whether they received adjuvant radiotherapy (vaginal brachytherapy [VBT], external beam radiotherapy [EBRT], or both) or no radiotherapy. Outcomes were analyzed and compared (primary outcome was overall survival)., Results: 10,842 patients met inclusion criteria. In the LIR group (n = 7609), there was no difference in 10-year overall survival between patients who received radiotherapy and those who did not (67% vs 65%, adjusted HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.81-1.11). In the HIR group (n = 3233), patients who underwent radiotherapy had a significant increase in survival (60% vs 47%, aHR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67-0.85). Radiotherapy was associated with increased costs compared to surgery alone ($26,585 vs $16,712, p < .001). Costs for patients receiving VBT, EBRT, and concurrent VBT/EBRT were $24,044, $27,512, and $31,564, respectively (p < .001). Radiotherapy was associated with an increased risk of gastrointestinal (7 vs 4%), genitourinary (2 vs 1%), and hematologic (16 vs 12%) complications (p < .001)., Conclusions: Radiotherapy was associated with improved survival in women with HIR, but not in LIR. It also had increased costs and a higher morbidity risk. Consideration of observation without radiotherapy in LIR may be reasonable., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: Use of needle biopsy is a proposed quality measure in the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer, yet prior literature documents underuse. Nationally, little is known regarding the contribution of a patient's surgeon to needle biopsy use, and knowledge regarding downstream impact of needle biopsy on breast cancer care is incomplete., Methods: Using 2003 to 2007 nationwide Medicare data from 89,712 patients with breast cancer and 12,405 surgeons, logistic regression evaluated the following three outcomes: surgeon consultation before versus after biopsy, use of needle biopsy (yes or no), and number of surgeries for cancer treatment. Multilevel analyses were adjusted for physician, patient, and structural covariates., Results: Needle biopsy was used in 68.4% (n = 61,353) of all patients and only 53.7% of patients seen by a surgeon before biopsy (n = 32,953/61,312). Patient factors associated with surgeon consultation before biopsy included Medicaid coverage, rural residence, residence more than 8.1 miles from a radiologic facility performing needle biopsy, and no mammogram within 60 days before consultation. Among patients with surgeon consultation before biopsy, surgeon factors such as absence of board certification, training outside the United States, low case volume, earlier decade of medical school graduation, and lack of specialization in surgical oncology were negatively correlated with receipt of needle biopsy. Risk of multiple cancer surgeries was 33.7% for patients undergoing needle biopsy compared with 69.6% for those who did not (adjusted relative risk, 2.08; P < .001)., Conclusion: Needle biopsy is underused in the United States, resulting in a negative impact on breast cancer diagnosis and treatment. Surgeon-level interventions may improve needle biopsy rates and, accordingly, quality of care., (© 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Purpose: Women aged ≥ 75 years account for 40,000 breast cancers/yr and are the most rapidly growing demographic. Recent data demonstrated that breast cancer death rates in the US population are declining, but it is not known whether death rates have declined similarly for older and younger women. We examined the following two outcomes: the rate of breast cancer death in the general population and the risk of breast cancer death in newly diagnosed patients, and we compared change over time in these outcomes for older versus younger women., Methods: By using data from National Vital Statistics Reports that spanned from 1990 to 2007, the yearly change in the age-specific rate of breast cancer death was characterized with linear regression. With the use of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results nine-registry cohort that spanned from 1980 to 1997, the yearly change in age-specific risk of breast cancer death was characterized by using competing-risks regression adjusted for race and stage., Results: Relative to 1990, the rate of breast cancer death in the general population decreased by 2.5%/yr for women age 20 to 49 years, 2.1%/yr for women age 50 to 64 years, 2.0%/yr for women age 65 to 74 years, and 1.1%/yr for women age ≥ 75 years. From 1980 to 1997, the adjusted risk of breast cancer death in newly diagnosed patients decreased by 3.6%/yr for women age less than 75 years versus 1.3%/yr for women age ≥ 75 years (P < .001). Over this time interval, the 10-year absolute risk of breast cancer death decreased by 15.3% for women age 50 to 64 years (from 31.9% to 16.6%) but by only 7.5% (from 24.8% to 17.4%) for women age ≥ 75 years., Conclusion: Breast cancer outcomes have preferentially improved in women age less than 75 years. Focused research is needed to improve outcomes in older women.

Background: Although intensity modulation of the radiation beam has been shown to lower toxic effects for patients receiving whole-breast irradiation, relatively simple techniques may suffice. It is thus controversial whether such treatment justifies billing for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)., Methods: We used the claims data to determine billing for IMRT from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare records from 2001 to 2005 for 26,163 women aged 66 years or older with nonmetastatic breast cancer treated with surgery and radiotherapy. The impact of individual covariates (demographic, health services, tumor, and treatment factors) on cost of treatment was assessed using the Wilcoxon two-sample test. Two-sided multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors for IMRT use. Cost of radiation was calculated in 2005 dollars. All statistical tests were two-sided., Results: The number of patients with IMRT billing claims increased from 0.9% (49 of 5196) of patients diagnosed in 2001 to 11.2% (564 of 5020) in 2005. In multivariable analysis, IMRT billing was more likely for patients with left-sided tumors (odds ratio [OR] = 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.16 to 1.45), for those residing in a health service area with high radiation oncologist density (OR = 2.32, 95% CI = 1.47 to 3.68), for those treated at freestanding radiation centers (OR = 1.36, 95% CI = 1.20 to 1.53), or for those residing in regions where the Medicare intermediary allowed breast IMRT (OR = 10.87, 95% CI = 9.26 to 12.76, all P < .001). The mean cost of radiation was $7179 without IMRT and $15 230 with IMRT. IMRT adoption contributed to an increase in the mean cost of breast radiation from $6334 in 2001 to $8473 in 2005., Conclusions: IMRT billing increased 10-fold from 2001 through 2005, contributing to a 33% increase in the cost of breast radiation. These findings suggest that reimbursement policy and practice setting strongly influenced adoption of IMRT billing for breast cancer.

Introduction: The economic burden of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) came into sharp focus when the UK's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence denied coverage (later reversed) of sunitinib for metastatic RCC. Following an updated review of RCC-related economic studies, we supplemented the costs of RCC reported in the literature with estimates from the latest US databases that capture the utilization of several newly approved targeted agents., Method: We conducted analyses using the 1991-2007 SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results)-Medicare and 1996-2007 MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounter (CCAE) and Medicare Supplemental databases, and based our estimates on a prevalent cohort of patients with RCC or kidney cancer constructed from each database. All cost estimates were normalized to $US, year 2009 values. The incremental costing approach was applied to estimate the annual cost of RCC by treatment phases using a prevalent cohort of patients with RCC identified from the 2005 SEER-Medicare database. We used the method of extended estimation equations to estimate the impact of patients' use of targeted therapies on the annual costs of RCC, while controlling for confounding factors such as patients' age, sex, tumour characteristics, co-morbidity and geographic regions. The method was applied to two elderly cohorts of RCC patients identified from the SEER-Medicare and the MarketScan Medicare Supplemental databases and a non-elderly cohort of patients with RCC identified from the MarketScan CCAE database., Results: Compared with the cost of treating an elderly, non-cancer patient in the matched sample, the average cost of treating an elderly patient with RCC was $US11,169 (95% CI 10,683, 11,655) more per year, based on our analyses of the latest SEER-Medicare data. The annual cost to treat patients with RCC who received targeted therapies was 3- to 4-fold greater than the cost to treat patients with RCC who received other therapies. Results from the multivariate analysis showed that, after controlling for potential confounders, the annual medical cost was $US31,000-65,000 higher for RCC patients treated with targeted therapies, with the largest increase observed among the non-elderly patients., Conclusion: The economic burden of RCC is likely to grow with an increasing use of targeted therapies. Future research is needed to understand the impact of various forces on the economic burden of RCC, such as increased disease incidence, use of minimally invasive surgical techniques and more prevalent adoption of emerging targeted therapies.

Purpose: By 2030, the United States' population will increase to approximately 365 million, including 72 million older adults (age > or = 65 years) and 157 million minority individuals. Although cancer incidence varies by age and race, the impact of demographic changes on cancer incidence has not been fully characterized. We sought to estimate the number of cancer patients diagnosed in the United States through 2030 by age and race., Methods: Current demographic-specific cancer incidence rates were calculated using the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results database. Population projections from the Census Bureau were used to project future cancer incidence through 2030., Results: From 2010 to 2030, the total projected cancer incidence will increase by approximately 45%, from 1.6 million in 2010 to 2.3 million in 2030. This increase is driven by cancer diagnosed in older adults and minorities. A 67% increase in cancer incidence is anticipated for older adults, compared with an 11% increase for younger adults. A 99% increase is anticipated for minorities, compared with a 31% increase for whites. From 2010 to 2030, the percentage of all cancers diagnosed in older adults will increase from 61% to 70%, and the percentage of all cancers diagnosed in minorities will increase from 21% to 28%., Conclusion: Demographic changes in the United States will result in a marked increase in the number of cancer diagnoses over the next 20 years. Continued efforts are needed to improve cancer care for older adults and minorities.

Purpose: Optimal management of elderly patients with nonmetastatic esophageal cancer is unclear. Outcomes data after locoregional treatment are lacking for this group., Methods: We assessed outcomes associated with standard locoregional treatments in 2,626 patients (age > 65 years) from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare cohort diagnosed with nonmetastatic esophageal cancer from 1992 to 2002. In patients treated with radiotherapy alone (RT), surgery alone (S), chemoradiotherapy (CRT), or preoperative chemotherapy followed by surgery (CRT + S), overall and disease-free survival were compared using proportional hazards regression. Postoperative complications were compared using logistic regression., Results: Mean age was 76 +/- 6 years. Seven percent underwent CRT + S, 39% CRT, 30% S, and 24% RT. One-year survival was 68% (CRT + S), 52% (CRT), 53% (S), and 16% (RT), respectively (p < 0.001). Patients who underwent CRT + S demonstrated improved overall survival compared with S alone (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66-0.98; p = 0.03) and RT (HR = 0.44; 95% CI, 0.35-0.55; p < 0.0001); and comparable survival to CRT (HR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.67-1.01; p = 0.06). Patients who underwent CRT + S also had comparable postoperative mortality (HR = 0.96; 95% CI, 0.87-1.07; p = 0.45) and complications (OR = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.70-1.14; p = 0.36) compared with S alone., Conclusions: Preoperative chemoradiotherapy may be an acceptable treatment option in appropriately selected older esophageal cancer patients. This treatment modality did not appear to increase surgical complications and offered potential therapeutic benefit, particularly compared with surgery alone.

Purpose: Cerebrovascular disease is common in head and neck cancer patients, but it is unknown whether radiotherapy increases the cerebrovascular disease risk in this population., Patients and Methods: We identified 6,862 patients (age > 65 years) from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) -Medicare cohort diagnosed with nonmetastatic head and neck cancer between 1992 and 2002. Using proportional hazards regression, we compared risk of cerebrovascular events (stroke, carotid revascularization, or stroke death) after treatment with radiotherapy alone, surgery plus radiotherapy, or surgery alone. To further validate whether treatment groups had equivalent baseline risk of vascular disease, we compared the risks of developing a control diagnosis, cardiac events (myocardial infarction, percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass graft, or cardiac death). Unlike cerebrovascular risk, no difference in cardiac risk was hypothesized., Results: Mean age was 76 +/- 7 years. Ten-year incidence of cerebrovascular events was 34% in patients treated with radiotherapy alone compared with 25% in patients treated with surgery plus radiotherapy and 26% in patients treated with surgery alone (P < .001). After adjusting for covariates, patients treated with radiotherapy alone had increased cerebrovascular risk compared with surgery plus radiotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.77) and surgery alone (HR = 1.50; 95% CI, 1.18 to 1.90). However, no difference was found for surgery plus radiotherapy versus surgery alone (P = .60). As expected, patients treated with radiotherapy alone had no increased cardiac risk compared with the other treatment groups (P = .63 and P = .81)., Conclusion: Definitive radiotherapy for head and neck cancer, but not postoperative radiotherapy, was associated with excess cerebrovascular disease risk in older patients.

Purpose: Clinical trials and guidelines published between 1997 and 2001 concluded that postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) improves overall survival for women with high-risk breast cancer. However, the effect of these findings on current practice is not known. Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare cohort, we sought to characterize the adoption of PMRT from 1992 to 2002 and identify risk factors for PMRT omission among high-risk older patients., Methods and Materials: We identified 28,973 women aged > or =66 years who had been treated with mastectomy for invasive breast cancer between 1992 and 2002. Trends in the adoption of PMRT for low- (T1-T2N0), intermediate- (T1-T2N1), and high- (T3-T4 and/or N2-N3) risk patients were characterized using a Monte Carlo permutation algorithm. Multivariate logistic regression identified the risk factors for PMRT omission and calculated the adjusted use rates., Results: Postmastectomy radiotherapy use increased gradually and consistently for low-risk (+2.16%/y) and intermediate-risk (+7.20%/y) patients throughout the study interval. In contrast, PMRT use for high-risk patients increased sharply between 1996 and 1997 (+30.99%/y), but subsequently stabilized. Between 1998 and 2002, only 53% of high-risk patients received PMRT. The risk factors for PMRT omission included advanced age, moderate to severe comorbidity, smaller tumor size, fewer positive lymph nodes, and geographic region, with adjusted use rates ranging from 63.5% in San Francisco to 44.9% in Connecticut., Conclusion: Among the high-risk patients, PMRT use increased sharply in 1997 after the initial clinical trial publication. Despite subsequent guidelines recommending the use of PMRT, no further increase in PMRT use has occurred, and nearly 50% of high-risk patients still do not receive PMRT.

Background: For women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), radiation therapy after conservative surgery lowers the risk of recurrence. However, emerging evidence suggests that radiation therapy confers only a marginal absolute benefit for older women with DCIS. In a cohort of older women with DCIS, we sought to determine whether radiation therapy was associated with a clinically significant benefit., Methods: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database from January 1, 1992, through December 31, 1999, we identified 3409 women aged 66 years or older treated with conservative surgery for DCIS. A proportional hazards model tested whether radiation therapy was associated with a lower risk of a combined outcome, defined as a subsequent ipsilateral in situ or invasive breast cancer reported by SEER and/or a subsequent mastectomy reported by Medicare claims. The 5-year event risk was determined for patients without and with high-risk features, which were defined as at least one of the following: age 66-69 years, tumor larger than 2.5 cm, comedo histology, and/or high grade. All statistical tests were two-sided., Results: Radiation therapy was associated with a lower risk for each component of the combined outcome (hazard ratio = 0.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.24 to 0.44). For high-risk patients, the 5-year event risk was 13.6% without radiation therapy versus 3.8% with radiation therapy (difference = 9.8%, 95% CI = 6.5 to 13.2; P<.001). For low-risk patients, the 5-year event risk was 8.2% without radiation therapy versus 1.0% with radiation therapy (difference = 7.2%, 95% CI = 3.6 to 10.9; P<.001). Among healthy women aged 66-79 years, the number needed to treat with radiation therapy to prevent one event in 5 years was 11 for high-risk patients and 15-16 for low-risk patients., Conclusion: For older women with DCIS, radiation therapy appears to confer a substantial benefit that remains meaningful even among low-risk patients.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) occurs commonly in patients with cardiovascular disease. In addition, CKD is a risk factor for the development and progression of cardiovascular disease. In this advisory, we present recommendations for the detection of CKD in patients with cardiovascular disease. CKD can be reliably detected with the combined use of the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate and a sensitive test to detect microalbuminuria. All patients with cardiovascular disease should be screened for evidence of kidney disease with these two determinations.

Purpose: In ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast, conservative surgery plus radiotherapy (CS+RT) decreases risk of recurrence compared with CS alone. Although nearly one third of patients are reported as treated with CS alone, it is unclear whether this potentially "undertreated" group represents high- or low-risk patients. We evaluated national patterns of DCIS treatment from 1996 to 2001 by patient risk profile., Methods and Materials: In a retrospective cohort of DCIS patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data, patients were risk stratified on the basis of age at diagnosis, tumor grade, tumor size, and comedo histology. Treatment included CS alone, CS+RT, or mastectomy. Patients were followed for the development of ipsilateral invasive or in situ event., Results: Of 14,202 patients, 19% were low-risk, 46% moderate-risk, and 35% high-risk. A total of 28% received CS alone, 40% CS+RT, and 31% mastectomy. Overall, only 17% of high-risk patients but 44% of low-risk patients received CS alone (p < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, older age, smaller tumor size, and treatment in San Francisco/Los Angeles predicted treatment with CS alone (p < 0.01). Yet despite the tendency to receive CS alone, patients in San Francisco/Los Angeles did not experience an increased risk of ipsilateral event (hazard ratio = 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-1.12)., Conclusion: Patient risk profiles rationally affect treatment choice in DCIS patients, and the vast majority of high-risk patients do not receive CS alone. Additional follow up is needed to determine whether geographic variation in care influences long-term outcomes.

Background: Renal dysfunction predicts increased mortality in cardiovascular patients, but the best renal estimator for quantifying risks is uncertain. We compared admission serum urea nitrogen (SUN) level, creatinine level, Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) rate, and Mayo estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) for predicting mortality., Methods: In a retrospective cohort of Medicare patients (aged > or = 65 years) hospitalized for myocardial infarction (n = 44,437) and heart failure (n = 56,652), renal estimators were compared for linearity with 1-year mortality risk, magnitude of risk, and relative importance for predicting risk (percentage variance explained) in proportional hazards models., Results: The SUN level, creatinine level, and Mayo eGFR had linear associations with mortality. These measures predicted steadily increased risk in patients who experienced a myocardial infarction with a SUN level greater than 17 mg/dL (> 6.1 mmol/L), a creatinine level greater than 1.0 mg/dL (> 88.4 micromol/L), and a Mayo eGFR of less than 100 mL/min per 1.73 m2; and in patients who experienced heart failure with a SUN level greater than 16 mg/dL (> 5.7 mmol/L), a creatinine level greater than 1.1 mg/dL (> 97.2 micromol/L), and a Mayo eGFR of 90 mL/min per 1.73 m2 or less. In contrast, the MDRD eGFR had a J-shaped association and failed to identify increased risks in 50.0% of patients who experienced a myocardial infarction (with an MDRD eGFR > 55 mL/min per 1.73 m2) and 60.0% of patients who experienced heart failure (with an MDRD eGFR > 44 mL/min per 1.73 m2). The SUN level and Mayo eGFR had the greatest magnitude of risks. In myocardial infarction and heart failure patients, adjusted mortality increased by 3% and 7%, respectively, per 5-U increase in SUN, and by 3% and 9%, respectively, per 10-U decrease in Mayo eGFR (P<.001), based on models including both renal measures. Of all the measures, SUN had the greatest magnitude of relative importance for predicting mortality., Conclusions: In older cardiovascular patients, SUN- and creatinine-based measures were powerful predictors of postdischarge mortality. Only MDRD eGFR was less adequate in quantifying risks for patients with mild impairment. Novel estimators, such as the Mayo eGFR, may play an important role in outcomes' prognostication for these patients.

Background: Recent clinical trials have questioned the necessity of breast radiation therapy for older women with early breast cancer. However, the effectiveness of radiation therapy for older women in the community setting has not been addressed., Methods: We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database from January 1, 1992, through December 31, 1999, to identify 8724 women aged 70 years or older treated with conservative surgery for small, lymph node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive (or unknown receptor status) breast cancer. We used a proportional hazards model to test whether radiation therapy was associated with a lower risk of a combined outcome, defined as a second ipsilateral breast cancer reported by SEER and/or a subsequent mastectomy reported by Medicare claims. All statistical tests were two-sided., Results: Radiation therapy, compared with no radiation therapy, was associated with a lower risk of the combined outcome (hazard ratio = 0.19, 95% confidence interval = 0.14 to 0.28). Radiation therapy was associated with an absolute risk reduction of 4.0 events per 100 women at 5 years (i.e., from 5.1 events without radiation therapy to 1.1 with radiation therapy) and 5.7 events per 100 persons at 8 years (i.e., from 8.0 events without radiation therapy to 2.3 with radiation therapy) (P < .001, log-rank test). Radiation therapy was most likely to benefit those aged 70-79 years without comorbidity (number needed to treat [NNT] to prevent one event = 21 to 22 patients) and was least likely to benefit those aged 80 years or older with moderate to severe comorbidity (NNT = 61 to 125 patients)., Conclusion: For older women with early breast cancer, radiation therapy was associated with a lower risk of a second ipsilateral breast cancer and subsequent mastectomy. Patients aged 70-79 years with minimal comorbidity were the most likely to benefit, and older patients with substantial comorbidity were least likely to benefit.

Background: Recent reports have suggested that anemia is associated with adverse outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF), but were unable to adjust for a broad range of comorbid conditions. As a result, whether anemia is a truly independent predictor of risk or a marker of comorbid illness in these patients is unknown., Methods: We analyzed medical records from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' National Heart Care Project, a national sample of 50,405 patients 65 years and older admitted to acute care hospitals with a principal discharge diagnosis of HF between April 1, 1998, and March 31, 1999, or between July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2001. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to test whether hematocrit level was an independent predictor of all-cause mortality and HF-related readmission at 1 year., Results: In unadjusted analysis, lower hematocrit levels were associated with increased 1-year mortality and readmission for HF. Compared with patients with a hematocrit greater than 40% to 44%, those with a hematocrit of 24% or less had a 51% higher risk of death (relative risk [RR], 1.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.35-1.68; P<.001) and a 17% higher risk of HF-related readmission (RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.01-1.34; P = .04). However, after adjustment for multiple comorbidities and other clinical factors, the association between lower hematocrit levels and increased 1-year mortality was markedly attenuated, even in those patients with the most severe anemia (hematocrit, < or = 24% vs > 40%-44%: RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.86-1.19; P = .85). The association between lower hematocrit values and HF-related readmission persisted after multivariable adjustment (hematocrit, < or = 24% vs > 40%-44%: RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.04-1.38; P = .01)., Conclusions: Although anemia is an independent predictor of hospital readmission, its relationship with increased mortality in HF patients is largely explained by the severity of comorbid illness. These findings suggest that anemia may be predominantly a marker rather than a mediator of increased mortality risk in older patients with HF.

Purpose: To determine the relationship between the WHO and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) pathologic classifications for primary cutaneous B-cell lymphoma (CBCL) and the implication of this relationship on initial treatment., Patients and Methods: Patients with primary CBCL treated with radiotherapy were identified retrospectively. Initial biopsy specimens were reviewed by two dermatopathologists and classified according to the EORTC and WHO systems. Primary outcomes were recurrence-free and overall survival., Results: Thirty-four patients were identified; initial biopsy specimens were adequate for classification in 32 patients. Four different composite histopathologic subtypes of lymphoma were identified: 53% (17 of 32) follicle center cell by EORTC and diffuse large B-cell by WHO (FCC/DLB), 25% (eight of 32) follicle center cell by EORTC and follicular by WHO (FCC/Fol), 13% (four of 32) marginal zone by EORTC and WHO (MZ/MZ), and 9% (three of 32) large B-cell of the leg by EORTC and diffuse large B-cell by WHO (Leg/DLB). Five-year relapse-free survival ranged from 62% to 73% for FCC/DLB, FCC/Fol, and MZ/MZ but was 33% for Leg/DLB (P =.6). Five-year overall survival was 100% for FCC/DLB, FCC/Fol, and MZ/MZ but was 67% for Leg/DLB (P =.07). At 5 years, 21% of all patients had developed extracutaneous disease., Conclusion: Two-thirds of primary cutaneous FCC lymphomas by EORTC criteria satisfy WHO criteria for DLB lymphoma. Unlike DLB lymphoma presenting in nodal or noncutaneous sites, these lesions are associated with an indolent course and may be treated with local radiotherapy alone.

Context: Black patients hospitalized with heart failure reportedly receive poorer quality of care and have worse outcomes than white patients. Because previous studies have been based on selected patient populations treated more than a decade ago, it is unclear if racial differences in quality of care and outcomes currently exist in the United States., Objective: To evaluate differences in quality of care and patient outcomes between black and white Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized with heart failure., Design: Retrospective analysis of medical record data systematically collected for the National Heart Failure Project., Setting and Patients: Nationwide US sample of 29 732 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized with heart failure in 1998 and 1999., Main Outcome Measures: Prescription of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, measurement of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), readmission within 1 year of discharge, and mortality within 30 days and 1 year of admission., Results: Black patients and white patients had similar crude rates of LVEF assessment (67.8% black vs 66.6% white; P =.29). Among patients classified as ideal for ACE inhibitor use, black patients had higher crude rates of ACE inhibitor use than white patients (81.0% vs 73.8% white; P<.001) but had similar rates of ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) use (85.7% black vs 82.5% white; P =.08). After multivariable adjustment, black patients had comparable rates of LVEF assessment (risk ratio [RR], 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95-1.03). Black patients remained more likely to be prescribed ACE inhibitors (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.14-1.28) than were white patients in an adjusted analysis, but there were no significant racial differences in the prescription of ACE inhibitors or ARBs (black vs white, RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.97-1.07). Black patients had higher rates of readmission within 1 year of discharge (68.2% vs 63.0%; P<.001) but had lower crude 30-day (6.3% vs 10.7%; P<.001) and 1-year (31.5% vs 40.1%; P<.001) mortality rates than white patients. After multivariable adjustment, black patients had a slightly higher rate of readmission than white patients (RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.06-1.13) but remained at lower risk of 30-day mortality (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.68-0.91) and 1-year mortality (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88-0.98)., Conclusions: Black Medicare patients hospitalized with heart failure received comparable quality of care and had slightly higher rates of readmission but had lower mortality rates up to 1 year after hospitalization than did white patients.