Search

Our purpose was to investigate the effect of physicist-patient consults on patient anxiety and patient satisfaction with a randomized prospective phase III clinical trial.Sixty-six patients were randomly assigned to the physics direct patient care (PDPC) arm or the control arm of the trial. Patients assigned to the PDPC arm received 2 physicist-patient consults to educate them on the technical aspects of their radiation therapy, while patients assigned to the control arm received the standard of care (ie, standard radiation therapy workflow without any additional physicist-patient consults). Questionnaires were administered to all patients at 4 time points (after enrollment, after the simulation, after the first treatment, and after the last treatment) to assess anxiety and satisfaction.The decrease in anxiety for the PDPC arm, compared with the control arm, was statistically significant at the first treatment (P = .027) time point. The increase in technical satisfaction for the PDPC arm, compared with the control arm, was statistically significant at the simulation (P = .005), first treatment (P.001), and last treatment (P = .002) time points. The increase in overall satisfaction for the PDPC arm, compared with the control arm, was statistically significant at the first treatment (P = .014) and last treatment (P = .001) time points.Physicist-patient consults improved the patient experience by decreasing anxiety and increasing satisfaction. Future work is needed to modify current radiation oncology workflows and medical physics responsibilities to allow all patients to benefit from this advancement in patient care.

PURPOSE Older hospitalized cancer patients face high risks of hospital mortality. Improved risk stratification could help identify high-risk patients who may benefit from future interventions, although we lack validated tools to predict in-hospital mortality for patients with cancer. We evaluated the ability of a high-dimensional machine learning prediction model to predict inpatient mortality and compared the performance of this model to existing prediction indices. METHODS We identified patients with cancer older than 75 years from the National Emergency Department Sample between 2016 and 2018. We constructed a high-dimensional predictive model called Cancer Frailty Assessment Tool (cFAST), which used an extreme gradient boosting algorithm to predict in-hospital mortality. cFAST model inputs included patient demographic, hospital variables, and diagnosis codes. Model performance was assessed with an area under the curve (AUC) from receiver operating characteristic curves, with an AUC of 1.0 indicating perfect prediction. We compared model performance to existing indices including the Modified 5-Item Frailty Index, Charlson comorbidity index, and Hospital Frailty Risk Score. RESULTS We identified 2,723,330 weighted emergency department visits among older patients with cancer, of whom 144,653 (5.3%) died in the hospital. Our cFAST model included 240 features and demonstrated an AUC of 0.92. Comparator models including the Modified 5-Item Frailty Index, Charlson comorbidity index, and Hospital Frailty Risk Score achieved AUCs of 0.58, 0.62, and 0.71, respectively. Predictive features of the cFAST model included acute conditions (respiratory failure and shock), chronic conditions (lipidemia and hypertension), patient demographics (age and sex), and cancer and treatment characteristics (metastasis and palliative care). CONCLUSION High-dimensional machine learning models enabled accurate prediction of in-hospital mortality among older patients with cancer, outperforming existing prediction indices. These models show promise in identifying patients at risk of severe adverse outcomes, although additional validation and research studying clinical implementation of these tools is needed.

Our primary analysis focused on radiation-treated cancer survivors alive at least 5 years from diagnosis. Supplemental Table S1 demonstrates the primary analysis where we vary the required length of survivorship from 1 to 10 years, focusing on the nine most common cancers.

Background: Although the number of cancer survivors has increased substantially over the past several decades, the composition of survivors treated with radiotherapy is not well defined. Radiotherapy carries unique long-term toxicity risks for cancer survivors. This study describes the current estimates and future projections of the epidemiology of 5-year cancer survivors who receive radiation therapy.Methods: We used cancer incidence and survival data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End-Results (SEER) database linked to U.S. Census data to estimate the number of 5-year cancer survivors treated with radiation between 2000 and 2030. Future projections assumed continuing incidence and survival trends based on historical rates.Results: In 2016, there were an estimated 3.05 million cancer survivors treated with radiation, accounting for 29% of all cancer survivors. The number of radiation-treated cancer survivors is projected to reach 3.38 million by 2020 and 4.17 million by 2030. In 2016, breast (40%) and prostate cancer (23%) composed the majority of radiation-treated survivors, followed by head and neck cancer (5.8%), lymphoma (5.6%), uterine (3.9%), and rectal cancer (3.8%). The percentage of 70 years or older radiation-treated survivors steadily increased between 2000 and 2030.Conclusions: The next several years are projected to see a large increase in the number of cancer survivors treated with radiation.Impact: This group of cancer survivors has unique needs given the long-term risks of radiation, and increased research and awareness are required to optimize health of this growing population. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(6); 963–70. ©2017 AACR.

Supplementary Data from Inhibition of mTOR Radiosensitizes Soft Tissue Sarcoma and Tumor Vasculature

BackgroundEarly experience with indocyanine green-based fluorescent cholangiography during laparoscopic cholecystectomy suggests the potential to improve outcomes. However, the cost-effectiveness of routine use has not been studied. Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of fluorescent cholangiography versus standard bright light laparoscopic cholecystectomy for noncancerous gallbladder disease.MethodsA Markov model decision analysis was performed comparing fluorescent cholangiography versus standard bright light laparoscopic cholecystectomy alone. Probabilities of outcomes, survival, toxicities, quality-adjusted life-years, and associated costs were determined from literature review and pooled analysis of currently available studies on fluorescent cholangiography (n= 37). Uncertainty in the model parameters was evaluated with 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, varying parameters up to 40% of their means. Cost-effectiveness was measured with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio expressed as the dollar amount per quality-adjusted life-year.ResultsThe model predicted that fluorescent cholangiography reduces lifetime costs by $1,235 per patient and improves effectiveness by 0.09 quality-adjusted life-years compared to standard bright light laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Reduced costs were due to a decreased operative duration (21.20 minutes, P < .0001) and rate of conversion to open (1.62% vs 6.70%, P < .0001) associated with fluorescent cholangiography. The model was not influenced by the rate of bile duct injury. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis found that fluorescent cholangiography was both more effective and less costly in 98.83% of model iterations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life year.ConclusionThe current evidence favors routine use of fluorescent cholangiography during laparoscopic cholecystectomy as a cost-effective surgical strategy. Our model predicts that fluorescent cholangiography reduces costs while improving health outcomes, suggesting fluorescence imaging may be considered standard surgical management for noncancerous gallbladder disease. Further study with prospective trials should be considered to verify findings of this predictive model.

To compare antimüllerian hormone (AMH) patterns by cancer status and treatment exposures across 6 years after incident breast cancer using administrative data.In a cross-sectional design, AMH levels in patients who developed incident breast cancer between ages 15-39 years during 2005-2019 were matched 1:10 to levels in females without cancer in the OptumLabs Data Warehouse. Modeled AMH patterns were compared among cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy, non-cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy, no chemotherapy, and no breast cancer groups.Commercially insured females in the United States.Females with and without breast cancer.Breast cancer, cyclophosphamide- and non-cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy.AMH levels.A total of 233 patients with breast cancer (mean age, 34 years; standard deviation, 3.7 years) contributed 278 AMH levels over a median of 2 years (range, 0-6.7 years) after diagnosis; 52% received cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy, 17% received non-cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy (80% platinum-based), and 31% received no chemotherapy. A total of 2,777 matched females without cancer contributed 2,780 AMH levels. The pattern of AMH levels differed among the 4 groups. Among females without cancer and breast cancer survivors who did not undergo chemotherapy, AMH declined linearly over time. In contrast, among those who received cyclophosphamide-based and noncyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy, a nonlinear pattern of AMH level of initial fall during chemotherapy, followed by an increase over 2-4 years, and then by a plateau over 1-2 years before a decline was observed.In breast cancer survivors, AMH levels from administrative data supported ovarian toxicity of non-cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy in breast cancer and efficiently depicted the timing and duration of changes in ovarian reserve to reflect the residual reproductive lifespan.

BACKGROUND Durable palliation of advanced lung cancer is a common objective for radiation oncologists. However, there is no consensus on how to deliver the radiation course. Herein we report our experience of using split course radiotherapy and our assessment of outcomes based on planning from three-dimensional (3D) simulation before each treatment course. METHODS All lung cancer patients from 2006-2020 were identified. Of these, 52 patients received a split course treatment of 50-60 Gy in 18-25 fractions intended to provide durable palliation for disease not amenable to curative therapy. Treatment involved 3D planning with repeat computed tomography (CT) simulation prior to the second course. Survival and symptomatic response were analyzed via chart review. We categorized rapid responders versus non-rapid responders from the initial radiation course based on ≥30% gross tumor volume (GTV) reduction at the second CT simulation. We evaluated the impact of response on overall survival and palliative response. RESULTS Among our cohort treated with split course palliative radiotherapy, 33 (63%) had a rapid response to initial treatment. There was no difference in survival between groups [hazard ratio (HR) =1.30, P=0.47]. There was no significant difference in palliative response rates between rapid and non-rapid responders. On multivariable analysis, only female sex (HR =0.26, P

More Americans are being screened for and more are surviving colorectal cancer due to advanced treatments and better quality of care; however, these benefits are not equitably distributed among diverse or older populations. Differential care delivery outcomes are driven by multiple factors, including access to timely treatment that comes from high-quality care coordination. Providers help ensure such coordinated care, which includes timely referrals to specialists. Variation in referrals between providers can also result in differences in treatment plans and outcomes. Patients who are more often referred between the same diagnosing and treating providers may benefit from more timely care compared to those who are not. Our objective is to examine patterns of referral, or patient-sharing networks (PSNs), and our outcome, treatment delay of 30-days (yes/no). We hypothesize that if a patient is in a PSN they will have lower odds of a 30-day treatment initiation delay. Our observational population-based analysis using the National Cancer Institute (NCI)-linked tumor registry and Medicare claims database includes records for 27,689 patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer from 2001 to 2013, and treated with either chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery. We modeled the adjusted odds of a delay and found 17.04% of patients experienced a 30-day delay in initial treatment. Factors that increased odds of a delay were lack of membership in a PSN (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 2.20; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.71-2.84), racial/ethnic minority status, and having multiple comorbidities. Provider characteristics significantly associated with greater odds of a delay were if dyads were not in the same facility (AOR: 1.95; 95% CI: 1.81-2.10), if providers were different genders, most notably male (diagnosing) and female (treating) [AOR: 1.23; 95% CI: 1.08-1.40

Background There is limited research on how the opioid epidemic and consequent risk reduction policies have affected pain management among cancer patients. The purpose of this study was to analyze how the Opioid Safety Initiative (OSI) implemented at the Veterans Health Administration affected opioid prescribing patterns and opioid-related toxicity. Methods We performed an interrupted time series analysis of 42 064 opioid-naïve patients treated at the Veterans Health Administration for prostate, lung, breast, and colorectal cancer from 2011 to 2016. Segmented regression was used to evaluate the impact of the OSI on the incidence of any new opioid prescriptions, high-risk prescriptions, persistent use, and pain-related emergency department (ED) visits. We compared the cumulative incidence of adverse opioid events including an opioid-related admission or diagnosis of misuse before and after the OSI. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results The incidence of new opioid prescriptions was 26.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 25.0% to 28.4%) in 2011 and increased to 50.6% (95% CI = 48.3% to 53.0%) by 2013 before OSI implementation (monthly rate of change: +3.3%, 95% CI = 1.3% to 4.2%, P Conclusions The OSI was associated with a relative decline in the rate of new, persistent, and certain high-risk opioid prescribing as well as a slight increase in the rate of pain-related ED visits. Further research on patient-centered outcomes is required to optimize opioid prescribing policies for patients with cancer.

PURPOSE Access to knowledge-based treatment plan quality control has been hindered by the complexity of developing models and integration with different treatment planning systems (TPS). Online Real-time Benchmarking Information Technology for RadioTherapy (ORBIT-RT) provides a free, web-based platform for knowledge-based dose estimation that can be used by clinicians worldwide to benchmark the quality of their radiotherapy plans. MATERIALS AND METHODS The ORBIT-RT platform was developed to satisfy four primary design criteria: web-based access, TPS independence, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliance, and autonomous operation. ORBIT-RT uses a cloud-based server to automatically anonymize a user's Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine for RadioTherapy (DICOM-RT) file before upload and processing of the case. From there, ORBIT-RT uses established knowledge-based dose-volume histogram (DVH) estimation methods to autonomously create DVH estimations for the uploaded DICOM-RT. ORBIT-RT performance was evaluated with an independent validation set of 45 volumetric modulated arc therapy prostate plans with two key metrics: (i) accuracy of the DVH estimations, as quantified by their error, DVHclinical − DVHprediction and (ii) time to process and display the DVH estimations on the ORBIT-RT platform. RESULTS ORBIT-RT organ DVH predictions show < 1% bias and 3% error uncertainty at doses > 80% of prescription for the prostate validation set. The ORBIT-RT extensions require 3.0 seconds per organ to analyze. The DICOM upload, data transfer, and DVH output display extend the entire system workflow to 2.5-3 minutes. CONCLUSION ORBIT-RT demonstrated fast and fully autonomous knowledge-based feedback on a web-based platform that takes only anonymized DICOM-RT as input. The ORBIT-RT system can be used for real-time quality control feedback that provides users with objective comparisons for final plan DVHs.

Background Open cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is associated with high morbidity, which limits the degree to which patients may benefit from this therapy. This study aimed to determine the feasibility of laparoscopic CRS/HIPEC. Methods This was a single institution prospective clinical trial and comparative study using historical controls. Patients with histologically confirmed peritoneal surface malignancy (PSM) of appendiceal, colorectal, ovarian, or primary peritoneal origin, peritoneal carcinomatosis index (PCI) $$\le$$ ≤ 10 were eligible. Results Clinical trial: 18 patients (median age 57 years, 39% female) with appendiceal (15) or colorectal (3) primary PSM underwent laparoscopic CRS/HIPEC. Median and range outcomes were: operative time 219 min (134–378), EBL 10 mL (0–100), time to return to bowel function 3 days (1–7), duration IV narcotic use 3 days (1–8), length of stay 6 days (3–11). All patients had a complete cytoreduction (CC-score 0). Three (17%) experienced minor morbidity, with no major morbidity or mortality. Median DFS and OS were not reached with median follow-up of 48 months. Comparative analysis: Laparoscopic approach associated with reduced time to return of bowel function (3 versus 4 days, p = 0.001), length of stay (8 versus 5 days, p p = 0.008). Independent predictors of DFS included prior chemotherapy (HR 5.07, 95% CI 1.85, 13.89; p = 0.002), and CC-score > 0 (HR 3.31, 95% CI 1.19, 9.41; p = 0.025), but not surgical approach. CC-score > 0 was the only independent predictor of OS (HR 10.12, 95% CI 2.16, 47.30, p = 0.003). Conclusions and relevance Laparoscopic CRS/HIPEC should be considered for patients with PSM with low-volume disease, including those with adenocarcinoma histology. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov; NCT02463877.

BACKGROUND This study was done to determine the representation of minorities, women, and the elderly in National Cancer Institute (NCI) clinical trials. METHODS This is an analysis in the NCI Clinical Data Update System. Patients were evaluated in breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer trials from 2000 to 2019. Representation in a trial was determined by race/ethnicity, sex, and age. Secondarily, the change in trial participation by multivariable analysis by comparing years 2000 through 2004 to 2015 through 2019 was evaluated. RESULTS The cohort included 242,720 participants: 197,320 Non-Hispanic White (81.3%), 21,190 Black (8.7%), 11,587 Hispanic (4.8%), and 6880 Asian/Pacific Islander (2.8%). Black and Hispanic patients were underrepresented for colorectal (odds ratio [OR], 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-0.67; P < .001 and OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64-0.87; P < .001, respectively), lung (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76-0.91; P < .001 and 0.66; 95% CI, 0.57-0.77; P < .001, respectively), and prostate cancer trials (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.92; P < .001 and OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.51-0.66; P < .001) between 2015 and 2019. The odds of participation in 2015 to 2019 increased among Black patients in breast (OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 2.07-%2.32; P < .001), lung (OR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.38-1.73; P < .001), and prostate cancer trials (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.04-1.26; P < .001). The odds of participation in a trial among Hispanic patients increased for breast (OR, 3.32; 95% CI, 3.09-3.56; P < .001), colorectal (OR, 2.46; 95% CI, 2.04-2.96; P < .001), lung (OR, 3.88; 95% CI, 3.20-4.69; P < .001), and prostate cancer (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.42-2.04; P = .005). CONCLUSIONS This study identified that Black and Hispanic patients remain underrepresented in trials, but in recent years, participation has increased. These findings indicate that minority participation has increased over time, but further efforts are needed.

Our purpose was to investigate the effect of automated knowledge-based planning (KBP) on real-world clinical workflow efficiency, assess whether manual refinement of KBP plans improves plan quality across multiple disease sites, and develop a data-driven method to periodically improve KBP automated planning routines.Using clinical knowledge-based automated planning routines for prostate, prostatic fossa, head and neck, and hypofractionated lung disease sites in a commercial KBP solution, workflow efficiency was compared in terms of planning time in a pre-KBP (n = 145 plans) and post-KBP (n = 503) patient cohort. Post-KBP, planning was initialized with KBP (KBP-only) and subsequently manually refined (KBP +human). Differences in planning time were tested for significance using a 2-tailed Mann-Whitney U test (P.05, null hypothesis: planning time unchanged). Post-refinement plan quality was assessed using site-specific dosimetric parameters of the original KBP-only plan versus KBP +human; 2-tailed paired t test quantified statistical significance (Bonferroni-corrected P.05, null hypothesis: no dosimetric difference after refinement). If KBP +human significantly improved plans across the cohort, optimization objectives were changed to create an updated KBP routine (KBP'). Patients were replanned with KBP' and plan quality was compared with KBP +human as described previously.KBP significantly reduced planning time in all disease sites: prostate (median: 7.6 hrs → 2.1 hrs; P.001), prostatic fossa (11.1 hrs → 3.7 hrs; P = .001), lung (9.9 hrs → 2.0 hrs; P.001), and head and neck (12.9 hrs → 3.5 hrs; P.001). In prostate, prostatic fossa, and lung disease sites, organ-at-risk dose changes in KBP +human versus KBP-only were minimal (1% prescription dose). In head and neck, KBP +human did achieve clinically relevant dose reductions in some parameters. The head and neck routine was updated (KBP'KBP increased clinical efficiency by significantly reducing planning time. On average, human refinement offered minimal dose improvements over KBP-only plans. In the single disease site where KBP +human was superior to KBP-only, differences were eliminated by adjusting optimization parameters in a revised KBP routine.

BACKGROUND Radiation therapy plays an important role for symptom palliation for intrathoracic malignancies ineligible for curative-intent therapy. Limited data exists regarding the role of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) versus conformal radiation in intrathoracic tumors for palliation. We report the efficacy of hypofractionated RT (or palliative SBRT) in the symptom management and durable control of lung and non-lung intrathoracic tumors. METHODS We performed a retrospective review of ninety-two thoracic lesions across 76 patients who completed palliative SBRT with doses ranging 25-50 Gy in 5-10 fractions between 2009 and 2019. Symptoms (cough, chest pain, hemoptysis, shortness of breath) were assessed at consult and 1-6 months follow-up. Local control was evaluated using follow-up CT imaging via RECIST criteria. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate symptom palliation and Kaplan-Meier method to analyze local control. RESULTS Of primary lung (Cohort P) lesions, 40% showed stable symptoms, 30% never developed symptoms, and 19% showed symptom relief. CT imaging 1-6 months post-SBRT showed 91% with partial response (PR) or stable disease (SD) in Cohort P and 87% with PR or SD in metastatic (Cohort M) lesions. In patients with initial PR/SD, local control until death was achieved in 71% of Cohort P and 84% of Cohort M. Of our symptomatic patients (Cohort S), 98% showed no symptom progression post-radiotherapy. All patients with hemoptysis at presentation achieved hemostasis post-radiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS Palliative SBRT has the advantage of higher biologic dose without protracted course for patients with limited prognosis. Patients showed significant symptom palliation and long-term local control. Palliative SBRT represents a reasonable treatment modality for incurable thoracic malignancies.

Background Watch and wait (WW) protocols have gained increasing popularity for patients diagnosed with locally advanced rectal cancer and presumed complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiation. While studies have demonstrated comparable survival and recurrence rates between WW and radical surgery, the decision to undergo surgery has significant effects on patient quality of life. We sought to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing WW with abdominoperineal resection (APR) and low anterior resection (LAR) among patients with stage II/III rectal cancer. Methods In this comparative-effectiveness study, we built Markov microsimulation models to simulate disease progression, death, costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for WW or APR/LAR. We assessed cost effectiveness using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), with ICERs under $100,000/QALY considered cost effective. Probabilities of disease progression, death, and health utilities were extracted from published, peer-reviewed literature. We assessed costs from the payer perspective. Results WW dominated both LAR and APR at a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000. Our model was most sensitive to rates of distant recurrence and regrowth after WW. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that WW was the dominant strategy over both APR and LAR over 100% of iterations across a range of WTP thresholds from $0–250,000. Conclusions Our study suggests WW could reduce overall costs and increase effectiveness compared with either LAR or APR. Additional clinical research is needed to confirm the clinical efficacy and cost effectiveness of WW compared with surgery in rectal cancer.

ImportancePrimary care physicians (PCPs) are significant contributors of early cancer detection, yet few studies have investigated whether consistent primary care translates to improved downstream outcomes.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association of prediagnostic primary care use with metastatic disease at diagnosis and cancer-specific mortality (CSM).Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cohort study used databases with primary care and referral linkage from multiple Veterans’ Affairs centers from 2004 to 2017 and had a 68-month median follow-up. Analysis was completed between July 2021 and September 2022. Participants included veterans older than 39 years who had been diagnosed with 1 of 12 cancers. Inclusion criteria included known clinical staging, survival follow-up, cause of death, and receiving care at the Veterans Affairs health system (VA).ExposuresPrediagnostic PCP use, measured in the 5 years prior to diagnosis. PCP visits were binned into none (0 visits), some (1-4 visits), and annual (5 visits).Main Outcomes and MeasuresMetastatic disease at diagnosis, cancer-specific mortality (CSM) for entire cohort and stratified by tumor subtype.ResultsAmong 245 425 patients representing 12 tumor subtypes, mean age was 65.8 (9.3) years, and the cohort skewed male (97.6%), and White (76.1%), with higher levels of comorbidity (58.6% with Charlson Comorbidity Index scores ≥2). Compared with no prior visit, some PCP use was associated with 26% decreased odds of metastatic disease at diagnosis (odds ratio [OR], 0.74; 95% CI, 0.71-0.76; P P P P P P Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, increased primary care use before cancer diagnosis was associated with significant decreases in metastatic disease at diagnosis and cancer-related death, with potentially the greatest difference from annual use. PCPs play a vital role in cancer prevention, and additional resources should be allocated to assist these physicians.

Clinician generated segmentation of tumor and healthy tissue regions of interest (ROIs) on medical images is crucial for radiotherapy. However, interobserver segmentation variability has long been considered a significant detriment to the implementation of high-quality and consistent radiotherapy dose delivery. This has prompted the increasing development of automated segmentation approaches. However, extant segmentation datasets typically only provide segmentations generated by a limited number of annotators with varying, and often unspecified, levels of expertise. In this data descriptor, numerous clinician annotators manually generated segmentations for ROIs on computed tomography images across a variety of cancer sites (breast, sarcoma, head and neck, gynecologic, gastrointestinal; one patient per cancer site) for the Contouring Collaborative for Consensus in Radiation Oncology challenge. In total, over 200 annotators (experts and non-experts) contributed using a standardized annotation platform (ProKnow). Subsequently, we converted data into NIfTI format with standardized nomenclature for ease of use. In addition, we generated consensus segmentations for experts and non-experts using the STAPLE method. These standardized, structured, and easily accessible data are a valuable resource for systematically studying variability in segmentation applications.

OBJECTIVEContouring Collaborative for Consensus in Radiation Oncology (C3RO) is a crowdsourced challenge engaging radiation oncologists across various expertise levels in segmentation. A challenge in artificial intelligence (AI) development is the paucity of multi-expert datasets; consequently, we sought to characterize whether aggregate segmentations generated from multiple non-experts could meet or exceed recognized expert agreement.MATERIALS AND METHODSParticipants who contoured ≥1 region of interest (ROI) for the breast, sarcoma, head and neck (H&N), gynecologic (GYN), or gastrointestinal (GI) challenge were identified as a non-expert or recognized expert. Cohort-specific ROIs were combined into single simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE) consensus segmentations. STAPLEnon-expert ROIs were evaluated against STAPLEexpert contours using Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC). The expert interobserver DSC (IODSCexpert) was calculated as an acceptability threshold between STAPLEnon-expert and STAPLEexpert. To determine the number of non-experts required to match the IODSCexpert for each ROI, a single consensus contour was generated using variable numbers of non-experts and then compared to the IODSCexpert.RESULTSFor all cases, the DSC for STAPLEnon-expert versus STAPLEexpert were higher than comparator expert IODSCexpert for most ROIs. The minimum number of non-expert segmentations needed for a consensus ROI to achieve IODSCexpert acceptability criteria ranged between 2-4 for breast, 3-5 for sarcoma, 3-5 for H&N, 3-5 for GYN ROIs, and 3 for GI ROIs.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONMultiple non-expert-generated consensus ROIs met or exceeded expert-derived acceptability thresholds. 5 non-experts could potentially generate consensus segmentations for most ROIs with performance approximating experts, suggesting non-expert segmentations as feasible cost-effective AI inputs.

This cohort study examines the associations of multiple social risk factors with mortality risk among patients newly diagnosed with cancer in the US.

Background Adjuvant ipilimumab was found to improve the overall survival and reduce toxicity compared to high‐dose interferon (HDI) in patients with resected, high‐risk melanoma. However, the cost of ipilimumab is substantially higher than HDI. This study evaluates the cost‐effectiveness of ipilimumab as an adjuvant treatment in melanoma from a healthcare perspective. Methods We designed a Markov model simulating resected, high‐risk melanoma patients receiving either ipilimumab or HDI. Transition probabilities, including risks of survival, disease progression, and toxicity, were ascertained from clinical trial data. Costs and quality of life measurements (health utilities) were extracted from the literature. Incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios (ICERs), defined as incremental costs divided by incremental quality‐adjusted life‐years (QALYs), assessed cost‐effectiveness. ICERs, Ipilimumab is not a cost‐effective adjuvant treatment option compared with high‐dose interferon for resected, high‐risk melanoma. The cost of ipilimumab would have to decrease substantially to reach cost‐effectiveness.

Background: Colorectal cancer is curable if diagnosed early and treated properly. Black and Hispanic patients with colorectal cancer are more likely to experience treatment delays and/or receive lower standards of care. Socioeconomic deprivation may contribute to these disparities, but this has not been extensively quantified. We studied the interrelationship between patient race/ethnicity and neighborhood socioeconomic status (nSES) on receipt of timely appropriate treatment among patients with colorectal cancer in California. Methods: White, Black, and Hispanic patients (26,870) diagnosed with stage I–III colorectal cancer (2009–2013) in the California Cancer Registry were included. Logistic regression models were used to examine the association of race/ethnicity and nSES with three outcomes: undertreatment, >60-day treatment delay, and >90-day treatment delay. Joint effect models and mediation analysis were used to explore the interrelationships between race/ethnicity and nSES. Results: Hispanics and Blacks were at increased risk for undertreatment [Black OR = 1.39; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.23–1.57; Hispanic OR = 1.17; 95% CI = 1.08–1.27] and treatment delay (Black/60-day OR = 1.78; 95% CI = 1.57–2.02; Hispanic/60-day OR = 1.50; 95% CI = 1.38–1.64) compared with Whites. Of the total effect (OR = 1.15; 95% CI = 1.07–1.24) of non-white race on undertreatment, 45.71% was explained by nSES. Conclusions: Lower nSES patients of any race were at substantially higher risk for undertreatment and treatment delay, and racial/ethnic disparities are reduced or eliminated among non-white patients living in the highest SES neighborhoods. Racial and ethnic disparities persisted after accounting for neighborhood socioeconomic status, and between the two, race/ethnicity explained a larger portion of the total effects. Impact: This research improves our understanding of how socioeconomic deprivation contributes to racial/ethnic disparities in colorectal cancer.

The 2018 US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines recommend individualizing prostate cancer screening in 55- to 69-year-old men. Given the higher incidence of prostate cancer in African American (AA) compared to non-Hispanic White (NHW) men, this study compared reported rates of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening hypothesizing that it would not be commensurate with the relative risk between these two groups.Using the 2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, we identified 43,685 men (40,301 NHW and 3384 AA) interviewed about PSA screening.AA men had an odds ratio (OR) of 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-0.93; p = .004) of reporting PSA screening; sequentially correcting for access to care, smoking, and age had minimal effect on this finding, but when correcting for income significantly attenuated this difference (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.81-1.12). Further adding education level eliminated the effect size of AA race entirely with OR, 0.99 (95% CI, 0.84-1.17; p = .91). Further analysis found significant interaction between education and race, with college-educated AA men having 1.42 OR of receiving screening compared to college-educated NHW men.Despite prostate cancer being more common and having higher population-level mortality in AA than NHW men, PSA screening and education patterns do not reflect this increased risk even when adjusting for health access disparities. The authors' findings of significant effect from both income and education suggest that systemic racism is an important factor in the observed difference in PSA screening between AA men and NHW men.In the United States, prostate cancer is more common in African American men New guidelines from 2018 encourage physicians to consider risk factors in deciding whether or not to recommend screening, but overall African American men continue to be screened at a lower rate than non-Hispanic White men This effect disappears when correcting for income and education level, suggesting that several factors including systemic racism, medical mistrust, and self-advocacy may impact this observed difference.

Background Increased risk of a second primary malignancy (SPM) before or after diagnosis of anal squamous cell carcinoma (ASCC) has been reported in a previous single‐institution study. We hypothesize that patients diagnosed with ASCC are at increased risk for developing SPMs before or after the diagnosis of ASCC. The primary objective of this study was to identify the diagnoses of cancer most likely to occur as SPMs before or after ASCC. Methods This work employs the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program registry data to conduct a US‐population‐based study of patients diagnosed with ASCC between 1975 and 2016. In patients diagnosed with ASCC, we evaluated the risk of SPMs and the risk of developing ASCC as an SPM after another cancer using standardized incidence ratios (SIR) for all SPMs by calculating the ratio of observed events in the ASCC cohort compared to expected (O/E) events in a matched reference cohort of the general population. Results A total of 7,594 patients with primary ASCC were included. Patients with ASCC were at increased risk of the diagnosis of an SPM (SIR = 1.45), particularly cancers of the lung, vulva, oropharynx, or colon. Patients with ASCC had an increased rate of previous malignancy (SIR = 1.23), especially Kaposi sarcoma or vulvar cancer. Overall elevated incidence of SPMs was unrelated to prior radiation treatment. Radiation treatment was associated with increased risk for SPMs in the female genital system but appeared protective against prostate cancer as SPMs. Conclusions Our findings support increased surveillance and screening for second malignancies in patients with these diagnoses, as patients with ASCC are often either survivors of a prior cancer diagnosis or are at increased risk of developing later malignancies., Survivors of anal squamous cell carcinoma are at increased risk for particular second malignancies and should be screened for these. Risk of second malignancies is sometimes related to radiation therapy, but radiation can also be protective against second cancers in some cases.

Objective Moyamoya disease (MMD) is a vasculopathy of the internal carotid arteries with ischemic and hemorrhagic sequelae. Surgical revascularization confers upfront peri-procedural risk and costs in exchange for long-term protective benefit against hemorrhagic disease. The authors present a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of surgical versus non-surgical management of MMD. Methods A Markov Model was used to simulate a 41-year-old suffering a transient ischemic attack (TIA) secondary to MMD and now faced with operative versus nonoperative treatment options. Health utilities, costs, and outcome probabilities were obtained from the CEA registry and the published literature. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio which compared the quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs of surgical and nonsurgical treatments. Base-case, one-way sensitivity, two-way sensitivity, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed with a willingness to pay threshold of $50,000. Results The base case model yielded 3.81 QALYs with a cost of $99,500 for surgery, and 3.76 QALYs with a cost of $106,500 for nonsurgical management. One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated the greatest sensitivity in assumptions to cost of surgery and cost of admission for hemorrhagic stroke, and probabilities of stroke with no surgery, stroke after surgery, poor surgical outcome, and death after surgery. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that surgical revascularization was the cost-effective strategy in over 87.4% of simulations. Conclusions Considering both direct and indirect costs and the postoperative QALY, surgery is considerably more cost-effective than non-surgical management for adults with MMD.

Background: There is inconsistent evidence that palliative care intervention decreases total healthcare expenditure at end-of-life for oncology patients. This inconsistent evidence may result from small sample sizes at single institution studies and disparate characterization of costs across studies. Comprehensive studies in population-based datasets are needed to fully understand the impact of palliative care on total healthcare costs. This study analyzed the impact of palliative care on total healthcare costs in a nationally representative sample of advanced cancer patients. Methods: We conducted a matched cohort study among Medicare patients with metastatic lung, colorectal, breast and prostate cancers. We matched patients who received a palliative care consultation to similar patients who did not receive a palliative care consultation on factors related to both the receipt of palliative care and end of life costs. We compared direct costs between matched patients to determine the per-patient economic impact of a palliative care consultation. Results: Patients who received a palliative care consultation experienced an average per patient cost of $5,834 compared to $7,784 for usual care patients (25% decrease; p < 0.0001). Palliative care consultation within 7 days of death decreased healthcare costs by $451, while palliative care consultation more than 4 weeks from death decreased costs by $4,643. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that palliative care has the capacity to substantially reduce healthcare expenditure among advanced cancer patients. Earlier palliative care consultation results in greater cost reductions than consultation in the last week of life.