Search

BackgroundYoung adults and other working-age adults with cancer are at risk for cancer-related financial toxicity (FT), including material hardships, depletion of coping resources, and psychological burden. This study compares FT domains in young adults (18-39 years old) (YAs), other working-age adults (40-64 years old), and older adults (≥65 years old) receiving cancer care.MethodsA total of 311 adults were surveyed using the multi-domain Economic Strain and Resilience in Cancer instrument measuring FT (0-10 score indicating least to greatest FT; score ≥5 severe FT). Participants were receiving ambulatory care from March-September 2019. Associations of age with overall FT and material hardship, coping resource depletion, and psychological burden FT domains were tested using Kruskal-Wallis and χ2 tests and multivariable generalized linear models with gamma distribution.ResultsYAs (median age, 31.5 years) comprised 9.6% of the sample; other working-age adults comprised 56.9%. Overall, material, coping, and psychological FT scores were worse in younger age adults versus older adults (P

PurposeLeaders 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 materialsThe 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.ResultsChallenges 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.ConclusionsDiscussions 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.

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]

Background Traditional constraints specify that 700 cc of liver should be spared a hepatotoxic dose when delivering liver-directed radiotherapy to reduce the risk of inducing liver failure. We investigated the role of single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) to identify and preferentially avoid functional liver during liver-directed radiation treatment planning in patients with preserved liver function but limited functional liver volume after receiving prior hepatotoxic chemotherapy or surgical resection. Methods This phase I trial with a 3 + 3 design evaluated the safety of liver-directed radiotherapy using escalating functional liver radiation dose constraints in patients with liver metastases. Dose-limiting toxicities were assessed 6-8 weeks and 6 months after completing radiotherapy. Results All 12 patients had colorectal liver metastases and received prior hepatotoxic chemotherapy; 8 patients underwent prior liver resection. Median computed tomography anatomical nontumor liver volume was 1584 cc (range = 764-2699 cc). Median SPECT functional liver volume was 1117 cc (range = 570-1928 cc). Median nontarget computed tomography and SPECT liver volumes below the volumetric dose constraint were 997 cc (range = 544-1576 cc) and 684 cc (range = 429-1244 cc), respectively. The prescription dose was 67.5-75 Gy in 15 fractions or 75-100 Gy in 25 fractions. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed during follow-up. One-year in-field control was 57%. One-year overall survival was 73%. Conclusion Liver-directed radiotherapy can be safely delivered to high doses when incorporating functional SPECT into the radiation treatment planning process, which may enable sparing of lower volumes of liver than traditionally accepted in patients with preserved liver function. Trial registration NCT02626312. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: This survey study investigates long-term patient-reported quality of life for individuals with low-lying rectal cancers, particularly focusing on the potential impact that ostomies may have on overall, sexual, and urinary quality of life. The findings suggest that patients with ostomies may experience a worse quality of life, affecting various aspects of daily life and relationships. These insights may help to inform patient counseling and shared decision making in the context of evolving rectal cancer treatment paradigms where patients have increasing multidisciplinary options. Background: Despite the increasing utilization of sphincter and/or organ-preservation treatment strategies, many patients with low-lying rectal cancers require abdominoperineal resection (APR), leading to permanent ostomy. Here, we aimed to characterize overall, sexual-, and bladder-related patient-reported quality of life (QOL) for individuals with low rectal cancers. We additionally aimed to explore potential differences in patient-reported outcomes between patients with and without a permanent ostomy. Methods: We distributed a comprehensive survey consisting of various patient-reported outcome measures, including the FACT-G7 survey, ICIQ MLUTS/FLUTS, IIEF-5/FSFI, and a specific questionnaire for ostomy patients. Descriptive statistics and univariate comparisons were used to compared demographics, treatments, and QOL scores between patients with and without a permanent ostomy. Results: Of the 204 patients contacted, 124 (60.8%) returned completed surveys; 22 (18%) of these had a permanent ostomy at the time of survey completion. There were 25 patients with low rectal tumors (≤5 cm from the anal verge) who did not have an ostomy at the time of survey completion, of whom 13 (52%) were managed with a non-operative approach. FACTG7 scores were numerically lower (median 20.5 vs. 22, p = 0.12) for individuals with an ostomy. Sexual function measures IIEF and FSFI were also lower (worse) for individuals with ostomies, but the results were not significantly different. MLUTS and FLUTS scores were both higher in individuals with ostomies (median 11 vs. 5, p = 0.06 and median 17 vs. 5.5, p = 0.01, respectively), suggesting worse urinary function. Patient-reported ostomy-specific challenges included gastrointestinal concerns (e.g., gas, odor, diarrhea) that may affect social activities and personal relationships. Conclusions: Despite a limited sample size, this study provides patient-centered, patient-derived data regarding long-term QOL in validated measures following treatment of low rectal cancers. Ostomies may have multidimensional negative impacts on QOL, and these findings warrant continued investigation in a prospective setting. These results may be used to inform shared decision making for individuals with low rectal cancers in both the settings of organ preservation and permanent ostomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]