Background: Practice patterns of radiation therapy (RT) use for soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) remain quite variable, despite clinical practice guidelines recommending the addition of RT to surgery for patients with high-grade STS, particularly for larger tumors. Using the National Cancer Database (NCDB), we assessed patterns of overall RT use, neoadjuvant versus adjuvant treatment, and specific RT modalities in this population. Patients and Methods: Patients aged ≥18 years with stage II/III STS in 2004 through 2015 were identified from the NCDB. Patterns of care were assessed using multivariable logistic regression analysis. Results: Of 27,426 total patients, 11,654 (42%) were treated with surgery alone versus 15,772 (58%) with RT in addition to surgery, with no overall increase in RT use over the study period. Notable clinical predictors of receipt of RT included tumor size (>5 cm), grade III, and tumors arising in the extremities. Conversely, female sex, older age (≥70 years), Black race, noncommercial insurance coverage, farther distance to treatment, and poor performance status were negative predictors of RT use. Of those receiving RT, 27% were treated with neoadjuvant RT and 73% with adjuvant RT. The proportion of those receiving neoadjuvant RT increased over time. Relevant factors associated with neoadjuvant RT included treatment at academic centers, larger tumor size, and extremity tumors. Of those who received RT with a modality specified as either intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) or 3D conformal RT (3DCRT), 61% were treated with IMRT and 39% with 3DCRT. The proportion of patients treated with IMRT increased over time. Relevant factors associated with IMRT use included treatment at academic centers, commercial insurance coverage, and larger and nonextremity tumors. Conclusions: Although use of neoadjuvant RT and IMRT has increased over time, a significant number of patients with STS are not receiving adjuvant or neoadjuvant RT. Our findings also note potential sociodemographic disparities and highlight the concern that not all patients with STS are being equally considered for RT.
You are looking at 11 - 20 of 3,203 items for
Vishruth K. Reddy, Varsha Jain, Sriram Venigalla, William P. Levin, Robert J. Wilson II, Kristy L. Weber, Anusha Kalbasi, Ronnie A. Sebro and Jacob E. Shabason
Ranee Mehra, Candice Yong, Brian Seal, Marjolijn van Keep, Angie Raad and Yiduo Zhang
Background: Durvalumab was approved by the FDA in February 2018 for patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC that has not progressed after platinum-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT), and this regimen is the current standard of care. The objective of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab following cCRT versus cCRT alone in patients with locally advanced, unresectable stage III NSCLC. Methods: A 3-state semi-Markov model was used. Modeling was performed in a US healthcare setting from Medicare and commercial payer perspectives over a 30-year time horizon. Clinical efficacy (progression-free and post progression survival) and utility inputs were based on PACIFIC study data (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02125461; data cutoff March 22, 2018). Overall survival extrapolation was validated using overall survival data from a later data cutoff (January 31, 2019). The main outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of durvalumab following cCRT versus cCRT alone, calculated as the difference in total costs between treatment strategies per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Results: In the base-case analysis, durvalumab following cCRT was cost-effective versus cCRT alone from Medicare and commercial insurance perspectives, with ICERs of $55,285 and $61,111, respectively, per QALY gained. Durvalumab was thus considered cost-effective at the $100,000 willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. Sensitivity analyses revealed the model was particularly affected by variables associated with subsequent treatment, although no tested variable increased the ICER above the WTP threshold. Scenario analyses showed the model was most sensitive to assumptions regarding time horizon, treatment effect duration, choice of fitted progression-free survival curve, subsequent immunotherapy treatment duration, and use of a partitioned survival model structure. Conclusions: In a US healthcare setting, durvalumab was cost-effective compared with cCRT alone, further supporting the adoption of durvalumab following cCRT as the new standard of care in patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC.
Eric J. Roeland and Richard F. Dunne
Johannes Uhlig, Michael Cecchini, Amar Sheth, Stacey Stein, Jill Lacy and Hyun S. Kim
Background: This study sought to assess microsatellite and KRAS status, prevalence, and impact on outcome in stage IV colorectal cancer (CRC). Materials and Methods: The 2010 to 2016 US National Cancer Database was queried for adult patients with stage IV CRC. Prevalence of microsatellite status (microsatellite instability–high [MSI-H] or microsatellite stable [MSS]) and KRAS status (KRAS mutation or wild-type) of the primary CRC was assessed. Overall survival (OS) was evaluated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models in patients with complete data on both microsatellite and KRAS status and information on follow-up. Results: Information on microsatellite and KRAS status was available for 10,844 and 25,712 patients, respectively, and OS data were available for 5,904 patients. The overall prevalence of MSI-H status and KRAS mutation was 3.1% and 42.4%, respectively. Prevalence of MSI-H ranged between 1.6% (rectosigmoid junction) and 5.2% (transverse colon), and between 34.7% (sigmoid colon) and 58.2% (cecum) for KRAS mutation. MSI-H rates were highest in East North Central US states (4.1%), and KRAS mutation rates were highest in West South Central US states (44.1%). Multivariable analyses revealed longer OS for patients with KRAS wild-type versus mutation status (hazard ratio [HR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85–0.97; P=.004), those with MSS versus MSI-H status (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62–0.9; P=.003), and those with left-sided versus right-sided CRC (multivariable HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.6–0.7; P<.001). The effect of KRAS mutation further varied with CRC site and microsatellite status (P=.002 for interaction). Conclusions: Depending on the primary site and US geography, stage IV CRC shows distinct mutational behavior. KRAS mutation, MSI-H, and primary CRC sidedness independently affect OS and interact with distinct prognostic profiles. Generically classifying adenocarcinomas at different sites as CRC might deprecate this diversity.
Featured Updates to the NCCN Guidelines
Edward Schaeffer, Sandy Srinivas, Emmanuel S. Antonarakis, Andrew J. Armstrong, Justin E. Bekelman, Heather Cheng, Anthony Victor D’Amico, Brian J. Davis, Neil Desai, Tanya Dorff, James A. Eastham, Thomas A. Farrington, Xin Gao, Eric Mark Horwitz, Joseph E. Ippolito, Michael R. Kuettel, Joshua M. Lang, Rana McKay, Jesse McKenney, George Netto, David F. Penson, Julio M. Pow-Sang, Robert Reiter, Sylvia Richey, Mack Roach, III, Stan Rosenfeld, Ahmad Shabsigh, Daniel E. Spratt, Benjamin A. Teply, Jonathan Tward, Dorothy A. Shead and Deborah A. Freedman-Cass
The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer address staging and risk assessment after a prostate cancer diagnosis and include management options for localized, regional, and metastatic disease. Recommendations for disease monitoring and treatment of recurrent disease are also included. The NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel meets annually to reevaluate and update their recommendations based on new clinical data and input from within NCCN Member Institutions and from external entities. This article summarizes the panel’s discussions for the 2021 update of the guidelines with regard to systemic therapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.
Deborah K. Armstrong, Ronald D. Alvarez, Jamie N. Bakkum-Gamez, Lisa Barroilhet, Kian Behbakht, Andrew Berchuck, Lee-may Chen, Mihaela Cristea, Maria DeRosa, Eric L. Eisenhauer, David M. Gershenson, Heidi J. Gray, Rachel Grisham, Ardeshir Hakam, Angela Jain, Amer Karam, Gottfried E. Konecny, Charles A. Leath III, Joyce Liu, Haider Mahdi, Lainie Martin, Daniela Matei, Michael McHale, Karen McLean, David S. Miller, David M. O’Malley, Sanja Percac-Lima, Elena Ratner, Steven W. Remmenga, Roberto Vargas, Theresa L. Werner, Emese Zsiros, Jennifer L. Burns and Anita M. Engh
Epithelial ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death from gynecologic cancer in the United States and is the country’s fifth most common cause of cancer mortality in women. A major challenge in treating ovarian cancer is that most patients have advanced disease at initial diagnosis. These NCCN Guidelines discuss cancers originating in the ovary, fallopian tube, or peritoneum, as these are all managed in a similar manner. Most of the recommendations are based on data from patients with the most common subtypes─high-grade serous and grade 2/3 endometrioid. The NCCN Guidelines also include recommendations specifically for patients with less common ovarian cancers, which in the guidelines include the following: carcinosarcoma, clear cell carcinoma, mucinous carcinoma, low-grade serous, grade 1 endometrioid, borderline epithelial, malignant sex cord-stromal, and malignant germ cell tumors. This manuscript focuses on certain aspects of primary treatment, including primary surgery, adjuvant therapy, and maintenance therapy options (including PARP inhibitors) after completion of first-line chemotherapy.