Whether clinical cancer research currently focuses on gaps in the evidentiary basis for clinical guidelines and/or on cancers that impose greater societal burden is unclear. This study assessed the relationship between cancer research efforts in terms of planned randomized controlled trial (RCT) enrollment, objective measures of evidence quality, and a cancer’s burden on society. The authors calculated the planned RCT enrollment listed on ClinicalTrials.gov for the 17 most prevalent solid cancers. Using cancer type as the unit of analysis, linear regression was used to examine the association between planned enrollment in RCTs and 1) evidence quality, as measured by the absolute number and percent of highest quality category (category 1 [C1]) recommendations in the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for each cancer, and 2) measures of burden on society, including prevalence, incidence, person-years of life lost (PYLL), and disability-adjusted life years (DALY). Non-normal distributions were log transformed when appropriate. Overall, 15% of the NCCN recommendations were based on the highest quality evidence. Results produced 1260 RCTs. Planned RCT enrollment ranged from 2270 (testis) to 492,876 (breast) and was correlated neither with absolute number nor percent of C1 recommendations for that cancer. Planned RCT enrollment was positively correlated with a cancer’s prevalence (P=.01), incidence (P<.01), PYLL (P<.01), and DALY (P<0.01). In multivariate analysis, prevalence (P<.01) and PYLL (P<.01) had the strongest association with planned RCT enrollment. Findings showed, therefore, that planned cancer RCT enrollment is associated with higher societal disease burden, not the quality of a cancer’s clinical guidelines.
Shane Lloyd, Daniela L. Buscariollo, Cary P. Gross, Danil V. Makarov and James B. Yu
Shi-Yi Wang, Tiange Chen, Weixiong Dang, Sarah S. Mougalian, Suzanne B. Evans and Cary P. Gross
Background: Literature suggests that Oncotype DX (ODX) is cost-effective. These studies, however, tend to ignore clinical characteristics and have not incorporated population-based data regarding the distribution of ODX results across different clinical risk groups. Accordingly, this study assessed the cost-effectiveness of ODX across strata of clinical risk groups using population-based ODX data. Methods: We created state-transition models to calculate costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained over the lifetime for women with estrogen receptor (ER)–positive, HER2-negative, lymph node–negative breast cancer from a US payer perspective. Using the Connecticut Tumor Registry, we classified the 2,245 patients diagnosed in 2011 through 2013 into 3 clinical risk groups according to the PREDICT model, a risk calculator developed by the National Health Service in the United Kingdom. Within each risk group, we then determined the recurrence score (RS) distributions (<18, 18–30, and ≥31). Other input parameters were derived from the literature. Uncertainty was assessed using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results: Approximately 82.5%, 11.9%, and 5.6% of our sample were in the PREDICT low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively. When combining these 3 groups, ODX had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $62,200 per QALY for patients aged 60 years. The ICERs, however, differed across clinical risk groups, ranging from $124,600 per QALY in the low-risk group, to $28,700 per QALY in the intermediate-risk group, to $15,700 per QALY in the high-risk group. Results were sensitive to patient age: the ICER for patients aged 45 to 75 years ranged from $77,100 to $344,600 per QALY in the PREDICT low-risk group, and was lower than $100,000 per QALY in the intermediate- and high-risk groups. Conclusions: ODX is not cost-effective for women with clinical low-risk breast cancer, which constitutes most patients with ER-positive disease.
Shi-Yi Wang, Jane Hall, Craig E. Pollack, Kerin Adelson, Amy J. Davidoff, Jessica B. Long and Cary P. Gross
Background: The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which patterns of intensive end-of-life care explain geographic variation in end-of-life care expenditures among cancer decedents. Methods: Using the SEER-Medicare database, we identified 90,465 decedents who were diagnosed with cancer in 2004–2011. Measures of intensive end-of-life care included chemotherapy received within 14 days of death; more than 1 emergency department visit, more than 1 hospitalization, or 1 or more intensive care unit (ICU) admissions within 30 days of death; in-hospital death; and hospice enrollment less than 3 days before death. Using hierarchical generalized linear models, we estimated risk-adjusted expenditures in the last month of life for each hospital referral region and identified key contributors to variation in expenditures. Results: The mean expenditure per cancer decedent in the last month of life was $10,800, ranging from $8,300 to $15,400 in the lowest and highest expenditure quintile areas, respectively. There was considerable variation in the percentage of decedents receiving intensive end-of-life care intervention, with 41.7% of decedents receiving intensive care in the lowest quintile of expenditures versus 57.9% in the highest quintile. Regional patterns of late chemotherapy or late hospice use explained only approximately 1% of the expenditure difference between the highest and lowest quintile areas. In contrast, the proportion of decedents who had ICU admissions within 30 days of death was a major driver of variation, explaining 37.6% of the expenditure difference. Conclusions: Promoting appropriate end-of-life care has the potential to reduce geographic variation in end-of-life care expenditures.
Scott F. Huntington, Jessica R. Hoag, Rong Wang, Amer M. Zeidan, Smith Giri, Steven D. Gore, Xiaomei Ma, Cary P. Gross and Amy J. Davidoff
Background: Provider experience, or clinical volume, is associated with improved outcomes in many complex healthcare settings. Despite increased complexity of anticancer therapies, studies evaluating physician-level experience and cancer treatment outcomes are lacking. Methods: A population-based study was conducted of older adults (aged ≥66 years) diagnosed with B-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in 2004 through 2011 using SEER-Medicare data. Analysis focused on outcomes in patients receiving rituximab, the first approved monoclonal anticancer immunotherapy. We hypothesized that lower physician experience using rituximab and managing its infusion-related reactions would be associated with early treatment discontinuation. A 12-month look-back from each initiation of rituximab was used to categorize physician volume (0, 1–2, or ≥3 initiations per year). Modified Poisson regression was used to account for provider-level correlation and estimated relative risk (RR) of early rituximab discontinuation (<3 cycles within 180 days of rituximab initiation). Cox proportional hazards were used to measure the impact of rituximab discontinuation on survival. Results: Among 15,110 patients who initiated rituximab with 2,684 physicians, 7.6% experienced early rituximab discontinuation. Approximately one-fourth of patients (26.1%) initiated rituximab with a physician who had no rituximab initiations during the preceding 12 months. Compared with patients treated by physicians who had ≥3 rituximab initiations in the prior year, those treated by physicians without initiations were 57% more likely to experience early discontinuation (adjusted RR [aRR], 1.57; 95% CI, 1.35–1.82; P<.001 for 0 vs ≥3, and aRR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.03–1.37; P=.02 for 1–2 vs ≥3). Additionally, rituximab discontinuation was associated with higher risk of death (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.28–1.52; P<.001). Conclusions: Lower oncologist experience with rituximab was associated with increased risk of early rituximab discontinuation in Medicare beneficiaries with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Physician-level volume may be an important factor in providing high-quality cancer care in the modern era.
Brigette A. Davis, Jenerius A. Aminawung, Maysa M. Abu-Khalaf, Suzanne B. Evans, Kevin Su, Rajni Mehta, Shi-Yi Wang and Cary P. Gross
Background: Racial disparities have been reported in breast cancer care, yet little is known about disparities in access to gene expression profiling (GEP) tests. Given the impact of GEP test results, such as those of Oncotype DX (ODx), on treatment decision-making for hormone receptor–positive (HR+) breast cancer, it is particularly important to assess disparities in its use. Methods: We conducted a retrospective population-based study of 8,784 patients diagnosed with breast cancer in Connecticut during 2011 through 2013. We assessed the association between race, ethnicity, and ODx receipt among women with HR+ breast cancer for whom NCCN does and does not recommend ODx testing, using bivariate and multivariate logistic analyses. Results: We identified 5,294 women who met study inclusion criteria: 83.8% were white, 6.3% black, and 7.4% Hispanic. Overall, 50.9% (n=4,131) of women in the guideline-recommended group received ODx testing compared with 18.5% (n=1,163) in the nonrecommended group. More white women received the ODx test compared with black and Hispanic women in the recommended and nonrecommended groups (51.4% vs 44.6% and 47.7%; and 21.2% vs 9.0% and 9.7%, respectively). After adjusting for tumor and clinical characteristics, we observed significantly lower ODx use among black (odds ratio [OR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.47–0.88) and Hispanic women (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.45–0.77) compared with white women in the recommended group and in the guideline-discordant group (blacks: OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.20–0.78, and Hispanics: OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.23–0.85). Conclusions: In this population-based study, we identified racial disparities in ODx testing. Disparities in access to innovative cancer care technologies may further exacerbate existing disparities in breast cancer outcomes.
Cynthia Owusu, Harvey Jay Cohen, Tao Feng, William Tew, Supriya G. Mohile, Heidi D. Klepin, Cary P. Gross, Ajeet Gajra, Stuart M. Lichtman, Arti Hurria and on behalf of the Cancer and Aging Research Group (CARG)
Objectives: Anemia is associated with functional disability among older adults in general. However, the relationship between anemia and functional disability has not been well characterized among older adults with cancer. Therefore, we examined the association between anemia and functional disability in patients with cancer aged 65 years or older. Patients and Methods: We conducted cross-sectional analysis of data derived from a multicenter prospective study of 500 patients with cancer aged 65 years or older. The primary outcome was functional disability at chemotherapy initiation, defined as the need for assistance with at least one instrumental activity of daily living. Anemia (using WHO criteria) was defined as a hemoglobin (Hb) level of less than 12 g/dL in women and less than 13 g/dL in men. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the association between anemia and functional disability. Results: Among 491 evaluable patients (median age, 73.1 years [range, 65–91 years]), the prevalence of functional disability and anemia was 43% and 51%, respectively. Compared with patients without anemia, patients with anemia were more likely to report functional disability. On multivariable analysis, adjusting for sex, stage, and unintentional weight loss, patients with anemia were more likely to have functional disability (odds ratio, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.61–3.59). Conclusions: Anemia was highly prevalent and independently associated with functional disability in this cohort of older adults with cancer. Given the importance of functional status in cancer treatment decision-making, longitudinal studies evaluating the causal relation between anemia and functional status among older patients with cancer are warranted to evaluate causality.
Kathryn J. Ruddy, Lindsey Sangaralingham, Rachel A. Freedman, Sarah S. Mougalian, Heather Neuman, Caprice Greenberg, Ahmedin Jemal, Narjust Duma, Tufia C. Haddad, Valerie Lemaine, Karthik Ghosh, Tina J. Hieken, Katie Hunt, Celine Vachon, Cary P. Gross and Nilay D. Shah
Background: Guidelines recommend annual mammography after curative-intent treatment for breast cancer. The goal of this study was to assess contemporary patterns of breast imaging after breast cancer treatment. Methods: Administrative claims data were used to identify privately insured and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries with nonmetastatic breast cancer who had residual breast tissue (not bilateral mastectomy) after breast surgery between January 2005 and May 2015. We calculated the proportion of patients who had a mammogram, MRI, both, or neither during each of 5 subsequent 13-month periods. Multinomial logistic regression was used to assess associations between patient characteristics, healthcare use, and breast imaging in the first and fifth years after surgery. Results: A total of 27,212 patients were followed for a median of 2.9 years (interquartile range, 1.8–4.6) after definitive breast cancer surgery. In year 1, 78% were screened using mammography alone, 1% using MRI alone, and 8% using both tests; 13% did not undergo either. By year 5, the proportion of the remaining cohort (n=4,790) who had no breast imaging was 19%. Older age was associated with an increased likelihood of mammography and a decreased likelihood of MRI during the first and fifth years. Black race, mastectomy, chemotherapy, and no MRI at baseline were all associated with a decreased likelihood of both types of imaging. Conclusions: Even in an insured cohort, a substantial proportion of breast cancer survivors do not undergo annual surveillance breast imaging, particularly as time passes. Understanding factors associated with imaging in cancer survivors may help improve adherence to survivorship care guidelines.
Noam VanderWalde, Reshma Jagsi, Efrat Dotan, Joel Baumgartner, Ilene S. Browner, Peggy Burhenn, Harvey Jay Cohen, Barish H. Edil, Beatrice Edwards, Martine Extermann, Apar Kishor P. Ganti, Cary Gross, Joleen Hubbard, Nancy L. Keating, Beatriz Korc-Grodzicki, June M. McKoy, Bruno C. Medeiros, Ewa Mrozek, Tracey O'Connor, Hope S. Rugo, Randall W. Rupper, Dale Shepard, Rebecca A. Silliman, Derek L. Stirewalt, William P. Tew, Louise C. Walter, Tanya Wildes, Mary Anne Bergman, Hema Sundar and Arti Hurria
Cancer is the leading cause of death in older adults aged 60 to 79 years. Older patients with good performance status are able to tolerate commonly used treatment modalities as well as younger patients, particularly when adequate supportive care is provided. For older patients who are able to tolerate curative treatment, options include surgery, radiation therapy (RT), chemotherapy, and targeted therapies. RT can be highly effective and well tolerated in carefully selected patients, and advanced age alone should not preclude the use of RT in older patients with cancer. Judicious application of advanced RT techniques that facilitate normal tissue sparing and reduce RT doses to organs at risk are important for all patients, and may help to assuage concerns about the risks of RT in older adults. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on the recent updates to the 2016 NCCN Guidelines for Older Adult Oncology specific to the use of RT in the management of older adults with cancer.