Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author: Jacob E. Shabason x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

Danielle S. Graham, Mykola Onyshchenko, Mark A. Eckardt, Benjamin J. DiPardo, Sriram Venigalla, Scott D. Nelson, Bartosz Chmielowski, Arun S. Singh, Jacob E. Shabason, Fritz C. Eilber and Anusha Kalbasi

Background: There is conflicting evidence regarding the role of chemotherapy for high-grade soft tissue sarcoma (STS) in adults. We sought to characterize patterns of chemotherapy use, including multiagent and neoadjuvant chemotherapy, in the United States. Patients and Methods: Using the National Cancer Database, we identified 19,969 adult patients who underwent surgical resection for primary high-grade STS from 2004 to 2016. Using logistic regression, we examined factors associated with overall, multiagent, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy use. Results: Chemotherapy was administered to 22% (n=4,377) of the study population. Among patients treated using chemotherapy, 85% received multiagent treatment and 47% received neoadjuvant treatment. On multivariate analysis, factors associated with chemotherapy use included tumor size, depth, histology, and primary site; receipt of radiation treatment; younger age; higher patient income; and academic treatment facility. Factors associated with multiagent chemotherapy use included tumor histology, tumor primary site, and younger age. Factors associated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy use included tumor size, depth, margin status, and primary site; receipt of radiation treatment; higher patient income; academic treatment facility type; and distance to treatment facility. Treatment at a high-volume facility was the only factor associated with overall, multiagent, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy use. No significant temporal trend was seen in overall, multiagent, or neoadjuvant chemotherapy use. Conclusions: Overall chemotherapy use was low (22%). The variability in chemotherapy use was driven by clinical, patient, demographic, and facility factors. Among patients treated with chemotherapy, the use of multiagent chemotherapy was high (85%), and nearly half received neoadjuvant therapy. There was a discrepancy in the use of chemotherapy—including neoadjuvant and multiagent chemotherapy—between high- and low-volume treatment centers.

Full access

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

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.