Purpose: Characterize use of postprostatectomy radiation (PPRT) for patients with prostate cancer at an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center. Methods: We queried our prospective prostate cancer database for patients treated with 60 to 68 Gy of radiation therapy (RT) to the prostate bed after prostatectomy from 2003 to 2011. Prostatectomy cases were obtained from billing records. Patients with an intact prostate treated with definitive RT served as a control for the change in volume of patients with prostate cancer treated in the department. Chi-square analysis assessed differences between adjuvant and salvage RT cohorts. Spearman correlation assessed yearly trends in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level at the time of referral for RT. Linear regression models tested trends for number of PPRT cases, prostatectomies, and patients with intact prostate receiving radiation across years. Results: PPRT was used to treat 475 men at Fox Chase Cancer Center from 2003 to 2011 (83 adjuvant and 392 salvage). Over time, an increased proportion of patients receiving RT to the prostate were treated with PPRT. No increase was seen in the proportion of patients treated with adjuvant RT compared with salvage RT (P=.5). Patients receiving adjuvant RT were younger, had higher pathologic Gleason score, pathologic T stage, and rates of positive margins than those receiving salvage RT. Pre-RT PSA values were inversely correlated with year (P=.005). The number of patients referred for salvage RT with a PSA of 0.5 ng/mL or less increased significantly from 7.9% in 2003 to 26.6% in 2011 (P=.002). Conclusions: A larger proportion of patients treated with RT for localized prostate cancer are now receiving PPRT. No increase was seen in the proportion of patients treated with adjuvant RT. Over time, patients with lower PSAs were referred for salvage RT.
You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for
- Author: Tianyu Li x
- Refine by Access: All x
Jeffrey M. Martin, Tianyu Li, Matthew E. Johnson, Colin T. Murphy, Alan G. Howald, Marc C. Smaldone, Alexander Kutikov, David Y.T. Chen, Rosalia Viterbo, Richard E. Greenberg, Robert G. Uzzo, and Eric M. Horwitz
Margaret A. O'Grady, Elena Gitelson, Ramona F. Swaby, Lori J. Goldstein, Elaine Sein, Patricia Keeley, Bonnie Miller, Tianyu Li, Alan Weinstein, and Steven J. Cohen
Fox Chase Cancer Center Partners (FCCCP) is a community hospital/academic partnership consisting of 25 hospitals in the Delaware Valley. Originally created in 1986, FCCCP promotes quality community cancer care through education, quality assurance, and access to clinical trial research. An important aspect of quality assurance is a yearly medical oncology audit that benchmarks quality indicators and guidelines and provides a roadmap for quality improvement initiatives in the community oncology clinical office setting. Each year, the FCCCP team and the Partner Medical Oncologists build disease site- and stage-specific indicators based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Concordance with multiple indicators is assessed on 20 charts from each community practice. A report for each FCCCP medical oncology practice summarizes documentation, screening recommendations, new drug use, and research trends in a particular disease site. Descriptive statistics reflect indicators met, number of new cases seen per year, number of disease site cases from tumor registry information, and clinical trial accrual total. Education and documentation tools are provided to physicians and oncology office nursing staff. The FCCCP Clinical Operations Team, consisting of medical oncologists and oncology-certified nurses, has conducted quality audits in medical oncology offices for 7 years using NCCN-derived indicators. Successful audits comprising gastric, colorectal, and breast cancer have been the focus of recent evaluations. For the 2005 stage II/III breast cancer evaluation, mean compliance per parameter was 88%, with 15 of 16 practices achieving mean compliance greater than 80%. A large-scale quality assurance audit in a community cancer partner network is feasible. Recent evaluation of localized breast cancer shows high compliance with guidelines and identifies areas for focused education. Partnership between academic and community oncologists produces a quality review process that is broadly applicable and adaptable to changing medical knowledge.