BACKGROUND: The current study was conducted to evaluate trends in utilization of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for head and neck cancer (HNC). METHODS: Identified were 5487 patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database with a diagnosis of HNC (aged>or=65 years) between 2000 and 2005, who received any type of radiotherapy (RT). Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the influence of patient, tumor, treatment, and sociodemographic characteristics on receipt of IMRT versus conventional radiotherapy techniques. RESULTS: Overall, 21.3% of patients in the cohort received IMRT as the technique of irradiation. The use of IMRT increased significantly, with 1.3% of patients receiving it in 2000 compared with 46.1% in 2005 (P<.0001 for trend). Patients treated with RT in 2005 were 68 times more likely to receive IMRT than those treated in 2000. There was significant geographic variation observed in use of IMRT, ranging from 11.3% of cases in Kentucky to 40.4% of cases in Hawaii. Patients in the census tracks comprising the lowest quartile for socioeconomic status were 33% less likely to receive IMRT than patients in the highest quartile, even when adjusting for geographic area and year of diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: The use of IMRT has rapidly become widespread for the delivery of RT for patients with HNC. However, there was significant geographic variation noted in the utilization of IMRT. Patients in census tracks comprising the lowest socioeconomic quartile were less likely to receive IMRT than their more affluent counterparts. Copyright (c) 2010 American Cancer Society.
BACKGROUND: The current study was conducted to evaluate trends in utilization of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for head and neck cancer (HNC). METHODS: Identified were 5487 patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database with a diagnosis of HNC (aged>or=65 years) between 2000 and 2005, who received any type of radiotherapy (RT). Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the influence of patient, tumor, treatment, and sociodemographic characteristics on receipt of IMRT versus conventional radiotherapy techniques. RESULTS: Overall, 21.3% of patients in the cohort received IMRT as the technique of irradiation. The use of IMRT increased significantly, with 1.3% of patients receiving it in 2000 compared with 46.1% in 2005 (P<.0001 for trend). Patients treated with RT in 2005 were 68 times more likely to receive IMRT than those treated in 2000. There was significant geographic variation observed in use of IMRT, ranging from 11.3% of cases in Kentucky to 40.4% of cases in Hawaii. Patients in the census tracks comprising the lowest quartile for socioeconomic status were 33% less likely to receive IMRT than patients in the highest quartile, even when adjusting for geographic area and year of diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: The use of IMRT has rapidly become widespread for the delivery of RT for patients with HNC. However, there was significant geographic variation noted in the utilization of IMRT. Patients in census tracks comprising the lowest socioeconomic quartile were less likely to receive IMRT than their more affluent counterparts. Copyright (c) 2010 American Cancer Society.
Authors: B Ashleigh Guadagnolo; Kai-Ping Liao; Linda Elting; Sharon Giordano; Thomas A Buchholz; Ya-Chen Tina Shih Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-11-19 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jennifer A Schlichting; Nitin A Pagedar; Catherine Chioreso; Charles F Lynch; Mary E Charlton Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2019-05-22 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Paolo Goffredo; Timothy J Robinson; Linda M Youngwirth; Sanziana A Roman; Julie A Sosa Journal: Endocrine Date: 2016-03-30 Impact factor: 3.633
Authors: Lia M Halasz; Jane C Weeks; Bridget A Neville; Nathan Taback; Rinaa S Punglia Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-10-09 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: David R Lairson; Chi-Fang Wu; Wenyaw Chan; Kristina R Dahlstrom; Samantha Tam; Erich M Sturgis Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2017-08-24 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Erqi L Pollom; Guanying Wang; Jeremy P Harris; Albert C Koong; Eran Bendavid; Jay Bhattacharya; Daniel T Chang Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2017-01-07 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Beth M Beadle; Kai-Ping Liao; Sharon H Giordano; Adam S Garden; Katherine A Hutcheson; Stephen Y Lai; B Ashleigh Guadagnolo Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-09-23 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jason D Wright; Israel Deutsch; Elizabeth T Wilde; Cande V Ananth; Alfred I Neugut; Sharyn N Lewin; Zainab Siddiq; Thomas J Herzog; Dawn L Hershman Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2013-03-13 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Tony J C Wang; Sandra Fontenla; Patrick McCann; Robert J Young; Stephen McNamara; Shyam Rao; James G Mechalakos; Nancy Y Lee Journal: J Radiat Oncol Date: 2013-02-28
Authors: Adam S Garden; Merrill S Kies; William H Morrison; Randal S Weber; Steven J Frank; Bonnie S Glisson; Gary B Gunn; Beth M Beadle; K Kian Ang; David I Rosenthal; Erich M Sturgis Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2013-01-29 Impact factor: 3.481