Niklaus G Schaefer1, Peng Huang, Julia W Buchanan, Richard L Wahl. 1. Division of Nuclear Medicine, Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland 21287-0817, USA.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Despite approval by the Food and Drug Administration and consistent reports of the efficacy and safety of (90)Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan and (131)I-tositumomab, these therapies are infrequently used. This study investigates the opinions and patterns of the use of radioimmunotherapy by nuclear physicians, affiliated researchers, nuclear medicine technologists, and radiation oncologists and aims to identify possible barriers to the use of this promising therapy. METHODS: An e-mail-based survey with 13 broad questions related to radioimmunotherapy was sent electronically to 13,221 Society of Nuclear Medicine members and radiation oncologists throughout the United States. RESULTS: Six hundred thirteen individuals (4.6%) responded to the electronic survey. Two hundred fifty-one responders (40.9%) had treated patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) with radioimmunotherapy in the last 24 mo. Of the responders, 29.5% used only (90)Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan, 7.6% used only (131)I-tositumomab, and 24.9% used both radiopharmaceuticals; 37.9% did not treat NHL with radioimmunotherapy. Most responders said their patients came from university hospitals (33.9%) or private offices (25.6%), and they mainly treated in a second-line (42.9%), third-line (35.6%), or consolidation (23.5%) setting. Major concerns were that referring oncologists and hematologists wanted to treat by themselves with nonradioactive compounds (mean ± SD, 3.418 ± 1.49) and that (90)Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan and (131)I-tositumomab were expensive (mean ± SD, 3.413 ± 1.35). Of the responders and involved physicians, 40.4% and 35.2%, respectively, did not know if their institution accepted Medicare patients for radioimmunotherapy. Almost 30% (29.6%) of the responders thought radioimmunotherapy would probably grow and 38.0% thought it would grow in importance in the future. Responders who did not administer radioimmunotherapy for NHL thought it took too much time to administer radioimmunotherapy (P < 0.01) and had concerns about the dosimetry procedure (P < 0.01) and radiation safety (P < 0.01). Individuals who perceived a negative future for radioimmunotherapy had significantly more concerns about the time-consuming administration process (P < 0.05) and the high cost of radioimmunotherapy (P < 0.05). Responders from academic centers had significantly fewer concerns about payment (P < 0.01), dosimetry (P < 0.01), and radiation safety (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Radioimmunotherapy was generally viewed positively by the surveyed population. However, limited referrals due to alternative nonradioactive therapies and logistic, educational, and economic concerns played an important role for subgroups in the perception of radioimmunotherapy for NHL.
UNLABELLED: Despite approval by the Food and Drug Administration and consistent reports of the efficacy and safety of (90)Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan and (131)I-tositumomab, these therapies are infrequently used. This study investigates the opinions and patterns of the use of radioimmunotherapy by nuclear physicians, affiliated researchers, nuclear medicine technologists, and radiation oncologists and aims to identify possible barriers to the use of this promising therapy. METHODS: An e-mail-based survey with 13 broad questions related to radioimmunotherapy was sent electronically to 13,221 Society of Nuclear Medicine members and radiation oncologists throughout the United States. RESULTS: Six hundred thirteen individuals (4.6%) responded to the electronic survey. Two hundred fifty-one responders (40.9%) had treated patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) with radioimmunotherapy in the last 24 mo. Of the responders, 29.5% used only (90)Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan, 7.6% used only (131)I-tositumomab, and 24.9% used both radiopharmaceuticals; 37.9% did not treat NHL with radioimmunotherapy. Most responders said their patients came from university hospitals (33.9%) or private offices (25.6%), and they mainly treated in a second-line (42.9%), third-line (35.6%), or consolidation (23.5%) setting. Major concerns were that referring oncologists and hematologists wanted to treat by themselves with nonradioactive compounds (mean ± SD, 3.418 ± 1.49) and that (90)Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan and (131)I-tositumomab were expensive (mean ± SD, 3.413 ± 1.35). Of the responders and involved physicians, 40.4% and 35.2%, respectively, did not know if their institution accepted Medicare patients for radioimmunotherapy. Almost 30% (29.6%) of the responders thought radioimmunotherapy would probably grow and 38.0% thought it would grow in importance in the future. Responders who did not administer radioimmunotherapy for NHL thought it took too much time to administer radioimmunotherapy (P < 0.01) and had concerns about the dosimetry procedure (P < 0.01) and radiation safety (P < 0.01). Individuals who perceived a negative future for radioimmunotherapy had significantly more concerns about the time-consuming administration process (P < 0.05) and the high cost of radioimmunotherapy (P < 0.05). Responders from academic centers had significantly fewer concerns about payment (P < 0.01), dosimetry (P < 0.01), and radiation safety (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Radioimmunotherapy was generally viewed positively by the surveyed population. However, limited referrals due to alternative nonradioactive therapies and logistic, educational, and economic concerns played an important role for subgroups in the perception of radioimmunotherapy for NHL.
Authors: Brian K Link; Peter Martin; Mark S Kaminski; Stanley J Goldsmith; Morton Coleman; John P Leonard Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-05-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Gregory A Wiseman; Leo I Gordon; Pratik S Multani; Thomas E Witzig; Stewart Spies; Nancy L Bartlett; Russell J Schilder; James L Murray; Mansoor Saleh; Roberta S Allen; Antonio J Grillo-López; Christine A White Journal: Blood Date: 2002-06-15 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Mark S Kaminski; Melissa Tuck; Judith Estes; Arne Kolstad; Charles W Ross; Kenneth Zasadny; Denise Regan; Paul Kison; Susan Fisher; Stewart Kroll; Richard L Wahl Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-02-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Thomas E Witzig; Leo I Gordon; Fernando Cabanillas; Myron S Czuczman; Christos Emmanouilides; Robin Joyce; Brad L Pohlman; Nancy L Bartlett; Gregory A Wiseman; Norman Padre; Antonio J Grillo-López; Pratik Multani; Christine A White Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-05-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Franck Morschhauser; John Radford; Achiel Van Hoof; Umberto Vitolo; Pierre Soubeyran; Herve Tilly; Peter C Huijgens; Arne Kolstad; Francesco d'Amore; Marcos Gonzalez Diaz; Mario Petrini; Catherine Sebban; Pier Luigi Zinzani; Marinus H J van Oers; Wim van Putten; Angelika Bischof-Delaloye; Ama Rohatiner; Gilles Salles; Jens Kuhlmann; Anton Hagenbeek Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-10-14 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: J M Vose; R L Wahl; M Saleh; A Z Rohatiner; S J Knox; J A Radford; A D Zelenetz; G F Tidmarsh; R J Stagg; M S Kaminski Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Heather Jacene; John Crandall; Yvette L Kasamon; Richard F Ambinder; Steven Piantadosi; Donna Serena; Wayne Kasecamp; Richard L Wahl Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Julia Y Wagner; Kathleen Schwarz; Susanne Schreiber; Burkhard Schmidt; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Markus Schwaiger; Christian Peschel; Christoph von Schilling; Klemens Scheidhauer; Ulrich Keller Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2013-06