PURPOSE: The extent to which new techniques for the delivery of radiotherapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) have diffused into clinical practice is unclear, including the use of 3-dimensional conformal RT (3D-RT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database, we identified 2,495 Medicare patients with Stage I-IVB HNSCC diagnosed at age 65 years or older between 2000 and 2005 and treated with either definitive (80%) or adjuvant (20%) radiotherapy. Our primary aim was to analyze the trends and predictors of IMRT use over this time, and the secondary aim was a similar description of the trends and predictors of conformal radiotherapy (CRT) use, defined as treatment with either 3D-RT or IMRT. RESULTS: Three hundred sixty-four (15%) patients were treated with IMRT, and 1,190 patients (48%) were treated with 3D-RT. Claims for IMRT and CRT rose from 0% to 33% and 39% to 86%, respectively, between 2000 and 2005. On multivariable analysis, IMRT use was associated with SEER region (West 18%; Northeast 11%; South 12%; Midwest 13%), advanced stage (advanced, 21%; early, 9%), non-larynx site (non-larynx, 23%; larynx, 7%), higher median census tract income (highest vs. lowest quartile, 18% vs. 10%), treatment year (2003-2005, 31%; 2000-2002, 6%), use of chemotherapy (26% with; 9% without), and higher radiation oncologist treatment volume (highest vs. lowest tertile, 23% vs. 8%). With CRT as the outcome, only SEER region, treatment year, use of chemotherapy, and increasing radiation oncologist HNSCC volume were significant on multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The use of IMRT and CRT by Medicare beneficiaries with HNSCC rose significantly between 2000 and 2005 and was associated with both clinical and non-clinical factors, with treatment era and radiation oncologist HNSCC treatment volume serving as the strongest predictors of IMRT use.
PURPOSE: The extent to which new techniques for the delivery of radiotherapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) have diffused into clinical practice is unclear, including the use of 3-dimensional conformal RT (3D-RT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database, we identified 2,495 Medicare patients with Stage I-IVB HNSCC diagnosed at age 65 years or older between 2000 and 2005 and treated with either definitive (80%) or adjuvant (20%) radiotherapy. Our primary aim was to analyze the trends and predictors of IMRT use over this time, and the secondary aim was a similar description of the trends and predictors of conformal radiotherapy (CRT) use, defined as treatment with either 3D-RT or IMRT. RESULTS: Three hundred sixty-four (15%) patients were treated with IMRT, and 1,190 patients (48%) were treated with 3D-RT. Claims for IMRT and CRT rose from 0% to 33% and 39% to 86%, respectively, between 2000 and 2005. On multivariable analysis, IMRT use was associated with SEER region (West 18%; Northeast 11%; South 12%; Midwest 13%), advanced stage (advanced, 21%; early, 9%), non-larynx site (non-larynx, 23%; larynx, 7%), higher median census tract income (highest vs. lowest quartile, 18% vs. 10%), treatment year (2003-2005, 31%; 2000-2002, 6%), use of chemotherapy (26% with; 9% without), and higher radiation oncologist treatment volume (highest vs. lowest tertile, 23% vs. 8%). With CRT as the outcome, only SEER region, treatment year, use of chemotherapy, and increasing radiation oncologist HNSCC volume were significant on multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The use of IMRT and CRT by Medicare beneficiaries with HNSCC rose significantly between 2000 and 2005 and was associated with both clinical and non-clinical factors, with treatment era and radiation oncologist HNSCC treatment volume serving as the strongest predictors of IMRT use.
Authors: Luke H DeGraaff; Alexis J Platek; Austin J Iovoli; Kimberly E Wooten; Hassan Arshad; Vishal Gupta; Ryan P McSpadden; Moni Abraham Kuriakose; Wesley L Hicks; Mary E Platek; Anurag K Singh Journal: Oral Oncol Date: 2019-07-30 Impact factor: 5.337
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: 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: Isabel J Boero; Anthony J Paravati; Beibei Xu; Ezra E W Cohen; Loren K Mell; Quynh-Thu Le; James D Murphy Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-01-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Colin T Murphy; Thomas J Galloway; Elizabeth A Handorf; Brian L Egleston; Lora S Wang; Ranee Mehra; Douglas B Flieder; John A Ridge Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-11-30 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Marsha Reyngold; Joyce Niland; Anna Ter Veer; Tanios Bekaii-Saab; Lily Lai; Joshua E Meyer; Steven J Nurkin; Deborah Schrag; John M Skibber; Al B Benson; Martin R Weiser; Christopher H Crane; Karyn A Goodman Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2017-10-12