Samuel Swisher-McClure1, Nandita Mitra2, Kaitlin Woo2, Marc Smaldone3, Robert Uzzo3, Justin E Bekelman4. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. Electronic address: Swisher-Mcclure@uphs.upenn.edu. 2. Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Surgery, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Temple University Health System, Philadelphia, PA. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Abramson Cancer Center, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine recent practice patterns, using a large national cancer registry, to understand the extent to which dose-escalated external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) has been incorporated into routine clinical practice for men with prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study using the National Cancer Data Base, a nationwide oncology outcomes database in the United States. We identified 98,755 men diagnosed with nonmetastatic prostate cancer between 2006 and 2011 who received definitive EBRT and classified patients into National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk groups. We defined dose-escalated EBRT as total prescribed dose of ≥75.6 Gy. Using multivariable logistic regression, we examined the association of patient, clinical, and demographic characteristics with the use of dose-escalated EBRT. RESULTS: Overall, 81.6% of men received dose-escalated EBRT during the study period. The use of dose-escalated EBRT did not vary substantially by NCCN risk group. Use of dose-escalated EBRT increased from 70.7% of patients receiving treatment in 2006 to 89.8% of patients receiving treatment in 2011. On multivariable analysis, year of diagnosis and use of intensity modulated radiation therapy were significantly associated with receipt of dose-escalated EBRT. CONCLUSIONS: Our study results indicate that dose-escalated EBRT has been widely adopted by radiation oncologists treating prostate cancer in the United States. The proportion of patients receiving dose-escalated EBRT increased nearly 20% between 2006 and 2011. We observed high utilization rates of dose-escalated EBRT within all disease risk groups. Adoption of intensity modulated radiation therapy was strongly associated with use of dose-escalated treatment.
PURPOSE: To examine recent practice patterns, using a large national cancer registry, to understand the extent to which dose-escalated external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) has been incorporated into routine clinical practice for men with prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study using the National Cancer Data Base, a nationwide oncology outcomes database in the United States. We identified 98,755 men diagnosed with nonmetastatic prostate cancer between 2006 and 2011 who received definitive EBRT and classified patients into National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk groups. We defined dose-escalated EBRT as total prescribed dose of ≥75.6 Gy. Using multivariable logistic regression, we examined the association of patient, clinical, and demographic characteristics with the use of dose-escalated EBRT. RESULTS: Overall, 81.6% of men received dose-escalated EBRT during the study period. The use of dose-escalated EBRT did not vary substantially by NCCN risk group. Use of dose-escalated EBRT increased from 70.7% of patients receiving treatment in 2006 to 89.8% of patients receiving treatment in 2011. On multivariable analysis, year of diagnosis and use of intensity modulated radiation therapy were significantly associated with receipt of dose-escalated EBRT. CONCLUSIONS: Our study results indicate that dose-escalated EBRT has been widely adopted by radiation oncologists treating prostate cancer in the United States. The proportion of patients receiving dose-escalated EBRT increased nearly 20% between 2006 and 2011. We observed high utilization rates of dose-escalated EBRT within all disease risk groups. Adoption of intensity modulated radiation therapy was strongly associated with use of dose-escalated treatment.
Authors: Deborah A Kuban; Susan L Tucker; Lei Dong; George Starkschall; Eugene H Huang; M Rex Cheung; Andrew K Lee; Alan Pollack Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-08-31 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jinka R Sathya; Ian R Davis; Jim A Julian; Qing Guo; Dean Daya; Ian S Dayes; Himu R Lukka; Mark Levine Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-02-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Karl Y Bilimoria; David J Bentrem; Andrew K Stewart; Mark S Talamonti; David P Winchester; Thomas R Russell; Clifford Y Ko Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2008-09-09 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: James Mohler; Robert R Bahnson; Barry Boston; J Erik Busby; Anthony D'Amico; James A Eastham; Charles A Enke; Daniel George; Eric Mark Horwitz; Robert P Huben; Philip Kantoff; Mark Kawachi; Michael Kuettel; Paul H Lange; Gary Macvicar; Elizabeth R Plimack; Julio M Pow-Sang; Mack Roach; Eric Rohren; Bruce J Roth; Dennis C Shrieve; Matthew R Smith; Sandy Srinivas; Przemyslaw Twardowski; Patrick C Walsh Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Stephanie T H Peeters; Wilma D Heemsbergen; Peter C M Koper; Wim L J van Putten; Annerie Slot; Michel F H Dielwart; Johannes M G Bonfrer; Luca Incrocci; Joos V Lebesque Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-05-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Colin B Begg; Elyn R Riedel; Peter B Bach; Michael W Kattan; Deborah Schrag; Joan L Warren; Peter T Scardino Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-04-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Anthony L Zietman; Kyounghwa Bae; Jerry D Slater; William U Shipley; Jason A Efstathiou; John J Coen; David A Bush; Margie Lunt; Daphna Y Spiegel; Rafi Skowronski; B Rodney Jabola; Carl J Rossi Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-02-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Karl Y Bilimoria; David J Bentrem; Andrew K Stewart; David P Winchester; Clifford Y Ko Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-07-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michael J Zelefsky; Jennifer Moughan; Jean Owen; Anthony L Zietman; Mack Roach; Gerald E Hanks Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-07-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Dario Pasalic; Deborah A Kuban; Pamela K Allen; Chad Tang; Shane M Mesko; Stephen R Grant; Alexander A Augustyn; Steven J Frank; Seungtaek Choi; Karen E Hoffman; Quynh-Nhu Nguyen; Sean E McGuire; Alan Pollack; Mitchell S Anscher Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2019-03-02 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: W Robert Lee; James J Dignam; Mahul B Amin; Deborah W Bruner; Daniel Low; Gregory P Swanson; Amit B Shah; David P D'Souza; Jeff M Michalski; Ian S Dayes; Samantha A Seaward; William A Hall; Paul L Nguyen; Thomas M Pisansky; Sergio L Faria; Yuhchyau Chen; Bridget F Koontz; Rebecca Paulus; Howard M Sandler Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-04-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Matthew D Hall; Timothy E Schultheiss; David D Smith; Bertrand P Tseng; Jeffrey Y C Wong Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2015-05-21 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Darren M C Poon; Daisy Lam; Kenneth C W Wong; Cheuk-Man Chu; Michael Cheung; Frankie Mo; Joyce Suen; Chi-Fai Ng; Anthony T C Chan Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2021-12-22 Impact factor: 3.677