Noam A VanderWalde1, Ramzi G Salloum2, Tsai-Ling Liu3, Mark C Hornbrook4, Maureen C O'Keeffe Rosetti4, Debra P Ritzwoller5, Paul A Fishman6, Jennifer Elston Lafata7, Amir H Khandani8, Bhishamjit S Chera1. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill2Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 2. Department of Health Services Policy and Management, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia. 3. Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 4. The Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, Oregon. 5. Institute for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Denver. 6. Group Health Research Institute, Group Health Cooperative, Seattle, Washington. 7. Social and Behavioral Health and Massey Cancer Center, School of Medicine Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond9Center for Health Policy and Health Services Research, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan. 8. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill10Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Since 2001, there has been a rapid adoption of positron emission tomography (PET) for diagnosis and American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging of head and neck cancer (HNC) without data describing improved clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between increased use of PET and stage and/or survival for patients with HNC in the managed care environment. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients diagnosed as having HNC (n = 958) from 2000 to 2008 at 4 integrated health systems were identified via tumor registries linked to administrative data. The AJCC stage distribution, patient and treatment characteristics, and survival between pre-PET era (2000-2004) vs PET era (2005-2008) and use of PET vs no use of PET during the PET era were compared. The AJCC stages were categorized to represent localized (stage I or II), locally advanced (stage III, IVA, or IVB), and metastatic (stage IVC) disease. INTERVENTIONS: Treatments were determined by billing codes for surgery, radiation treatment, and chemotherapy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome for this study was the use of PET. Secondary outcomes included treatment received and 2-year survival. A logit model estimated the effects of PET on diagnosis of locally advanced disease. Kaplan-Meier estimates described overall survival differences between PET and non-PET. Cox regression evaluated the association of PET on survival in patients with locally advanced disease. RESULTS: An association between PET and locally advanced disease was found (odds ratio, 2.86 [95% CI, 1.90-4.29) (P < .001). Two-year overall survival for patients with locally advanced disease with and without PET was 52% and 32%, respectively (P = .004), but there was no difference for all stages (P = .69). On Cox proportional hazard regression, PET had no association with survival in patients with locally advanced disease (hazard ratio, 1.208 [95% CI, 0.778-1.877]) (P = .40). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The increasing use of PET among patients with HNC is associated with a greater number of patients with higher-stage disease and a dilution of the population with higher-stage disease with patients who have a better prognosis. Thus, the improved survival in patients with locally advanced disease likely reflects selection bias and stage migration. Further research on PET use among patients with HNC is necessary to determine if it results in improved treatment for individual patients.
IMPORTANCE: Since 2001, there has been a rapid adoption of positron emission tomography (PET) for diagnosis and American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging of head and neck cancer (HNC) without data describing improved clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between increased use of PET and stage and/or survival for patients with HNC in the managed care environment. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients diagnosed as having HNC (n = 958) from 2000 to 2008 at 4 integrated health systems were identified via tumor registries linked to administrative data. The AJCC stage distribution, patient and treatment characteristics, and survival between pre-PET era (2000-2004) vs PET era (2005-2008) and use of PET vs no use of PET during the PET era were compared. The AJCC stages were categorized to represent localized (stage I or II), locally advanced (stage III, IVA, or IVB), and metastatic (stage IVC) disease. INTERVENTIONS: Treatments were determined by billing codes for surgery, radiation treatment, and chemotherapy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome for this study was the use of PET. Secondary outcomes included treatment received and 2-year survival. A logit model estimated the effects of PET on diagnosis of locally advanced disease. Kaplan-Meier estimates described overall survival differences between PET and non-PET. Cox regression evaluated the association of PET on survival in patients with locally advanced disease. RESULTS: An association between PET and locally advanced disease was found (odds ratio, 2.86 [95% CI, 1.90-4.29) (P < .001). Two-year overall survival for patients with locally advanced disease with and without PET was 52% and 32%, respectively (P = .004), but there was no difference for all stages (P = .69). On Cox proportional hazard regression, PET had no association with survival in patients with locally advanced disease (hazard ratio, 1.208 [95% CI, 0.778-1.877]) (P = .40). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The increasing use of PET among patients with HNC is associated with a greater number of patients with higher-stage disease and a dilution of the population with higher-stage disease with patients who have a better prognosis. Thus, the improved survival in patients with locally advanced disease likely reflects selection bias and stage migration. Further research on PET use among patients with HNC is necessary to determine if it results in improved treatment for individual patients.
Authors: Maura L Gillison; Tatevik Broutian; Robert K L Pickard; Zhen-you Tong; Weihong Xiao; Lisa Kahle; Barry I Graubard; Anil K Chaturvedi Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-01-26 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Arnold C Paulino; Mary Koshy; Rebecca Howell; David Schuster; Lawrence W Davis Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-04-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Bruce E Hillner; Anna N Tosteson; Yunjie Song; Tor D Tosteson; Tracy Onega; David C Goodman; Barry A Siegel Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Diana L Miglioretti; Eric Johnson; Choonsik Lee; Heather Spencer Feigelson; Michael Flynn; Robert T Greenlee; Randell L Kruger; Mark C Hornbrook; Douglas Roblin; Leif I Solberg; Nicholas Vanneman; Sheila Weinmann; Andrew E Williams Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-06-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Michaela A Dinan; Lesley H Curtis; William R Carpenter; Andrea K Biddle; Amy P Abernethy; Edward F Patz; Kevin A Schulman; Morris Weinberger Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-07-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Max Lonneux; Marc Hamoir; Hervé Reychler; Philippe Maingon; Christian Duvillard; Gilles Calais; Boumédiène Bridji; Laurence Digue; Michel Toubeau; Vincent Grégoire Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-02-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Andrew M Scott; Dishan H Gunawardana; Dylan Bartholomeusz; Jayne E Ramshaw; Peter Lin Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2008-09-15 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: C Laubenbacher; D Saumweber; C Wagner-Manslau; R J Kau; M Herz; N Avril; S Ziegler; C Kruschke; W Arnold; M Schwaiger Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1995-10 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Jon Cacicedo; Iratxe Fernandez; Olga Del Hoyo; Ainara Dolado; Javier Gómez-Suarez; Eduardo Hortelano; Aintzane Sancho; Jose I Pijoan; Julio Alvarez; Jose M Espinosa; Ayman Gaafar; Pedro Bilbao Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-05-08 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Roxanne J Wadia; Xiaopan Yao; Yanhong Deng; Jia Li; Steven Maron; Donna Connery; Handan Gunduz-Bruce; Michal G Rose Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2015-06-09 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Fernando García-Curdi; Yolanda Lois-Ortega; Ana Muniesa-Del Campo; Amaranta McGee-Laso; José Miguel Sebastián-Cortés; Héctor Vallés-Varela; Julio José Lambea-Sorrosal Journal: Braz J Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2019-07-06