Grace L Smith1, Jinhai Huo2, Sharon H Giordano3, Kelly K Hunt4, Thomas A Buchholz5, Benjamin D Smith6. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 2. Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 3. Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 4. Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. Electronic address: bsmith3@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To directly compare (1) radiation treatment utilization patterns; (2) risks of subsequent mastectomy; and (3) costs of radiation treatment in patients treated with brachytherapy versus whole-breast irradiation (WBI), in a national, contemporary cohort of women with incident breast cancer, aged 64 years and younger. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Using MarketScan health care claims data, we identified 45,884 invasive breast cancer patients (aged 18-64 years), treated from 2003 to 2010 with lumpectomy, followed by brachytherapy (n = 3134) or whole-breast irradiation (n = 42,750). We stratified patients into risk groups according to age (Age < 50 vs Age ≥ 50) and endocrine therapy status (Endocrine- vs Endocrine+). "Endocrine+" patients filled an endocrine therapy prescription within 1 year after lumpectomy. Pathologic hormone receptor status was not available in this dataset. In brachytherapy versus WBI patients, utilization trends and 5-year subsequent mastectomy risks were compared. Stratified, adjusted subsequent mastectomy risks were calculated using proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: Brachytherapy utilization increased from 2003 to 2010: in patients Age < 50, from 0.6% to 4.9%; patients Age ≥ 50 from 2.2% to 11.3%; Endocrine- patients, 1.3% to 9.4%; Endocrine+ patients, 1.9% to 9.7%. Age influenced treatment selection more than endocrine status: 17% of brachytherapy patients were Age < 50 versus 32% of WBI patients (P < .001); whereas 41% of brachytherapy patients were Endocrine-versus 44% of WBI patients (P = .003). Highest absolute 5-year subsequent mastectomy risks occurred in Endocrine-/Age < 50 patients (24.4% after brachytherapy vs 9.0% after WBI (hazard ratio [HR] 2.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.37-3.47); intermediate risks in Endocrine-/Age ≥ 50 patients (8.6% vs 4.9%; HR 1.76, 95% CI 1.26-2.46); and lowest risks in Endocrine+ patients of any age: Endocrine+/Age < 50 (5.5% vs 4.5%; HR 1.18, 95% CI 0.61-2.31); Endocrine+/Age ≥ 50 (4.2% vs 2.4%; HR 1.71, 95% CI 1.16-2.51). CONCLUSION: In this younger cohort, endocrine status was a valuable discriminatory factor predicting subsequent mastectomy risk after brachytherapy versus WBI and therefore may be useful for selecting appropriate younger brachytherapy candidates.
PURPOSE: To directly compare (1) radiation treatment utilization patterns; (2) risks of subsequent mastectomy; and (3) costs of radiation treatment in patients treated with brachytherapy versus whole-breast irradiation (WBI), in a national, contemporary cohort of women with incident breast cancer, aged 64 years and younger. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Using MarketScan health care claims data, we identified 45,884 invasive breast cancerpatients (aged 18-64 years), treated from 2003 to 2010 with lumpectomy, followed by brachytherapy (n = 3134) or whole-breast irradiation (n = 42,750). We stratified patients into risk groups according to age (Age < 50 vs Age ≥ 50) and endocrine therapy status (Endocrine- vs Endocrine+). "Endocrine+" patients filled an endocrine therapy prescription within 1 year after lumpectomy. Pathologic hormone receptor status was not available in this dataset. In brachytherapy versus WBI patients, utilization trends and 5-year subsequent mastectomy risks were compared. Stratified, adjusted subsequent mastectomy risks were calculated using proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: Brachytherapy utilization increased from 2003 to 2010: in patients Age < 50, from 0.6% to 4.9%; patients Age ≥ 50 from 2.2% to 11.3%; Endocrine- patients, 1.3% to 9.4%; Endocrine+ patients, 1.9% to 9.7%. Age influenced treatment selection more than endocrine status: 17% of brachytherapy patients were Age < 50 versus 32% of WBI patients (P < .001); whereas 41% of brachytherapy patients were Endocrine-versus 44% of WBI patients (P = .003). Highest absolute 5-year subsequent mastectomy risks occurred in Endocrine-/Age < 50 patients (24.4% after brachytherapy vs 9.0% after WBI (hazard ratio [HR] 2.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.37-3.47); intermediate risks in Endocrine-/Age ≥ 50 patients (8.6% vs 4.9%; HR 1.76, 95% CI 1.26-2.46); and lowest risks in Endocrine+ patients of any age: Endocrine+/Age < 50 (5.5% vs 4.5%; HR 1.18, 95% CI 0.61-2.31); Endocrine+/Age ≥ 50 (4.2% vs 2.4%; HR 1.71, 95% CI 1.16-2.51). CONCLUSION: In this younger cohort, endocrine status was a valuable discriminatory factor predicting subsequent mastectomy risk after brachytherapy versus WBI and therefore may be useful for selecting appropriate younger brachytherapy candidates.
Authors: Norman Wolmark; Walter J Curran; Frank Vicini; Julia White; Joseph P Costantino; Douglas Arthur; Robert Kuske; Rachel Rabinovitch; Thomas B Julian; David S Parda Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Ann B Nattinger; Purushottam W Laud; Ruta Bajorunaite; Rodney A Sparapani; Jean L Freeman Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Harry Bartelink; Jean-Claude Horiot; Philip M Poortmans; Henk Struikmans; Walter Van den Bogaert; Alain Fourquet; Jos J Jager; Willem J Hoogenraad; S Bing Oei; Carla C Wárlám-Rodenhuis; Marianne Pierart; Laurence Collette Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-06-18 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Paul L Nguyen; Alphonse G Taghian; Matthew S Katz; Andrzej Niemierko; Rita F Abi Raad; Whitney L Boon; Jennifer R Bellon; Julia S Wong; Barbara L Smith; Jay R Harris Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-04-14 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: David J Sher; Eve Wittenberg; W Warren Suh; Alphonse G Taghian; Rinaa S Punglia Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-10-27 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Benjamin D Smith; Douglas W Arthur; Thomas A Buchholz; Bruce G Haffty; Carol A Hahn; Patricia H Hardenbergh; Thomas B Julian; Lawrence B Marks; Dorin A Todor; Frank A Vicini; Timothy J Whelan; Julia White; Jennifer Y Wo; Jay R Harris Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-07-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Cameron W Swanick; Xiudong Lei; Ying Xu; Yu Shen; Nathan A Goodwin; Grace L Smith; Sharon H Giordano; Kelly K Hunt; Reshma Jagsi; Simona F Shaitelman; Susan K Peterson; Benjamin D Smith Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2017-12-09 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Mani Akhtari; Mirna Abboud; Sean Szeja; Ramiro Pino; Gary D Lewis; Barbara L Bass; Darlene M Miltenburg; E Brian Butler; Bin S Teh Journal: J Contemp Brachytherapy Date: 2016-12-29
Authors: Mani Akhtari; Ramiro Pino; Sarah B Scarboro; Barbara L Bass; Darlene M Miltenburg; E Brian Butler; Bin S Teh Journal: J Contemp Brachytherapy Date: 2015-12-17