BACKGROUND: It is currently unclear whether the superior normal organ-sparing effect of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) compared with 3-dimensional radiotherapy (3D) has a clinical impact on survival and cardiopulmonary mortality in patients with esophageal cancer (EC). METHODS: The authors identified 2553 patients aged > 65 years from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare and Texas Cancer Registry-Medicare databases who had nonmetastatic EC diagnosed between 2002 and 2009 and were treated with either 3D (2240 patients) or IMRT (313 patients) within 6 months of diagnosis. The outcomes of the 2 cohorts were compared using inverse probability of treatment weighting adjustment. RESULTS: Except for marital status, year of diagnosis, and SEER region, both radiation cohorts were well balanced with regard to various patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics, including the use of IMRT versus 3D in urban/metropolitan or rural areas. IMRT use increased from 2.6% in 2002 to 30% in 2009, whereas the use of 3D decreased from 97.4% in 2002 to 70% in 2009. On propensity score inverse probability of treatment weighting-adjusted multivariate analysis, IMRT was not found to be associated with EC-specific mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.80-1.10) or pulmonary mortality (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.37-3.36), but was significantly associated with lower all-cause mortality (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.72-0.95), cardiac mortality (HR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.06-0.54), and other-cause mortality (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35-0.84). Similar associations were noted after adjusting for the type of chemotherapy, physician experience, and sensitivity analysis removing hybrid radiation claims. CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based analysis, the use of IMRT was found to be significantly associated with lower all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, and other-cause mortality in patients with EC.
BACKGROUND: It is currently unclear whether the superior normal organ-sparing effect of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) compared with 3-dimensional radiotherapy (3D) has a clinical impact on survival and cardiopulmonary mortality in patients with esophageal cancer (EC). METHODS: The authors identified 2553 patients aged > 65 years from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare and Texas Cancer Registry-Medicare databases who had nonmetastatic EC diagnosed between 2002 and 2009 and were treated with either 3D (2240 patients) or IMRT (313 patients) within 6 months of diagnosis. The outcomes of the 2 cohorts were compared using inverse probability of treatment weighting adjustment. RESULTS: Except for marital status, year of diagnosis, and SEER region, both radiation cohorts were well balanced with regard to various patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics, including the use of IMRT versus 3D in urban/metropolitan or rural areas. IMRT use increased from 2.6% in 2002 to 30% in 2009, whereas the use of 3D decreased from 97.4% in 2002 to 70% in 2009. On propensity score inverse probability of treatment weighting-adjusted multivariate analysis, IMRT was not found to be associated with EC-specific mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.80-1.10) or pulmonary mortality (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.37-3.36), but was significantly associated with lower all-cause mortality (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.72-0.95), cardiac mortality (HR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.06-0.54), and other-cause mortality (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35-0.84). Similar associations were noted after adjusting for the type of chemotherapy, physician experience, and sensitivity analysis removing hybrid radiation claims. CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based analysis, the use of IMRT was found to be significantly associated with lower all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, and other-cause mortality in patients with EC.
Authors: S G Swisher; L Deford; K W Merriman; G L Walsh; R Smythe; A Vaporicyan; J A Ajani; T Brown; R Komaki; J A Roth; J B Putnam Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Thomas P Kole; Osarhieme Aghayere; Jason Kwah; Ellen D Yorke; Karyn A Goodman Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-01-26 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Mirjam E Mast; Loes van Kempen-Harteveld; Mark W Heijenbrok; Yamoena Kalidien; Hans Rozema; Wim P A Jansen; Anna L Petoukhova; Henk Struikmans Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2013-09-14 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Yi-Jen Chen; An Liu; Chunhui Han; Peter T Tsai; Timothy E Schultheiss; Richard D Pezner; Nilesh Vora; Dean Lim; Stephen Shibata; Kemp H Kernstine; Jeffrey Y C Wong Journal: Med Dosim Date: 2007 Impact factor: 1.482
Authors: Steven H Lin; Lu Wang; Bevan Myles; Peter F Thall; Wayne L Hofstetter; Stephen G Swisher; Jaffer A Ajani; James D Cox; Ritsuko Komaki; Zhongxing Liao Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-08-03 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Racquel E Kohler; Nathan C Sheets; Stephanie B Wheeler; Chris Nutting; Emma Hall; Bhishamjit S Chera Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2013-11-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Steven H Lin; Brian P Hobbs; Vivek Verma; Rebecca S Tidwell; Grace L Smith; Xiudong Lei; Erin M Corsini; Isabel Mok; Xiong Wei; Luyang Yao; Xin Wang; Ritsuko U Komaki; Joe Y Chang; Stephen G Chun; Melenda D Jeter; Stephen G Swisher; Jaffer A Ajani; Mariela Blum-Murphy; Ara A Vaporciyan; Reza J Mehran; Albert C Koong; Saumil J Gandhi; Wayne L Hofstetter; Theodore S Hong; Thomas F Delaney; Zhongxing Liao; Radhe Mohan Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-03-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jacob S Witt; Justin C Jagodinsky; Yifei Liu; Poonam Yadav; Aleksandra Kuczmarska-Haas; Menggang Yu; James D Maloney; Mark A Ritter; Michael F Bassetti; Andrew M Baschnagel Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 2.339