Joshua A Halpern1, Art Sedrakyan2, Wei-Chun Hsu2, Jialin Mao2, Timothy J Daskivich3, Paul L Nguyen4, Encouse B Golden5, Josephine Kang5, Jim C Hu1. 1. Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York. 2. Department of Healthcare Policy and Research, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York. 3. Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for localized prostate cancer has potential advantages over traditional radiotherapies. Herein, the authors compared national trends in use, complications, and costs of SBRT with those of traditional radiotherapies. METHODS: The authors identified men who underwent SBRT, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), brachytherapy, and proton beam therapy as primary treatment of prostate cancer between 2004 and 2011 from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER)-Medicare linked data. Temporal trend of therapy use was assessed using the Cochran-Armitage test. Two-year outcomes were compared using the chi-square test. Median treatment costs were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: A total of 542 men received SBRT, 9647 received brachytherapy, 23,408 received IMRT, and 800 men were treated with proton beam therapy. There was a significant increase in the use of SBRT and proton beam therapy (P<.001), whereas brachytherapy use decreased (P<.001). A higher percentage of patients treated with SBRT and brachytherapy had low-grade cancer (Gleason score ≤ 6 vs ≥ 7) compared with individuals treated with IMRT and proton beam therapy (54.0% and 64.2% vs 35.2% and 49.6%, respectively; P<.001). SBRT compared with brachytherapy and IMRT was associated with equivalent gastrointestinal toxicity but more erectile dysfunction at 2-year follow-up (P<.001). SBRT was associated with more urinary incontinence compared with IMRT and proton beam therapy but less compared with brachytherapy (P<.001, respectively). The median cost of SBRT was $27,145 compared with $17,183 for brachytherapy, $37,090 for IMRT, and $54,706 for proton beam therapy (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of SBRT and proton beam therapy for localized prostate cancer has increased over time. Despite men of lower disease stage undergoing SBRT, SBRT was found to be associated with greater toxicity but lower health care costs compared with IMRT and proton beam therapy. Cancer 2016;122:2496-504.
BACKGROUND: Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for localized prostate cancer has potential advantages over traditional radiotherapies. Herein, the authors compared national trends in use, complications, and costs of SBRT with those of traditional radiotherapies. METHODS: The authors identified men who underwent SBRT, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), brachytherapy, and proton beam therapy as primary treatment of prostate cancer between 2004 and 2011 from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER)-Medicare linked data. Temporal trend of therapy use was assessed using the Cochran-Armitage test. Two-year outcomes were compared using the chi-square test. Median treatment costs were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: A total of 542 men received SBRT, 9647 received brachytherapy, 23,408 received IMRT, and 800 men were treated with proton beam therapy. There was a significant increase in the use of SBRT and proton beam therapy (P<.001), whereas brachytherapy use decreased (P<.001). A higher percentage of patients treated with SBRT and brachytherapy had low-grade cancer (Gleason score ≤ 6 vs ≥ 7) compared with individuals treated with IMRT and proton beam therapy (54.0% and 64.2% vs 35.2% and 49.6%, respectively; P<.001). SBRT compared with brachytherapy and IMRT was associated with equivalent gastrointestinal toxicity but more erectile dysfunction at 2-year follow-up (P<.001). SBRT was associated with more urinary incontinence compared with IMRT and proton beam therapy but less compared with brachytherapy (P<.001, respectively). The median cost of SBRT was $27,145 compared with $17,183 for brachytherapy, $37,090 for IMRT, and $54,706 for proton beam therapy (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of SBRT and proton beam therapy for localized prostate cancer has increased over time. Despite men of lower disease stage undergoing SBRT, SBRT was found to be associated with greater toxicity but lower health care costs compared with IMRT and proton beam therapy. Cancer 2016;122:2496-504.
Authors: Aaron A Laviana; Annette M Ilg; Darlene Veruttipong; Hung-Jui Tan; Michael A Burke; Douglas R Niedzwiecki; Patrick A Kupelian; Chris R King; Michael L Steinberg; Chandan R Kundavaram; Mitchell Kamrava; Alan L Kaplan; Andrew K Moriarity; William Hsu; Daniel J A Margolis; Jim C Hu; Christopher S Saigal Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-11-02 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Paul L Nguyen; Xiangmei Gu; Stuart R Lipsitz; Toni K Choueiri; Wesley W Choi; Yin Lei; Karen E Hoffman; Jim C Hu Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-03-14 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jim C Hu; Xiangmei Gu; Stuart R Lipsitz; Michael J Barry; Anthony V D'Amico; Aaron C Weinberg; Nancy L Keating Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-10-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Gregory Azzam; Rachelle Lanciano; Steve Arrigo; John Lamond; William Ding; Jun Yang; Alexandra Hanlon; Michael Good; Luther Brady Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2015-05-05 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Hubert Y Pan; Jing Jiang; Karen E Hoffman; Chad Tang; Seungtaek L Choi; Quynh-Nhu Nguyen; Steven J Frank; Mitchell S Anscher; Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Benjamin D Smith Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-03-21 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Bruce L Jacobs; Jonathan G Yabes; Samia H Lopa; Dwight E Heron; Chung-Chou H Chang; Florian R Schroeck; Justin E Bekelman; Jeremy M Kahn; Joel B Nelson; Amber E Barnato Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-03-16 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Chad Tang; Xiudong Lei; Grace L Smith; Hubert Y Pan; Kenneth Hess; Aileen Chen; Karen E Hoffman; Brian F Chapin; Deborah A Kuban; Mitchell Anscher; Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Steven J Frank; Benjamin D Smith Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-04-13
Authors: Ajay Aggarwal; Daniel Lewis; Arunan Sujenthiran; Susan C Charman; Richard Sullivan; Heather Payne; Malcolm Mason; Jan van der Meulen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2017-08-24 Impact factor: 7.038