PURPOSE: To evaluate geographic heterogeneity in the delivery of hypofractionated radiation therapy (RT) for breast cancer among Medicare beneficiaries across the United States. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We identified 190,193 patients from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Chronic Conditions Warehouse. The study included patients aged >65 years diagnosed with invasive breast cancer treated with breast conservation surgery followed by radiation diagnosed between 2000 and 2012. We analyzed data by hospital referral region based on patient residency ZIP code. The proportion of women who received hypofractionated RT within each region was analyzed over the study period. Multivariable logistic regression models identified predictors of hypofractionated RT. RESULTS: Over the entire study period we found substantial geographic heterogeneity in the use of hypofractionated RT. The proportion of women receiving hypofractionated breast RT in individual hospital referral regions varied from 0% to 61%. We found no correlation between the use of hypofractionated RT and urban/rural setting or general geographic region. The proportion of hypofractionated RT increased in regions with higher density of radiation oncologists, as well as lower total Medicare reimbursements. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates substantial geographic heterogeneity in the use of hypofractionated RT among elderly women with invasive breast cancer treated with lumpectomy in the United States. This heterogeneity persists despite clinical data from multiple randomized trials proving efficacy and safety compared with standard fractionation, and highlights possible inefficiency in health care delivery.
PURPOSE: To evaluate geographic heterogeneity in the delivery of hypofractionated radiation therapy (RT) for breast cancer among Medicare beneficiaries across the United States. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We identified 190,193 patients from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Chronic Conditions Warehouse. The study included patients aged >65 years diagnosed with invasive breast cancer treated with breast conservation surgery followed by radiation diagnosed between 2000 and 2012. We analyzed data by hospital referral region based on patient residency ZIP code. The proportion of women who received hypofractionated RT within each region was analyzed over the study period. Multivariable logistic regression models identified predictors of hypofractionated RT. RESULTS: Over the entire study period we found substantial geographic heterogeneity in the use of hypofractionated RT. The proportion of women receiving hypofractionated breast RT in individual hospital referral regions varied from 0% to 61%. We found no correlation between the use of hypofractionated RT and urban/rural setting or general geographic region. The proportion of hypofractionated RT increased in regions with higher density of radiation oncologists, as well as lower total Medicare reimbursements. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates substantial geographic heterogeneity in the use of hypofractionated RT among elderly women with invasive breast cancer treated with lumpectomy in the United States. This heterogeneity persists despite clinical data from multiple randomized trials proving efficacy and safety compared with standard fractionation, and highlights possible inefficiency in health care delivery.
Authors: M Clarke; R Collins; S Darby; C Davies; P Elphinstone; V Evans; J Godwin; R Gray; C Hicks; S James; E MacKinnon; P McGale; T McHugh; R Peto; C Taylor; Y Wang Journal: Lancet Date: 2005-12-17 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: A L Bane; T J Whelan; G R Pond; S Parpia; G Gohla; A W Fyles; J-P Pignol; K I Pritchard; S Chambers; M N Levine Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2014-02-20 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Reshma Jagsi; Aaron D Falchook; Laura H Hendrix; Heather Curry; Ronald C Chen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-12-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Benjamin D Smith; Soren M Bentzen; Candace R Correa; Carol A Hahn; Patricia H Hardenbergh; Geoffrey S Ibbott; Beryl McCormick; Julie R McQueen; Lori J Pierce; Simon N Powell; Abram Recht; Alphonse G Taghian; Frank A Vicini; Julia R White; Bruce G Haffty Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-07-16 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Timothy Whelan; Robert MacKenzie; Jim Julian; Mark Levine; Wendy Shelley; Laval Grimard; Barbara Lada; Himu Lukka; Francisco Perera; Anthony Fyles; Ethan Laukkanen; Sunil Gulavita; Veronique Benk; Barbara Szechtman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2002-08-07 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Joshua J Fenton; Weiwei Zhu; Steven Balch; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Paul Fishman; Rebecca A Hubbard Journal: Med Care Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Joanne S Haviland; J Roger Owen; John A Dewar; Rajiv K Agrawal; Jane Barrett; Peter J Barrett-Lee; H Jane Dobbs; Penelope Hopwood; Pat A Lawton; Brian J Magee; Judith Mills; Sandra Simmons; Mark A Sydenham; Karen Venables; Judith M Bliss; John R Yarnold Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2013-09-19 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Kelsey L Corrigan; Xiudong Lei; Neelofur Ahmad; Isidora Arzu; Elizabeth Bloom; Stephen G Chun; Chelain Goodman; Karen E Hoffman; Melissa Joyner; Lauren Mayo; Melissa Mitchell; Kevin T Nead; George H Perkins; Valerie Reed; Jay P Reddy; Pamela Schlembach; Simona F Shaitelman; Michael C Stauder; Eric A Strom; Welela Tereffe; Lee Wiederhold; Wendy A Woodward; Benjamin D Smith Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-12-24
Authors: Leticia M Nogueira; Helmneh M Sineshaw; Ahmedin Jemal; Craig E Pollack; Jason A Efstathiou; K Robin Yabroff Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-04-01