Tyler P Robin1, Arya Amini1, Tracey E Schefter1, Kian Behbakht2, Christine M Fisher3. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora, CO, United States. 2. Department of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora, CO, United States. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora, CO, United States. Electronic address: christine.fisher@ucdenver.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Standard of care (SOC) treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer includes pelvic external beam radiation (EBRT) with chemotherapy and interdigitated brachytherapy. We evaluated national utilization trends and factors associated with receiving SOC therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We utilized the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to identify women with locally advanced cervical cancer treated with definitive radiation or chemoradiation therapy and stratified these patients by treatment received. RESULTS: We identified 15,194 patients. Only 44.3% of patients received SOC treatment and this group had significantly improved OS. High volume centers, academic centers, comprehensive community cancer centers, private insurance, and higher income, were all associated with an increased likelihood of receiving SOC, whereas Black patients were less likely to receive SOC. We found 26.8% of patients received no radiation boost, 23.8% received an EBRT boost only, and 49.5% of patients received EBRT with brachytherapy. Although an EBRT boost was advantageous over no boost at all (HR 0.720, p<0.001), OS was superior in patients who received brachytherapy (HR 0.554, p<0.001). Patients were more likely to receive no radiotherapy boost if they had lower incomes, Medicaid, were treated at low volume centers, or were treated at non-comprehensive community cancer centers. CONCLUSIONS: SOC for locally advanced cervical cancer offers superior outcomes, yet less than half of patients receive SOC and there are disparities in which patients receive SOC treatment. No additional treatment, including sophisticated EBRT techniques including IMRT or SBRT, can make up for the survival decrement from lack of brachytherapy as a component of definitive care.
PURPOSE: Standard of care (SOC) treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer includes pelvic external beam radiation (EBRT) with chemotherapy and interdigitated brachytherapy. We evaluated national utilization trends and factors associated with receiving SOC therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We utilized the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to identify women with locally advanced cervical cancer treated with definitive radiation or chemoradiation therapy and stratified these patients by treatment received. RESULTS: We identified 15,194 patients. Only 44.3% of patients received SOC treatment and this group had significantly improved OS. High volume centers, academic centers, comprehensive community cancer centers, private insurance, and higher income, were all associated with an increased likelihood of receiving SOC, whereas Black patients were less likely to receive SOC. We found 26.8% of patients received no radiation boost, 23.8% received an EBRT boost only, and 49.5% of patients received EBRT with brachytherapy. Although an EBRT boost was advantageous over no boost at all (HR 0.720, p<0.001), OS was superior in patients who received brachytherapy (HR 0.554, p<0.001). Patients were more likely to receive no radiotherapy boost if they had lower incomes, Medicaid, were treated at low volume centers, or were treated at non-comprehensive community cancer centers. CONCLUSIONS: SOC for locally advanced cervical cancer offers superior outcomes, yet less than half of patients receive SOC and there are disparities in which patients receive SOC treatment. No additional treatment, including sophisticated EBRT techniques including IMRT or SBRT, can make up for the survival decrement from lack of brachytherapy as a component of definitive care.
Authors: Michael K Rooney; Fan Zhu; Erin F Gillespie; Jillian R Gunther; Ryan P McKillip; Matthew Lineberry; Ara Tekian; Daniel W Golden Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-06-06 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Tyler P Robin; Bernard L Jones; Oren M Gordon; Andy Phan; Diana Abbott; Jessica D McDermott; Julie A Goddard; David Raben; Ryan M Lanning; Sana D Karam Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-04-03 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: David Boyce-Fappiano; Kevin A Nguyen; Olsi Gjyshi; Gohar Manzar; Chike O Abana; Ann H Klopp; Mitchell Kamrava; Peter F Orio; Nikhil G Thaker; Firas Mourtada; Puja Venkat; Albert J Chang Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2021-09-22
Authors: Shaina F Bruce; Tanvi V Joshi; Inna Chervoneva; Misung Yi; Sudeshna Chatterjee-Paer; Elizabeth R Burton; Mitchell I Edelson; Joel I Sorosky; Mark S Shahin Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 7.623