Arya Amini1, David Raben1, E David Crawford2, Thomas W Flaig2, Elizabeth R Kessler2, Elaine T Lam2, Paul Maroni3, Thomas J Pugh4. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO. 3. Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO. Electronic address: thomas.pugh@ucdenver.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate usage trends and identify factors associated with proton beam therapy (PBT) compared to alternative forms of external beam radiation therapy (RT) (EBRT) for localized prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for men with localized (N0, M0) prostate cancer diagnosed between 2004 and 2013, treated with EBRT, with available data on EBRT modality (photon vs. PBT). Binary multiple logistic regression identified variables associated with EBRT modality. RESULTS: In total, 143,702 patients were evaluated with relatively few men receiving PBT (5,709 [4.0%]). Significant differences in patient and clinical characteristics were identified between those men treated with PBT compared to those treated with photon (odds ratio [OR]; 95% CI). Patients treated with PBT were generally younger (OR = 0.73; CI: 0.67-0.82), National Comprehensive Cancer Network low-risk compared to intermediate (0.71; 0.65-0.78) or high (0.44; 0.38-0.5) risk, white vs. black race (0.66; 0.58-0.77), with less comorbidity (Charlson-Deyo 0 vs. 2+; 0.70; 0.50-0.98), live in higher income counties (1.55; 1.36-1.78), and live in metropolitan areas compared to urban (0.21; 0.18-0.23) or rural (0.14; 0.10-0.19) areas. Most patients treated with PBT travelled more than 100 miles to the treatment facility. Annual PBT utilization significantly increased in both total number and percentage of EBRT over time (2.7%-5.6%; P<0.001). PBT utilization increased mostly in men classified as National Comprehensive Cancer Network low-risk (4%-10.2%). CONCLUSION: PBT for men with localized prostate cancer significantly increased in the United States from 2004 to 2013. Significant demographic and prognostic differences between those men treated with photons and protons were identified.
PURPOSE: To evaluate usage trends and identify factors associated with proton beam therapy (PBT) compared to alternative forms of external beam radiation therapy (RT) (EBRT) for localized prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for men with localized (N0, M0) prostate cancer diagnosed between 2004 and 2013, treated with EBRT, with available data on EBRT modality (photon vs. PBT). Binary multiple logistic regression identified variables associated with EBRT modality. RESULTS: In total, 143,702 patients were evaluated with relatively few men receiving PBT (5,709 [4.0%]). Significant differences in patient and clinical characteristics were identified between those men treated with PBT compared to those treated with photon (odds ratio [OR]; 95% CI). Patients treated with PBT were generally younger (OR = 0.73; CI: 0.67-0.82), National Comprehensive Cancer Network low-risk compared to intermediate (0.71; 0.65-0.78) or high (0.44; 0.38-0.5) risk, white vs. black race (0.66; 0.58-0.77), with less comorbidity (Charlson-Deyo 0 vs. 2+; 0.70; 0.50-0.98), live in higher income counties (1.55; 1.36-1.78), and live in metropolitan areas compared to urban (0.21; 0.18-0.23) or rural (0.14; 0.10-0.19) areas. Most patients treated with PBT travelled more than 100 miles to the treatment facility. Annual PBT utilization significantly increased in both total number and percentage of EBRT over time (2.7%-5.6%; P<0.001). PBT utilization increased mostly in men classified as National Comprehensive Cancer Network low-risk (4%-10.2%). CONCLUSION: PBT for men with localized prostate cancer significantly increased in the United States from 2004 to 2013. Significant demographic and prognostic differences between those men treated with photons and protons were identified.
Authors: Anna Lee; Julie Kang; Yao Yu; Sean McBride; Nadeem Riaz; Marc Cohen; Eric Sherman; Loren Michel; Nancy Lee; C Jillian Tsai Journal: Int J Part Ther Date: 2019-04-22
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
Authors: Danmeng Huang; Steven J Frank; Vivek Verma; Nikhil G Thaker; Eric D Brooks; Matthew B Palmer; Ross F Harrison; Ashish A Deshmukh; Matthew S Ning Journal: Int J Part Ther Date: 2021-06-25