Literature DB >> 29231964

Travel distance and stereotactic body radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer.

Brandon A Mahal1, Yu-Wei Chen2, Roshan V Sethi1, Oscar A Padilla3, David D Yang4, Janice Chavez5, Vinayak Muralidhar1, Jim C Hu6, Felix Y Feng7, Karen E Hoffman8, Neil E Martin9, Daniel E Spratt10, James B Yu11, Peter F Orio9, Paul L Nguyen9.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Definitive stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) represents an emerging and debated treatment option for patients with prostate cancer, with potential economic savings and reports of short-term efficacy since 2006. The current study sought to define national trends in definitive prostate SBRT use and determine whether patterns vary by travel distance for treatment.
METHODS: The National Cancer Data Base identified 181,544 men with localized prostate cancer who were treated with definitive external beam radiotherapy from 2004 through 2012. Joinpoint regression analyzed definitive prostate SBRT trends over time, whereas multivariable logistic regression defined the odds for its receipt by travel distance for treatment.
RESULTS: Definitive prostate SBRT use increased from 1.8% in 2004 to 5.9% in 2012 (P for trend <.0001), with a joinpoint for increased use noted in 2006 (P<.0001). Higher SBRT use was found to be associated with longer travel distance for treatment, younger age, white race, more affluent zip code of residence, academic treatment center, favorable disease characteristics, and fewer comorbidities (all P<.0001). Compared with travel distances <25 miles for treatment, travel distances of 25 to 50 miles and >50 miles were associated with increasing adjusted odds of receipt of definitive prostate SBRT (1.63 [95% confidence interval, 1.51-1.76] and 2.35 [95% confidence interval, 2.14-2.57], respectively; both P < .0001).
CONCLUSIONS: Definitive prostate SBRT use increased more than 3-fold since 2004, with a significant increase in use coinciding with early reports of short-term efficacy. Long-distance travel for treatment was associated with greater than twice the odds of receipt of definitive prostate SBRT compared with short-distance travel, suggesting that treatment decisions with unknown long-term clinical implications may be strongly driven by sociodemographic factors. Cancer 2018;124:1141-9.
© 2017 American Cancer Society. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  financial toxicity; prostate cancer; radiation; stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT); travel distance

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29231964     DOI: 10.1002/cncr.31190

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  10 in total

1.  National practice patterns for lymph node irradiation in 197,000 men receiving external beam radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Adam B Weiner; Oliver S Ko; Alec Zhu; Daniel E Spratt; Jim C Hu; Edward M Schaeffer
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2019-01-02       Impact factor: 3.498

Review 2.  Financial toxicity associated with treatment of localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Brandon S Imber; Melissa Varghese; Behfar Ehdaie; Daniel Gorovets
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2019-12-02       Impact factor: 14.432

3.  Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Travel for Head and Neck Cancer Treatment and the Impact of Travel Distance on Survival.

Authors:  Evan M Graboyes; Mark A Ellis; Hong Li; John M Kaczmar; Anand K Sharma; Eric J Lentsch; Terry A Day; Chanita Hughes Halbert
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2018-06-22       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Influence of Geography on Prostate Cancer Treatment.

Authors:  Chad Tang; Xiudong Lei; Grace L Smith; Hubert Y Pan; Karen E Hoffman; Rachit Kumar; Brian F Chapin; Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Steven J Frank; Benjamin D Smith
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2020-12-13       Impact factor: 7.038

5.  Editorial: The Evolving Landscape of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for the Management of Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Seth R Blacksburg; Donald B Fuller; Jonathan A Haas
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2020-12-15       Impact factor: 6.244

6.  Ten-Year Single Institutional Analysis of Geographic and Demographic Characteristics of Patients Treated With Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Nima Aghdam; Michael Carrasquilla; Edina Wang; Abigail N Pepin; Malika Danner; Marilyn Ayoob; Thomas Yung; Brian T Collins; Deepak Kumar; Simeng Suy; Sean P Collins; Jonathan W Lischalk
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-02-25       Impact factor: 6.244

7.  Clinical adoption patterns of 0.35 Tesla MR-guided radiation therapy in Europe and Asia.

Authors:  Berend J Slotman; Mary Ann Clark; Enis Özyar; Myungsoo Kim; Jun Itami; Agnès Tallet; Jürgen Debus; Raphael Pfeffer; PierCarlo Gentile; Yukihiro Hama; Nicolaus Andratschke; Olivier Riou; Philip Camilleri; Claus Belka; Magali Quivrin; BoKyong Kim; Anders Pedersen; Mette van Overeem Felter; Young Il Kim; Jin Ho Kim; Martin Fuss; Vincenzo Valentini
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2022-08-22       Impact factor: 4.309

8.  Impact of COVID-19 on the curative treatment of prostate cancer: a national cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Andre G Gouveia; Fabio Y Moraes; Renato P Lima; Gustavo A Viani
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2022-09-19

Review 9.  Salvage therapy for prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Nicholas G Zaorsky; Jeremie Calais; Stefano Fanti; Derya Tilki; Tanya Dorff; Daniel E Spratt; Amar U Kishan
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2021-08-06       Impact factor: 14.432

10.  Combining Drive Time and Urologist Density to Understand Access to Urologic Care.

Authors:  Claire L Leiser; Ross E Anderson; Christopher Martin; Heidi A Hanson; Brock O'Neil
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2020-02-17       Impact factor: 2.649

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.