Sriram Venigalla1, Kevin T Nead2, Ronnie Sebro3, David M Guttmann2, Sonam Sharma4, Charles B Simone5, William P Levin2, Robert J Wilson6, Kristy L Weber6, Jacob E Shabason2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Electronic address: Sriram.Venigalla@uphs.upenn.edu. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland. 6. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Soft tissue sarcomas (STS) are rare malignancies that require complex multidisciplinary management. Therefore, facilities with high sarcoma case volume may demonstrate superior outcomes. We hypothesized that STS treatment at high-volume (HV) facilities would be associated with improved overall survival (OS). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients aged ≥18 years with nonmetastatic STS treated with surgery and radiation therapy at a single facility from 2004 through 2013 were identified from the National Cancer Database. Facilities were dichotomized into HV and low-volume (LV) cohorts based on total case volume over the study period. OS was assessed using multivariable Cox regression with propensity score-matching. Patterns of care were assessed using multivariable logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Of 9025 total patients, 1578 (17%) and 7447 (83%) were treated at HV and LV facilities, respectively. On multivariable analysis, high educational attainment, larger tumor size, higher grade, and negative surgical margins were statistically significantly associated with treatment at HV facilities; conversely, black race and non-metropolitan residence were negative predictors of treatment at HV facilities. On propensity score-matched multivariable analysis, treatment at HV facilities versus LV facilities was associated with improved OS (hazard ratio, 0.87, 95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.95; P = .001). Older age, lack of insurance, greater comorbidity, larger tumor size, higher tumor grade, and positive surgical margins were associated with statistically significantly worse OS. CONCLUSIONS: In this observational cohort study using the National Cancer Database, receipt of surgery and radiation therapy at HV facilities was associated with improved OS in patients with STS. Potential sociodemographic disparities limit access to care at HV facilities for certain populations. Our findings highlight the importance of receipt of care at HV facilities for patients with STS and warrant further study into improving access to care at HV facilities.
PURPOSE:Soft tissue sarcomas (STS) are rare malignancies that require complex multidisciplinary management. Therefore, facilities with high sarcoma case volume may demonstrate superior outcomes. We hypothesized that STS treatment at high-volume (HV) facilities would be associated with improved overall survival (OS). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients aged ≥18 years with nonmetastatic STS treated with surgery and radiation therapy at a single facility from 2004 through 2013 were identified from the National Cancer Database. Facilities were dichotomized into HV and low-volume (LV) cohorts based on total case volume over the study period. OS was assessed using multivariable Cox regression with propensity score-matching. Patterns of care were assessed using multivariable logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Of 9025 total patients, 1578 (17%) and 7447 (83%) were treated at HV and LV facilities, respectively. On multivariable analysis, high educational attainment, larger tumor size, higher grade, and negative surgical margins were statistically significantly associated with treatment at HV facilities; conversely, black race and non-metropolitan residence were negative predictors of treatment at HV facilities. On propensity score-matched multivariable analysis, treatment at HV facilities versus LV facilities was associated with improved OS (hazard ratio, 0.87, 95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.95; P = .001). Older age, lack of insurance, greater comorbidity, larger tumor size, higher tumor grade, and positive surgical margins were associated with statistically significantly worse OS. CONCLUSIONS: In this observational cohort study using the National Cancer Database, receipt of surgery and radiation therapy at HV facilities was associated with improved OS in patients with STS. Potential sociodemographic disparities limit access to care at HV facilities for certain populations. Our findings highlight the importance of receipt of care at HV facilities for patients with STS and warrant further study into improving access to care at HV facilities.
Authors: Ronald S Go; Adam C Bartley; Cynthia S Crowson; Nilay D Shah; Elizabeth B Habermann; Sara J Holton; David R Holmes Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-10-23 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Nitin Ohri; Xinglei Shen; Adam P Dicker; Laura A Doyle; Amy S Harrison; Timothy N Showalter Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2013-03-06 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Fausto R Loberiza; Anthony J Cannon; Dennis D Weisenburger; Julie M Vose; Matt J Moehr; Martin A Bast; Philip J Bierman; R Gregory Bociek; James O Armitage Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-09-14 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Juan C Gutierrez; Eduardo A Perez; Frederick L Moffat; Alan S Livingstone; Dido Franceschi; Leonidas G Koniaris Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Nicholas C J Lee; Jacqueline R Kelly; Yi An; Henry S Park; Benjamin L Judson; Barbara A Burtness; Zain A Husain Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-02-12 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Anusha Kalbasi; Mitchell Kamrava; Fang-I Chu; Donatello Telesca; Ritchell Van Dams; Yingli Yang; Dan Ruan; Scott D Nelson; Sarah M Dry; Jackie Hernandez; Bartosz Chmielowski; Arun S Singh; Susan V Bukata; Nicholas M Bernthal; Michael L Steinberg; Joanne B Weidhaas; Fritz C Eilber Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2020-02-13 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Varsha Jain; Sriram Venigalla; Ronnie A Sebro; Giorgos C Karakousis; Robert J Wilson; Kristy L Weber; Jacob E Shabason Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2019-09-04 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Siyer Roohani; Felix Ehret; Marta Kobus; Anne Flörcken; Sven Märdian; Jana Käthe Striefler; Daniel Rau; Robert Öllinger; Armin Jarosch; Volker Budach; David Kaul Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-09-14 Impact factor: 4.309
Authors: Marta Kobus; Siyer Roohani; Felix Ehret; Anne Flörcken; Jana Käthe Striefler; Franziska Brandes; Sven Märdian; Daniel Rau; Silvan Wittenberg; Robert Öllinger; David Kaul Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-08-08 Impact factor: 4.309
Authors: Danielle S Graham; Ritchell van Dams; Nicholas J Jackson; Mykola Onyshchenko; Mark A Eckardt; Benjamin J DiPardo; Scott D Nelson; Bartosz Chmielowski; Jacob E Shabason; Arun S Singh; Fritz C Eilber; Anusha Kalbasi Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2020-08-24 Impact factor: 6.639