Waqar Haque1, Vivek Verma2, E Brian Butler1, Bin S Teh1. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, USA. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (CFRT) versus hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT) for rectal cancer (RC) is among the most controversial and debatable areas of radiotherapeutic management. This is the only known study evaluating the utilization of neoadjuvant HFRT for RC in the United States, and focuses on trends and health disparities. METHODS: The National Cancer Data Base was queried [2004-2015] for newly-diagnosed cT3-T4 Nany or cTany N1-2 M0 rectal adenocarcinoma undergoing neoadjuvant RT, with or without chemotherapy, followed by resection. Following analysis based on temporal trends, multivariate logistic regression determined factors associated with receipt of HFRT. RESULTS: Altogether, 29,994 patients met study criteria: 29,724 (99%) were treated with CFRT, and 270 (1%) with HFRT. Temporally, utilization of HFRT rose significantly, from 0.2% in 2004 to 2.0% in 2015, with the steepest slope at most recent time periods. HFRT was more likely administered to older patients, those with more comorbidities, and node-positive disease (P<0.05 for all). There were racial differences, as African-Americans were independently less likely to receive HFRT (P=0.043). The two strongest predictors of HFRT administration (by odds ratio) were time period and therapy at academic centers (P<0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Although HFRT is underutilized in the US, its use is rising and has increased nearly tenfold over the last decade. Disparities in HFRT delivery are emphasized, especially concerning disease-/patient-specific factors, socioeconomic status, and race. These data may serve as a benchmark for future investigation as well as for health disparities in the radiotherapeutic treatment of RC.
BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (CFRT) versus hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT) for rectal cancer (RC) is among the most controversial and debatable areas of radiotherapeutic management. This is the only known study evaluating the utilization of neoadjuvant HFRT for RC in the United States, and focuses on trends and health disparities. METHODS: The National Cancer Data Base was queried [2004-2015] for newly-diagnosed cT3-T4 Nany or cTany N1-2 M0 rectal adenocarcinoma undergoing neoadjuvant RT, with or without chemotherapy, followed by resection. Following analysis based on temporal trends, multivariate logistic regression determined factors associated with receipt of HFRT. RESULTS: Altogether, 29,994 patients met study criteria: 29,724 (99%) were treated with CFRT, and 270 (1%) with HFRT. Temporally, utilization of HFRT rose significantly, from 0.2% in 2004 to 2.0% in 2015, with the steepest slope at most recent time periods. HFRT was more likely administered to older patients, those with more comorbidities, and node-positive disease (P<0.05 for all). There were racial differences, as African-Americans were independently less likely to receive HFRT (P=0.043). The two strongest predictors of HFRT administration (by odds ratio) were time period and therapy at academic centers (P<0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Although HFRT is underutilized in the US, its use is rising and has increased nearly tenfold over the last decade. Disparities in HFRT delivery are emphasized, especially concerning disease-/patient-specific factors, socioeconomic status, and race. These data may serve as a benchmark for future investigation as well as for health disparities in the radiotherapeutic treatment of RC.
Entities:
Keywords:
Rectal cancer (RC); conventional fractionation; hypofractionation; long course; radiotherapy; short course
Authors: Karyn A Goodman; Caroline E Patton; George A Fisher; Sarah E Hoffe; Michael G Haddock; Parag J Parikh; John Kim; Nancy N Baxter; Brian G Czito; Theodore S Hong; Joseph M Herman; Christopher H Crane; Karen E Hoffman Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2015-11-24
Authors: Yvonne M Mowery; Joseph K Salama; S Yousuf Zafar; Harvey G Moore; Christopher G Willett; Brian G Czito; M Benjamin Hopkins; Manisha Palta Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-12-16 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Waqar Haque; Vivek Verma; Mohamad Fakhreddine; Sandra Hatch; E Brian Butler; Bin S Teh Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2016-10-23 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Samuel Y Ngan; Bryan Burmeister; Richard J Fisher; Michael Solomon; David Goldstein; David Joseph; Stephen P Ackland; David Schache; Bev McClure; Sue-Anne McLachlan; Joseph McKendrick; Trevor Leong; Cris Hartopeanu; John Zalcberg; John Mackay Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-09-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: K Bujko; L Wyrwicz; A Rutkowski; M Malinowska; L Pietrzak; J Kryński; W Michalski; J Olędzki; J Kuśnierz; L Zając; M Bednarczyk; M Szczepkowski; W Tarnowski; E Kosakowska; J Zwoliński; M Winiarek; K Wiśniowska; M Partycki; K Bęczkowska; W Polkowski; R Styliński; R Wierzbicki; P Bury; M Jankiewicz; K Paprota; M Lewicka; B Ciseł; M Skórzewska; J Mielko; M Bębenek; A Maciejczyk; B Kapturkiewicz; A Dybko; Ł Hajac; A Wojnar; T Leśniak; J Zygulska; D Jantner; E Chudyba; W Zegarski; M Las-Jankowska; M Jankowski; L Kołodziejski; A Radkowski; U Żelazowska-Omiotek; B Czeremszyńska; L Kępka; J Kolb-Sielecki; Z Toczko; Z Fedorowicz; A Dziki; A Danek; G Nawrocki; R Sopyło; W Markiewicz; P Kędzierawski; J Wydmański Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2016-02-15 Impact factor: 32.976