Michael Xiang1,2, Daniel T Chang1, Erqi L Pollom1,2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA. 2. Palo Alto Veterans Affairs Hospital, Palo Alto, California, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The comparative risks of a second cancer diagnosis are uncertain after primary cancer treatment with 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT), intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), or proton beam radiotherapy (PBRT). METHODS: Pediatric and adult patients with a first cancer diagnosis between 2004 and 2015 who received 3DCRT, IMRT, or PBRT were identified in the National Cancer Database from 9 tumor types: head and neck, gastrointestinal, gynecologic, lymphoma, lung, prostate, breast, bone/soft tissue, and brain/central nervous system. The diagnosis of second cancer was modeled using multivariable logistic regression adjusting for age, follow-up duration, radiotherapy (RT) dose, chemotherapy, sociodemographic variables, and other factors. Propensity score matching also was used to balance baseline characteristics. RESULTS: In total, 450,373 patients were identified (33.5% received 3DCRT, 65.2% received IMRT, and 1.3% received PBRT) with median follow-up of 5.1 years after RT completion and a cumulative follow-up period of 2.54 million person-years. Overall, the incidence of second cancer diagnosis was 1.55 per 100 patient-years. In a comparison between IMRT versus 3DCRT, there was no overall difference in the risk of second cancer (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.97-1.02; P = .75). By comparison, PBRT had an overall lower risk of second cancer versus IMRT (adjusted OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.26-0.36; P < .0001). Results within each tumor type generally were consistent in the pooled analyses and also were maintained in propensity score-matched analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of a second cancer diagnosis was similar after IMRT versus 3DCRT, whereas PBRT was associated with a lower risk of second cancer risk. Future work is warranted to determine the cost-effectiveness of PBRT and to identify the population best suited for this treatment.
BACKGROUND: The comparative risks of a second cancer diagnosis are uncertain after primary cancer treatment with 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT), intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), or proton beam radiotherapy (PBRT). METHODS: Pediatric and adult patients with a first cancer diagnosis between 2004 and 2015 who received 3DCRT, IMRT, or PBRT were identified in the National Cancer Database from 9 tumor types: head and neck, gastrointestinal, gynecologic, lymphoma, lung, prostate, breast, bone/soft tissue, and brain/central nervous system. The diagnosis of second cancer was modeled using multivariable logistic regression adjusting for age, follow-up duration, radiotherapy (RT) dose, chemotherapy, sociodemographic variables, and other factors. Propensity score matching also was used to balance baseline characteristics. RESULTS: In total, 450,373 patients were identified (33.5% received 3DCRT, 65.2% received IMRT, and 1.3% received PBRT) with median follow-up of 5.1 years after RT completion and a cumulative follow-up period of 2.54 million person-years. Overall, the incidence of second cancer diagnosis was 1.55 per 100 patient-years. In a comparison between IMRT versus 3DCRT, there was no overall difference in the risk of second cancer (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.97-1.02; P = .75). By comparison, PBRT had an overall lower risk of second cancer versus IMRT (adjusted OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.26-0.36; P < .0001). Results within each tumor type generally were consistent in the pooled analyses and also were maintained in propensity score-matched analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of a second cancer diagnosis was similar after IMRT versus 3DCRT, whereas PBRT was associated with a lower risk of second cancer risk. Future work is warranted to determine the cost-effectiveness of PBRT and to identify the population best suited for this treatment.
Authors: Hae Lin Cho; Vedang Murthy; Kent W Mouw; Anthony V D'Amico; Paul L Nguyen; Jonathan E Leeman; Edward Christopher Dee Journal: Prostate Date: 2022-06-02 Impact factor: 4.012
Authors: Kathryn R Tringale; Dana L Casey; Gregory Niyazov; Jessica A Lavery; Chaya Moskowitz; Danielle N Friedman; Suzanne L Wolden Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2022-03-02 Impact factor: 3.838
Authors: Sujith Baliga; Sara Gallotto; Benjamin Bajaj; Jacqueline Lewy; Elizabeth Weyman; Miranda P Lawell; Beow Y Yeap; David E Ebb; Mary Huang; Paul Caruso; Alisa Perry; Robin M Jones; Shannon M MacDonald; Nancy J Tarbell; Torunn I Yock Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2022-06-01 Impact factor: 13.029
Authors: Kenneth C W Wong; Edwin P Hui; Kwok-Wai Lo; Wai Kei Jacky Lam; David Johnson; Lili Li; Qian Tao; Kwan Chee Allen Chan; Ka-Fai To; Ann D King; Brigette B Y Ma; Anthony T C Chan Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2021-06-30 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Robert W Mutter; J Isabelle Choi; Rachel B Jimenez; Youlia M Kirova; Marcio Fagundes; Bruce G Haffty; Richard A Amos; Julie A Bradley; Peter Y Chen; Xuanfeng Ding; Antoinette M Carr; Leslie M Taylor; Mark Pankuch; Raymond B Mailhot Vega; Alice Y Ho; Petra Witt Nyström; Lisa A McGee; James J Urbanic; Oren Cahlon; John H Maduro; Shannon M MacDonald Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2021-05-25 Impact factor: 8.013
Authors: Harald Paganetti; Chris Beltran; Stefan Both; Lei Dong; Jacob Flanz; Keith Furutani; Clemens Grassberger; David R Grosshans; Antje-Christin Knopf; Johannes A Langendijk; Hakan Nystrom; Katia Parodi; Bas W Raaymakers; Christian Richter; Gabriel O Sawakuchi; Marco Schippers; Simona F Shaitelman; B K Kevin Teo; Jan Unkelbach; Patrick Wohlfahrt; Tony Lomax Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2021-02-26 Impact factor: 4.174
Authors: Hwa Kyung Byun; Min Cheol Han; Kyungmi Yang; Jin Sung Kim; Gyu Sang Yoo; Woong Sub Koom; Yong Bae Kim Journal: Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-06-16 Impact factor: 4.679