Dataset Information

Radiation therapy resources and guideline-concordant radiotherapy for early-stage breast cancer patients in an underserved region.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To examine the relationship between radiation therapy resources and guideline-concordant radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) in Kentucky.

Data sources

The SEER registry and Area Resource File provided county-level data describing cancer care resources and socioeconomic conditions of Kentucky residents.

Study design

The outcome variable was rate of BCS without radiotherapy in each county for 2000-2007. Eight-year weighted average rates of radiation therapy providers and hospitals per 100,000 residents were explanatory variables of interest. Exploratory spatial data analyses and spatial econometric models were estimated.

Principal findings

Appalachian counties in Kentucky had significantly fewer radiation oncologists, hospitals with radiation therapy facilities, and surgeons per 100,000 residents than non-Appalachian counties. The likelihood of BCS without radiation was significantly higher among Appalachian compared to non-Appalachian women (42.5 percent vs. 29.0 percent, p < .001). Higher proportions of women not receiving recommended radiotherapy after BCS were clustered in Eastern Kentucky around Lexington. This geographic disparity was partially explained by significantly fewer radiation therapy facilities in Appalachian Kentucky in adjusted analyses.

Conclusions

Scarce radiation therapy resources in Appalachian Kentucky are associated with disparities in receipt of guideline-concordant radiotherapy, suggesting that policy action is needed to improve the cancer treatment infrastructure in disadvantaged mountainous areas.

SUBMITTER: Yao N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3703497 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceStandard treatment for resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) includes anatomic resection with adequate lymph node dissection and adjuvant chemotherapy for appropriate patients. Historically, many patients with early-stage NSCLC have not received such treatment, which may affect the interpretation of the results of adjuvant therapy trials.ObjectiveTo ascertain patterns of guideline-concordant treatment among patients enrolled in a US-wide screening protocol for adjuvant treatment trials for resected NSCLC.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study included 2833 patients with stage IB to IIIA NSCLC (per American Joint Committee on Cancer 7th edition criteria) who enrolled in the Adjuvant Lung Cancer Enrichment Marker Identification and Sequencing Trial (ALCHEMIST) screening study (Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology A151216) from August 18, 2014, to April 1, 2019, and who did not enroll in a therapeutic adjuvant clinical trial; patients had tumors of at least 4 cm and/or with positive lymph nodes. Statistical analysis was conducted from June 1, 2020, through October 1, 2021.ExposuresCare patterns were ascertained overall and by sociodemographic and clinical factors, including age, sex, race and ethnicity, educational level, marital status, geography, histologic characteristics, stage, genomic variant status, smoking history, and comorbidities.Main outcomes and measuresFive outcomes are reported: whether patients (1) had anatomic surgical resection, (2) had adequate lymph node dissection (≥1 N1 nodal station plus ≥3 N2 nodal stations), (3) received any adjuvant chemotherapy, (4) received any cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy, and (5) received at least 4 cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy.ResultsOf the 2833 patients (1505 women [53%]; mean [SD] age, 66.5 [9.2] years) included in this analysis, 2697 (95%) had anatomic surgical resection, 1513 (53%) had adequate lymph node dissection, 1617 (57%) received any adjuvant chemotherapy, 1237 (44%) received at least 4 cycles of adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy, and 965 (34%) received any cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy. Rates were similar across race and ethnicity.Conclusions and relevanceThis cohort study found that among participants in a screening protocol for adjuvant clinical trials for resected early-stage NSCLC, just 53% underwent adequate lymph node dissection, and 57% received adjuvant chemotherapy, despite indications for such treatment. These results may affect the interpretation of adjuvant trials. Efforts are needed to optimize the use of proven therapies for early-stage NSCLC.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02194738.

Project description:ObjectiveIntraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) in early-stage breast cancer has been studied over the years. However, it has not been demonstrated whether IORT is more suitable as a therapeutic option for early-stage breast cancer than whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT). Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of IORT to those of WBRT as therapeutic options for early-stage breast cancer patients receiving breast-conserving surgery (INPLASY2020120008).MethodsPubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to October 2021. Computerized and manual searches were adopted to identify eligible randomized control trials from online databases. Risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated by random-effect models to assess the relative risk. Potential publication bias was quantified by Begg's and Egger's tests.ResultsBased on our inclusion criteria, 10 randomized control trials involving 5,698 patients were included in this meta-analysis. This meta-analysis showed that the IORT group was associated with a higher local recurrence risk (RR = 2.111, 95% CI, 1.130-3.943, p = 0.0191), especially in the long-term follow-up subgroup or published after 2020 subgroup or Caucasian subgroup (RR = 2.404, 95% CI, 1.183-4.885, p = 0.0154). Subgroup analysis showed that the IORT group had a higher recurrence risk than the WBRT group in the polycentric randomized controlled trial subgroup (RR = 1.213, 95% CI, 1.030-1.428, p = 0.0204). Pooled analysis showed that there was no statistically significant difference in overall survival, recurrence-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, and cancer-specific survival between IORT and WBRT groups. Additionally, the risk of skin toxicity was reduced, but the incidences of fat toxicity, edema, and scar calcification were significantly increased in the patients who underwent IORT in comparison to those who underwent WBRT.ConclusionThis meta-analysis revealed that IORT was not a better alternative to WBRT. More large-scale and well-designed clinical trials with longer follow-up periods are encouraged to further investigate the value of IORT.Systematic review registrationhttps://inplasy.com/inplasy-2020-12-0008/.