Dataset Information

Lack of survival advantage among re-resected elderly glioblastoma patients: a SEER-Medicare study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The survival benefit of re-resection for glioblastoma (GBM) remains controversial, owing to the immortal time bias inadequately considered in many studies where re-resection was treated as a fixed, rather than a time-dependent factor. Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare (SEER-Medicare) database, we assessed treatment patterns for older adults and evaluated the association between re-resection and overall survival (OS), accounting for the timing of re-resection.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study included elderly patients (age ?66) in the SEER-Medicare linked database diagnosed with GBM between 2006 and 2015 who underwent initial resection. Time-dependent Cox regression was used to assess the association between re-resection and OS, controlling for age, gender, race, poverty level, geographic region, marital status, comorbidities, receipt of radiation + temozolomide, and surgical complications.

Results

Our analysis included 3604 patients with median age 74 (range: 66-96); 54% were men and 94% were white. After initial resection, 44% received radiation + temozolomide and these patients had a lower hazard of death (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.28, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.26-0.31, P < .001). In total, 9.5% (n = 343) underwent re-resection. In multivariable analyses, no survival benefit was seen for patients who underwent re-resection (HR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.99-1.27, P = .07).

Conclusions

Re-resection rates were low among elderly GBM patients, and no survival advantage was observed for patients who underwent re-resection. However, patients who received standard of care at initial diagnosis had a lower risk of death. Older adults benefit from receiving radiation + temozolomide after initial resection, and future studies should assess the relationship between re-resection and OS taking the time of re-resection into account.

SUBMITTER: Goldman DA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7813163 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan-Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Lack of survival advantage among re-resected elderly glioblastoma patients: a SEER-Medicare study.

Goldman Debra A DA Reiner Anne S AS Diamond Eli L EL DeAngelis Lisa M LM Tabar Viviane V Panageas Katherine S KS

Neuro-oncology advances 20201129 1

<h4>Background</h4>The survival benefit of re-resection for glioblastoma (GBM) remains controversial, owing to the immortal time bias inadequately considered in many studies where re-resection was treated as a fixed, rather than a time-dependent factor. Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare (SEER-Medicare) database, we assessed treatment patterns for older adults and evaluated the association between re-resection and overall survival (OS), accounting for the timing of re ...[more]

PMID: 33506202

Similar Datasets

Project description:The optimal time to initiate adjuvant therapy (AT) in elderly patients with glioblastoma (GBM) remains unclear. We investigated the impact of timing to start AT on overall survival (OS) using two national-scale datasets covering elderly GBM populations in the United States. A total of 3159 and 8161 eligible elderly GBM patients were derived from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked dataset (2004-2013) and the National Cancer Database (NCDB) (2004-2014), respectively. The intervals in days from the diagnosis to the initiation of AT were categorized based on two scenarios: Scenario I (quartiles), ≤ 15, 16-26, 27-37, and ≥ 38 days; Scenario II (median), < 27, and ≥ 27 days. The primary outcome was OS. We performed the Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression methods for survival analysis. A sensitivity analysis was performed using Propensity Score Matching (PSM) method to achieve well-balanced characteristics between early-timing and delayed-timing in Scenario II. Improved OS was observed among patients who underwent resection and initiated AT with either a modest delay (27-37 days) or a longer delay (≥ 38 days) compared to those who received AT immediately (≤ 15 days) from both the SEER-Medicare dataset [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.74, 95% CI 0.64-0.84, P < 0.001; and aHR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71-0.92, P = 0.002] and the NCDB (aHR 0.83, 95% CI 0.74-0.93, P = 0.001; and aHR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77-0.98, P = 0.017). The survival advantage is observed in delayed-timing group as well in Scenario II. For elderly patients who had biopsy only, improved OS was only detected in a longer delay (Scenario I: ≥ 38 days vs. ≤ 15 days) or the delayed-timing group (Scenario II: ≥ 27 days vs. < 27 days) in the NCDB while no survival difference was seen in SEER-Medicare population. For the best timing to start AT in elderly GBM patients, superior survivals were observed among those who had craniotomy and initiated AT with a modest (27-37 days) or longer delays (≥ 38 days) following diagnosis using both the SEER-Medicare and NCDB datasets (Scenario I). Such survival advantage was confirmed when categorizing delayed-timing vs. early-timing with the cut-off at 27 day in both datasets (Scenario II). The increased likelihood of receiving delayed AT (≥ 27 days) was significantly associated with tumor resection (STR/GTR), years of diagnosis after 2006, African American and Hispanics races, treatments at academic facilities, and being referred. There is no difference in timing of AT on survival among elderly GBM patients who had biopsy in the SEER-Medicare dataset. In conclusion, initiating AT with a modest delay (27-37 days) or a longer delay (≥ 38 days) after craniotomy may be the preferred timing in the elderly GBM population.

Project description:BackgroundSince 2005, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has required all Medicare Advantage (MA) plans to report prescribing rates of high risk medications (HRM).ObjectiveTo determine predictors of receipt of HRMs, as defined by the National Committee for Quality Assurance's "Drugs to Avoid in the Elderly" quality indicator, in a national sample of MA enrollees.Design and participantsRetrospective analysis of Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) data for 6,204,824 enrollees, aged 65 years or older, enrolled in 415 MA plans in 2009. To identify predictors of HRM use, we fit generalized linear models and modeled outcomes on the risk-difference scale.Main outcome measuresReceipt or non-receipt of one or two HRMs.Key resultsApproximately 21 % of MA enrollees received at least one HRM and 4.8 % received at least two. In fully adjusted models, females had a 10.6 (95 % CI: 10.0-11.2) higher percentage point rate of receipt than males, and residence in any of the Southern United States divisions was associated with a greater than 10 percentage point higher rate, as compared with the reference New England division. Higher rates were also observed among enrollees with low personal income (6.5 percentage points, 95 % CI: 5.5-7.5), relative to those without low income and those residing in areas in the lowest quintile of socioeconomic status (2.7 points, 95 % CI: 1.9-3.4) relative to persons residing in the highest quintile. Enrollees ? 85 years old, black enrollees, and other minority groups were less likely to receive these medications. Over 38 % of MA enrollees residing in the hospital referral region of Albany, Georgia received at least one HRM, a rate four times higher than the referral region with the lowest rate (Mason City, Iowa).ConclusionsUse of HRMs among MA enrollees varies widely by geographic region. Persons living in the Southern region of the U.S., whites, women, and persons of low personal income and socioeconomic status are more likely to receive HRMs.

Project description:Importance:In the Medicare Advantage (MA) program, Medicare enrollees may be steered by their health plan to specific hospitals. Little is known about the quality of hospitals that serve MA enrollees. Objective:To compare the quality of hospitals that admit MA enrollees with the quality of those that admit traditional Medicare enrollees. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cross-sectional study used data from the 2012 to 2016 Medicare Provider Analysis and Review to compare quality of care, as measured by the star rating given by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and readmission rates, in hospitals that serve MA enrollees and traditional Medicare enrollees using multinomial logit models. Participants were 7?130?610 Medicare beneficiaries admitted to 2994 acute care hospitals across the United States in 2016. Data were analyzed between August 2018 and August 2019. Exposures:The exposure was MA enrollment. Adjusters included demographic and clinical characteristics and zip code fixed effects. Main Outcomes and Measures:Hospital Compare star ratings and quintiles of performance in 30-day readmission rates. Results:The sample included 7?130?610 Medicare beneficiaries in 2016 (54.3% female; mean [SD] age, 72.7 [13.2] years). Of 12?190?270 total hospitalizations, 1?211?293 traditional Medicare and 494?352 MA patients were admitted to 718 low-readmission hospitals and 1?205?586 traditional Medicare and 526?955 MA patients were admitted to 597 high-readmission hospitals. Accounting for observed patient characteristics, MA enrollees less often entered either low- or high-quality hospitals and were more often admitted to average-quality hospitals. For nonemergent hospitalizations, MA enrollees were 1.9 percentage points (95% CI, 1.5-2.2 percentage points) less likely to enter a low-readmissions hospital, 5.1 percentage points (95% CI, 4.6-5.6 percentage points) more likely to enter an average-readmissions hospital, and 3.2 percentage points (95% CI, 2.9-3.5 percentage points) less likely to enter a high-readmissions hospital compared with traditional Medicare enrollees. Patients with MA were also 2.6 percentage points (95% CI, 2.2-2.9 percentage points) less likely to enter a 1- to 2-star hospital, 5.5 percentage points (95% CI, 4.9-5.9 percentage points) more likely to enter a 3-star hospital, and 2.8 percentage points (95% CI, 2.5-3.2 percentage points) less likely to enter a 4- to 5-star hospital compared with traditional Medicare enrollees. The differences were less pronounced for emergency admissions. Conclusions and Relevance:This study found that enrollees in MA plans were more likely to be admitted to average-quality hospitals instead of either high- or low-quality hospitals, suggesting that MA plans may be steering their enrollees to specific hospitals.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is associated with cancer risk and increases the risk of Barrett esophagus, which is the precursor lesion of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EA), primarily in the absence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). However, to the authors' knowledge, little is known regarding whether MetS is associated with the risk of EA. METHODS:Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare-linked database, the authors evaluated whether MetS was associated with EA. A total of 3167 cases of EA were compared with individually matched population controls (5:1); a subset of 575 EA cases were able to be individually matched with 575 Barrett esophagus controls. MetS was defined using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes in the period 1 to 3 years before the diagnosis of EA or control selection. Unconditional logistic regression was used to estimate adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Potential effect modification by GERD symptoms and sex was examined in stratified models. RESULTS:EA was found to be significantly associated with MetS (odds ratio, 1.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.26) compared with population controls. In males, the association was restricted to those individuals without prior GERD; however, in females, MetS was found to be associated with EA regardless of GERD status. Effect modification by sex was observed (P for interaction?=?.01). MetS was not found to be associated with EA risk when compared with Barrett esophagus controls. CONCLUSIONS:In this older population, MetS was found to be associated with an increased risk of EA in males without GERD and females regardless of GERD status. Given the lack of an association when compared with Barrett esophagus controls, MetS may impact EA risk by primarily increasing the risk of the precursor lesion, Barrett esophagus. Cancer 2017;123:657-665. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Dataset Information

Lack of survival advantage among re-resected elderly glioblastoma patients: a SEER-Medicare study.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Lack of survival advantage among re-resected elderly glioblastoma patients: a SEER-Medicare study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets