Dataset Information

Factors associated with complex oral treatment device usage in patients with head and neck cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

The objective was to identify clinical and epidemiological factors associated with utilization of a complex oral treatment device (COTD), which may decrease toxicity in patients undergoing radiation therapy for head and neck cancer (HNC).

Materials and methods

We retrospectively reviewed data from 1992 to 2013 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare databases to analyze COTD usage during intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for patients diagnosed with cancer of the tongue, floor of mouth, nasopharynx, tonsil, or oropharynx. Patients with a radiation simulation and complex treatment device code within 4 weeks before the first IMRT claim were identified as meeting COTD usage criteria. Demographic, regional, tumor, and treatment data were analyzed.

Results

Out of 4511 patients who met eligibility criteria, 1932 patients (42.8%) did not utilize a COTD while 2579 (57.2%) met usage criteria. COTD utilization increased over time (36.36% usage in 1992 vs. 67.44% usage in 2013, p < .0001). Patients less likely to receive a COTD included those aged 86 years or older compared to those aged 66-70 (OR = 0.713, 95% CI: 0.528-0.962), male patients (OR = 0.817, 95% CI: 0.710-0.941), non-Hispanic Black patients compared to non-Hispanic White patients (OR = 0.750, 95% CI: 0.582-0.966), and Louisiana residents (OR = 0.367, 95% CI: 0.279-0.483). Cancer site, grade, stage, or function of IMRT had no significant association with COTD usage.

Conclusions

This study serves as the first known SEER-Medicare review of COTD utilization. Despite an increase in COTD usage over time, our results indicate age, gender, and geographic disparities are associated with utilization. Further research and development into methods that increase availability of COTDs may help increase utilization in specific patient populations.

SUBMITTER: Palasi S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8365308 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Increasing clinical evidence supports the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) as a potential new therapeutic option for patients suffering from cancer-associated thromboembolism. However, the clinical impact of DOACs compared with traditional anticoagulants on the survival of patients with head and neck cancer has not been well studied. A total of 1025 patients diagnosed as having head and neck cancer, including 92 DOAC users, 113 warfarin users, and 820 nonusers of anticoagulants, were selected from the Chang Gung Research Database between January 2001 and December 2019. The patients were matched using the propensity-score method. The survival rates were estimated among the three groups using the Kaplan-Meier method. The protective effects and side effects of the two anticoagulants were compared using the chi-square test. The death rate (18 patients, 19.57%) in patients using DOACs was significantly lower than that in patients using warfarin (68 patients, 60.18%) and those not using any anticoagulant (403 patients, 49.15%). DOAC users had significantly better disease-specific survival (DSS) than warfarin users (p = 0.019) and those who did not use any anticoagulant (p = 0.03). Further, DOAC users had significantly higher overall survival (OS) rates than warfarin users and those who did not use any anticoagulant (p = 0.003). Patients with oropharyngeal and laryngeal cancer and DOAC users had a significantly lower hazard ratio for survival, whereas patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer stage IV disease and those receiving multidisciplinary treatment (e.g., surgery with radiotherapy or concurrent radiochemotherapy) had a significantly higher hazard ratio for survival. Among them, patients with laryngeal cancer (HR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.26-0.86, p = 0.0134) and DOAC users (HR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.29-0.98, p = 0.042) had the lowest hazard ratio from DSS analysis. Similarly, patients with laryngeal cancer (HR = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.30-0.76, p = 0.0018) and DOAC users (HR = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.36-0.93, p = 0.0251) had the lowest hazard ratio from OS analysis. As for the protective effects or side effects of anticoagulants, there were no significant differences in the occurrence rate of bleeding or ischemic events between DOAC and warfarin users. In our study, DOACs were found to be better than warfarin in terms of survival in patients with head and neck cancer. As regards thromboembolism prevention and side effects, DOACs were comparable to warfarin in our patients. DOACs can be a treatment choice or prophylaxis for tumor emboli in head and neck cancer patients and they might be a better choice than traditional anticoagulants according to the results of our study.