Real-World Use of Hypofractionated Radiotherapy for Primary CNS Tumors in the Elderly, and Implications on Medicare Spending.

IF 14.8 2区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Pub Date : 2024-04-29 DOI:10.6004/jnccn.2023.7109
Kathryn R Tringale, Andrew Lin, Alexandra M Miller, Atif Khan, Linda Chen, Melissa Zinovoy, Yoshiya Yamada, Yao Yu, Luke R G Pike, Brandon S Imber
{"title":"Real-World Use of Hypofractionated Radiotherapy for Primary CNS Tumors in the Elderly, and Implications on Medicare Spending.","authors":"Kathryn R Tringale, Andrew Lin, Alexandra M Miller, Atif Khan, Linda Chen, Melissa Zinovoy, Yoshiya Yamada, Yao Yu, Luke R G Pike, Brandon S Imber","doi":"10.6004/jnccn.2023.7109","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>For elderly patients with high-grade gliomas, 3-week hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT) is noninferior to standard long-course radiotherapy (LCRT). We analyzed real-world utilization of HFRT with and without systemic therapy in Medicare beneficiaries treated with RT for primary central nervous system (CNS) tumors using Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Radiation modality, year, age (65-74, 75-84, or ≥85 years), and site of care (freestanding vs hospital-affiliated) were evaluated. Utilization of HFRT (11-20 fractions) versus LCRT (21-30 or 31-40 fractions) and systemic therapy was evaluated by multivariable logistic regression. Medicare spending over the 90-day episode after RT planning initiation was analyzed using multivariable linear regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 2015 to 2019, a total of 10,702 RT courses (ie, episodes) were included (28% HFRT; 65% of patients aged 65-74 years). A considerable minority died within 90 days of RT planning initiation (n=1,251; 12%), and 765 (61%) of those received HFRT. HFRT utilization increased (24% in 2015 to 31% in 2019; odds ratio [OR], 1.2 per year; 95% CI, 1.1-1.2) and was associated with older age (≥85 vs 65-74 years; OR, 6.8; 95% CI, 5.5-8.4), death within 90 days of RT planning initiation (OR, 5.0; 95% CI, 4.4-5.8), hospital-affiliated sites (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.3-1.6), conventional external-beam RT (vs intensity-modulated RT; OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 2.3-3.1), and no systemic therapy (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.3; P<.001 for all). Increasing use of HFRT was concentrated in hospital-affiliated sites (P=.002 for interaction). Most patients (69%) received systemic therapy with no differences by site of care (P=.12). Systemic therapy utilization increased (67% in 2015 to 71% in 2019; OR, 1.1 per year; 95% CI, 1.0-1.1) and was less likely for older patients, patients who died within 90 days of RT planning initiation, those who received conventional external-beam RT, and those who received HFRT. HFRT significantly reduced spending compared with LCRT (adjusted β for LCRT = +$8,649; 95% CI, $8,544-$8,755), whereas spending modestly increased with systemic therapy (adjusted β for systemic therapy = +$270; 95% CI, $176-$365).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although most Medicare beneficiaries received LCRT for primary brain tumors, HFRT utilization increased in hospital-affiliated centers. Despite high-level evidence for elderly patients, discrepancy in HFRT implementation by site of care persists. Further investigation is needed to understand why patients with short survival may still receive LCRT, because this has major quality-of-life and Medicare spending implications.</p>","PeriodicalId":17483,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":14.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2023.7109","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: For elderly patients with high-grade gliomas, 3-week hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT) is noninferior to standard long-course radiotherapy (LCRT). We analyzed real-world utilization of HFRT with and without systemic therapy in Medicare beneficiaries treated with RT for primary central nervous system (CNS) tumors using Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data.

Methods: Radiation modality, year, age (65-74, 75-84, or ≥85 years), and site of care (freestanding vs hospital-affiliated) were evaluated. Utilization of HFRT (11-20 fractions) versus LCRT (21-30 or 31-40 fractions) and systemic therapy was evaluated by multivariable logistic regression. Medicare spending over the 90-day episode after RT planning initiation was analyzed using multivariable linear regression.

Results: From 2015 to 2019, a total of 10,702 RT courses (ie, episodes) were included (28% HFRT; 65% of patients aged 65-74 years). A considerable minority died within 90 days of RT planning initiation (n=1,251; 12%), and 765 (61%) of those received HFRT. HFRT utilization increased (24% in 2015 to 31% in 2019; odds ratio [OR], 1.2 per year; 95% CI, 1.1-1.2) and was associated with older age (≥85 vs 65-74 years; OR, 6.8; 95% CI, 5.5-8.4), death within 90 days of RT planning initiation (OR, 5.0; 95% CI, 4.4-5.8), hospital-affiliated sites (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.3-1.6), conventional external-beam RT (vs intensity-modulated RT; OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 2.3-3.1), and no systemic therapy (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.3; P<.001 for all). Increasing use of HFRT was concentrated in hospital-affiliated sites (P=.002 for interaction). Most patients (69%) received systemic therapy with no differences by site of care (P=.12). Systemic therapy utilization increased (67% in 2015 to 71% in 2019; OR, 1.1 per year; 95% CI, 1.0-1.1) and was less likely for older patients, patients who died within 90 days of RT planning initiation, those who received conventional external-beam RT, and those who received HFRT. HFRT significantly reduced spending compared with LCRT (adjusted β for LCRT = +$8,649; 95% CI, $8,544-$8,755), whereas spending modestly increased with systemic therapy (adjusted β for systemic therapy = +$270; 95% CI, $176-$365).

Conclusions: Although most Medicare beneficiaries received LCRT for primary brain tumors, HFRT utilization increased in hospital-affiliated centers. Despite high-level evidence for elderly patients, discrepancy in HFRT implementation by site of care persists. Further investigation is needed to understand why patients with short survival may still receive LCRT, because this has major quality-of-life and Medicare spending implications.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
老年人原发性中枢神经系统肿瘤低分次放疗的实际应用及其对医疗保险支出的影响。
背景:对于患有高级别胶质瘤的老年患者来说,为期 3 周的低分次放射治疗(HFRT)并不比标准的长程放射治疗(LCRT)效果差。我们利用美国医疗保险与医疗补助服务中心的数据,分析了接受原发性中枢神经系统(CNS)肿瘤 RT 治疗的医疗保险受益人在接受或不接受系统治疗的情况下使用 HFRT 的实际情况:对放射方式、年份、年龄(65-74 岁、75-84 岁或≥85 岁)和治疗地点(独立医院与附属医院)进行了评估。通过多变量逻辑回归评估了HFRT(11-20次)与LCRT(21-30次或31-40次)和全身治疗的使用情况。使用多变量线性回归分析了RT计划启动后90天内的医疗保险支出:从2015年到2019年,共纳入了10702个RT疗程(即发作)(28%为HFRT;65%的患者年龄在65-74岁之间)。相当一部分患者在 RT 计划开始后 90 天内死亡(n=1,251;12%),其中 765 人(61%)接受了 HFRT。HFRT使用率增加(2015年为24%,2019年为31%;几率比[OR],每年1.2;95% CI,1.1-1.2),并与年龄较大(≥85岁 vs 65-74岁;OR,6.8;95% CI,5.5-8.4)、RT计划开始后90天内死亡(OR,5.0;95% CI,4.4-5.8)、隶属医院(OR,1.4;95% CI,1.3-1.6)、常规体外射束 RT(vs 调强 RT;OR,2.7;95% CI,2.3-3.1)和无系统治疗(OR,1.2;95% CI,1.1-1.3;PC 结论:尽管大多数医疗保险受益人都接受了原发性脑肿瘤的 LCRT 治疗,但医院附属中心对 HFRT 的使用有所增加。尽管针对老年患者的证据较多,但不同医疗机构在实施 HFRT 方面仍存在差异。需要进一步调查以了解为何存活期较短的患者仍接受 LCRT 治疗,因为这对生活质量和医疗保险支出有重大影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
20.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
388
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: JNCCN—Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network is a peer-reviewed medical journal read by over 25,000 oncologists and cancer care professionals nationwide. This indexed publication delivers the latest insights into best clinical practices, oncology health services research, and translational medicine. Notably, JNCCN provides updates on the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology® (NCCN Guidelines®), review articles elaborating on guideline recommendations, health services research, and case reports that spotlight molecular insights in patient care. Guided by its vision, JNCCN seeks to advance the mission of NCCN by serving as the primary resource for information on NCCN Guidelines®, innovation in translational medicine, and scientific studies related to oncology health services research. This encompasses quality care and value, bioethics, comparative and cost effectiveness, public policy, and interventional research on supportive care and survivorship. JNCCN boasts indexing by prominent databases such as MEDLINE/PubMed, Chemical Abstracts, Embase, EmCare, and Scopus, reinforcing its standing as a reputable source for comprehensive information in the field of oncology.
期刊最新文献
Proportion of Gleason Score ≥8 Prostate Cancer on Biopsy and Tumor Aggressiveness in Matched Cohorts of East Asian and Non-East Asian Men. Local Recurrence and Survival in Patients With Melanoma >2 mm in Thickness at Difficult Sites Treated With 1-cm Versus 2-cm Margins. Oncology Survivorship Care Clinics: Design and Implementation of Survivorship Care Delivery Systems at NCCN Member Institutions. Achieving Adherence With NCCN Guidelines for Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer Regarding Peripheral and Deep En Face Margin Assessment (PDEMA). Authors' Reply to the Letter to the Editor by Wu Re: Enhancing the Readability of Online Patient-Facing Content Using AI Chatbots.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1