90 research outputs found

    Patterns of utilization and clinical adoption of 0.35 Tesla MR-guided radiation therapy in the United States - Understanding the transition to adaptive, ultra-hypofractionated treatments

    Get PDF
    PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE: Magnetic resonance-guided radiation therapy (MRgRT) utilization is rapidly expanding worldwide, driven by advanced capabilities including continuous intrafraction visualization, automatic triggered beam delivery, and on-table adaptive replanning (oART). Our objective was to describe patterns of 0.35Tesla(T)-MRgRT (MRIdian) utilization in the United States (US) among early adopters of this novel technology. MATERIALS/METHODS: Anonymized administrative data from all US MRIdian treatment systems were extracted for patients completing treatment from 2014 to 2020. Detailed treatment information was available for all MRIdian linear accelerator (linac) systems and some cobalt systems. RESULTS: Seventeen systems at 16 centers delivered 5736 courses and 36,389 fractions (fraction details unavailable for 1223 cobalt courses), of which 21.1% were adapted. Ultra-hypofractionation (UHfx) (1-5 fractions) was used in 70.3% of all courses. At least one adaptive fraction was used for 38.5% of courses (average 1.7 adapted fractions/course), with higher oART use in UHfx dose schedules (47.7% of courses, average 1.9 adapted fractions per course). The most commonly treated organ sites were pancreas (20.7%), liver (16.5%), prostate (12.5%), breast (11.5%), and lung (9.4%). Temporal trends show a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 59.6% in treatment courses delivered, with a dramatic increase in use of UHfx to 84.9% of courses in 2020 and similar increase in use of oART to 51.0% of courses. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first comprehensive study reporting patterns of utilization among early adopters of MRIdian in the US. Intrafraction MR image-guidance, advanced motion management, and increasing adoption of adaptive radiation therapy has led to a substantial transition to ultra-hypofractionated regimens. 0.3

    Hospitalization rates from radiotherapy complications in the United States

    Get PDF
    Hospitalizations due to radiotherapy (RT) complications result in significant healthcare expenditures and adversely affect the quality of life of cancer patients. Using a nationally representative dataset, the objective of this study is to identify trends in the incidence of these hospitalizations, their causes, and the resulting financial burden. Data from the National Inpatient Sample was retrospectively analyzed from 2005 to 2016. RT complications were identified using ICD-9 and ICD-10 external cause-of-injury codes. The hospitalization rate was the primary endpoint, with cost and in-hospital death as secondary outcomes. 443,222,223 weighted hospitalizations occurred during the study period, of which 482,525 (0.11%) were attributed to RT. The 3 most common reasons for RT-related hospitalization were cystitis (4.8%, standard error [SE] = 0.09), gastroenteritis/colitis (3.7%, SE = 0.07), and esophagitis (3.5%, SE = 0.07). Aspiration pneumonitis (1.4-fold) and mucositis (1.3-fold) had the highest relative increases among these hospitalizations from 2005 to 2016, while esophagitis (0.58-fold) and disorders of the rectum and anus were the lowest (0.67-fold). The median length of stay of patient for hospitalization for RT complications was 4.1 (IQR, 2.2–7.5) days and the median charge per patient was 10,097(IQR,5755–18,891)andthetotalcostduringthestudyperiodwas10,097 (IQR, 5755–18,891) and the total cost during the study period was 4.9 billion. Hospitalization for RT-related complications is relatively rare, but those that are admitted incur a substantial cost. Use of advanced RT techniques should be employed whenever possible to mitigate the risk of severe toxicity and therefore reduce the need to admit patients

    Hospitalization rates for complications due to systemic therapy in the United States

    Get PDF
    The aim of this study was to estimate the trends and burdens associated with systemic therapy-related hospitalizations, using nationally representative data. National Inpatient Sample data from 2005 to 2016 was used to identify systemic therapy-related complications using ICD-9 and ICD-10 external causes-of-injury codes. The primary outcome was hospitalization rates, while secondary outcomes were cost and in-hospital mortality. Overall, there were 443,222,223 hospitalizations during the study period, of which 2,419,722 were due to complications of systemic therapy. The average annual percentage change of these hospitalizations was 8.1%, compared to − 0.5% for general hospitalizations. The three most common causes for hospitalization were anemia (12.8%), neutropenia (10.8%), and sepsis (7.8%). Hospitalization rates had the highest relative increases for sepsis (1.9-fold) and acute kidney injury (1.6-fold), and the highest relative decrease for dehydration (0.21-fold) and fever of unknown origin (0.35-fold). Complications with the highest total charges were anemia (4.6billion),neutropenia(4.6 billion), neutropenia (3.0 billion), and sepsis ($2.5 billion). The leading causes of in-hospital mortality associated with systemic therapy were sepsis (15.8%), pneumonia (7.6%), and acute kidney injury (7.0%). Promoting initiatives such as rule OP-35, improving access to and providing coordinated care, developing systems leading to early identification and management of symptoms, and expanding urgent care access, can decrease these hospitalizations and the burden they carry on the healthcare system

    Hospitalization rates for complications due to systemic therapy in the United States

    Get PDF
    The aim of this study was to estimate the trends and burdens associated with systemic therapy-related hospitalizations, using nationally representative data. National Inpatient Sample data from 2005 to 2016 was used to identify systemic therapy-related complications using ICD-9 and ICD-10 external causes-of-injury codes. The primary outcome was hospitalization rates, while secondary outcomes were cost and in-hospital mortality. Overall, there were 443,222,223 hospitalizations during the study period, of which 2,419,722 were due to complications of systemic therapy. The average annual percentage change of these hospitalizations was 8.1%, compared to − 0.5% for general hospitalizations. The three most common causes for hospitalization were anemia (12.8%), neutropenia (10.8%), and sepsis (7.8%). Hospitalization rates had the highest relative increases for sepsis (1.9-fold) and acute kidney injury (1.6-fold), and the highest relative decrease for dehydration (0.21-fold) and fever of unknown origin (0.35-fold). Complications with the highest total charges were anemia (4.6billion),neutropenia(4.6 billion), neutropenia (3.0 billion), and sepsis ($2.5 billion). The leading causes of in-hospital mortality associated with systemic therapy were sepsis (15.8%), pneumonia (7.6%), and acute kidney injury (7.0%). Promoting initiatives such as rule OP-35, improving access to and providing coordinated care, developing systems leading to early identification and management of symptoms, and expanding urgent care access, can decrease these hospitalizations and the burden they carry on the healthcare system

    Hospitalization rates for complications due to systemic therapy in the United States

    Get PDF
    The aim of this study was to estimate the trends and burdens associated with systemic therapy-related hospitalizations, using nationally representative data. National Inpatient Sample data from 2005 to 2016 was used to identify systemic therapy-related complications using ICD-9 and ICD-10 external causes-of-injury codes. The primary outcome was hospitalization rates, while secondary outcomes were cost and in-hospital mortality. Overall, there were 443,222,223 hospitalizations during the study period, of which 2,419,722 were due to complications of systemic therapy. The average annual percentage change of these hospitalizations was 8.1%, compared to - 0.5% for general hospitalizations. The three most common causes for hospitalization were anemia (12.8%), neutropenia (10.8%), and sepsis (7.8%). Hospitalization rates had the highest relative increases for sepsis (1.9-fold) and acute kidney injury (1.6-fold), and the highest relative decrease for dehydration (0.21-fold) and fever of unknown origin (0.35-fold). Complications with the highest total charges were anemia (4.6billion),neutropenia(4.6 billion), neutropenia (3.0 billion), and sepsis ($2.5 billion). The leading causes of in-hospital mortality associated with systemic therapy were sepsis (15.8%), pneumonia (7.6%), and acute kidney injury (7.0%). Promoting initiatives such as rule OP-35, improving access to and providing coordinated care, developing systems leading to early identification and management of symptoms, and expanding urgent care access, can decrease these hospitalizations and the burden they carry on the healthcare system

    Relationship between insurance status and interhospital transfers among cancer patients in the United States

    Get PDF
    Background: The relationship between insurance status and interhospital transfers has not been adequately researched among cancer patients. Hence this study aimed for understanding this relationship using a nationally representative database. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted using National Inpatient Sample (NIS) data collected during 2010–2016 and included all cancer hospitalization between 18 and 64 years of age. Interhospital transfers were compared based on insurance status (Medicare, Medicaid, private, and uninsured). Weighted multivariable logistic regressions were used to calculate the odds of interhospital transfers based on insurance status, after adjusting for many covariates. Results: There were 3,580,908 weighted cancer hospitalizations, of which 72,353 (2.02%) had interhospital transfers. Uninsured patients had significantly higher rates of interhospital transfers, compared to those with Medicare (P = 0.005) and private insurance (P \u3c 0.001). Privately insured patients had significantly lower rates of interhospital transfers, compared to those with Medicare (P \u3c 0.001) and Medicaid (P \u3c 0.001). Logistic regression analyses showed that the odds of having interhospital transfers were significantly higher among uninsured (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.57, 95% CI: 1.45–1.69), Medicare (aOR, 1.38, 95% CI: 1.32–1.45) and Medicaid (aOR, 1.23, 95% CI: 1.16–1.30) patients when compared to those with private insurance coverages. Conclusion: Among cancer patients, uninsured and Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries were more likely to experience interhospital transfers. In addition to medical reasons, factors such as affordability and socioeconomic status are influencing interhospital transfer decisions, indicating existing healthcare disparities. Further studies should focus on identifying the causal associations between factors explored in this study as well as additional unexplored factors

    Surgical outcomes after neoadjuvant ablative dose radiation among patients with borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreas cancer from the multi-institutional phase 2 Stereotactic MR-Guided Adaptive Radiation Therapy (SMART) trial

    Get PDF
    Background: Acute grade 3+ toxicity was rare in the multi-institutional phase 2 stereotactic MR-guided on-table adaptive radiation therapy (SMART) trial (NCT03621644) for locally advanced and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (LAPC/BRPC). Surgery may be considered after ablative SMART although the feasibility and safety of this is not well understood. Postoperative outcomes of the subset of patients in the SMART trial are examined here. Methods: Trial eligibility included BRPC or LAPC without metastases after a minimum of 3 months of induction chemotherapy. All patients received SMART prescribed to 50 Gy in 5 fractions using an integrated 0.35T MR-radiation therapy device equipped with cutting edge soft tissue tracking, automatic beam gating, and on-table adaptive replanning. Surgery was permitted after SMART, often after multi-disciplinary review. Perioperative details and postoperative outcomes, including morbidity, mortality, and overall survival (OS), were analyzed. Results: 136 patients across 13 sites were enrolled between 2019-2022. 44 patients (32.4%) had surgery after SMART (33 BRPC, 11 LAPC). Surgical procedures included pancreaticoduodenectomy (81.8%), distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (9.1%), total pancreatectomy (6.8%), and distal pancreatectomy with celiac axis resection (2.3%). 52.3% required vascular resection/reconstruction, a majority of which were venous resections (65.2%), with a smaller proportion needing both venous/ arterial (21.7%), or arterial (13%). Surgery was performed after a mean 51.4 ± 52.8 days from SMART. Postoperative hospitalization was 10.5 ± 8.9 days. Nine patients (20.5%) had Clavien-Dindo complications of grade III or higher; 3 deaths resulted from post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage in patients who had portal vein resection. One-year OS in patients who had surgery versus no surgery after SMART was 66% vs. 43%, respectively. Conclusions: These are the first prospectively evaluated surgical outcomes after 5-fraction ablative SMART for BRPC/LAPC. The rate of surgery for BRPC compares favorably to radiated patients on the Alliance A021501 trial. Despite the use of ablative radiation dose and frequent need for vascular resection, the incidence of serious surgical complications was similar to what is reported after non-ablative radiation therapy. However, several deaths occurred after surgery and we therefore we urge caution when considering surgery after ablative radiation therapy. Further analysis of other variables such as the time between SMART and surgery, approaches to vascular resections, and discrete events such as delayed gastric emptying, operative duration, and post-operative pancreatic fistula are needed to better understand the surgical morbidity seen in these patients

    Magnetic Resonance Guided Radiation Therapy for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma, Advantages, Challenges, Current Approaches, and Future Directions

    Get PDF
    Introduction: Pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PAC) has some of the worst treatment outcomes for any solid tumor. PAC creates substantial difficulty for effective treatment with traditional RT delivery strategies primarily secondary to its location and limited visualization using CT. Several of these challenges are uniquely addressed with MR-guided RT. We sought to summarize and place into context the currently available literature on MR-guided RT specifically for PAC. Methods: A literature search was conducted to identify manuscript publications since September 2014 that specifically used MR-guided RT for the treatment of PAC. Clinical outcomes of these series are summarized, discussed, and placed into the context of the existing pancreatic literature. Multiple international experts were involved to optimally contextualize these publications. Results: Over 300 manuscripts were reviewed. A total of 6 clinical outcomes publications were identified that have treated patients with PAC using MR guidance. Successes, challenges, and future directions for this technology are evident in these publications. MR-guided RT holds theoretical promise for the treatment of patients with PAC. As with any new technology, immediate or dramatic clinical improvements associated with its use will take time and experience. There remain no prospective trials, currently publications are limited to small retrospective experiences. The current level of evidence for MR guidance in PAC is low and requires significant expansion. Future directions and ongoing studies that are currently open and accruing are identified and reviewed. Conclusions: The potential promise of MR-guided RT for PAC is highlighted, the challenges associated with this novel therapeutic intervention are also reviewed. Outcomes are very early, and will require continued and long term follow up. MR-guided RT should not be viewed in the same fashion as a novel chemotherapeutic agent for which dosing, administration, and toxicity has been established in earlier phase studies. Instead, it should be viewed as a novel procedural intervention which must be robustly tested, refined and practiced before definitive conclusions on the potential benefits or detriments can be determined. The future of MR-guided RT for PAC is highly promising and the potential implications on PAC are substantial
    • …
    corecore