Online advertising and marketing claims by providers of proton beam therapy: Are they guideline-based?

Background: Cancer patients frequently search the Internet for treatment options, and hospital websites are seen as reliable sources of knowledge. Guidelines support the use of proton radiotherapy in specific disease sites or on clinical trials. This study aims to evaluate direct-to-consumer advertising content and claims made by proton therapy centre (PTC) websites worldwide. Methods: Operational PTC websites in English were identified through the Particle Therapy Co-Operative Group website. Data abstraction of website content was performed independently by two investigators. Eight international guidelines were consulted to determine guideline-based indications for proton radiotherapy. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to determine the characteristics of PTC websites that indicated proton radiotherapy offered greater disease control or cure rates. Results: Forty-eight PTCs with 46 English websites were identified. 60·9% of PTC websites claimed proton therapy provided improved disease control or cure. U.S. websites listed more indications than international websites (15·5 ± 5·4 vs. 10·4 ± 5·8, p = 0·004). The most common disease sites advertised were prostate (87·0%), head and neck (87·0%) and pediatrics (82·6%), all of which were indicated in least one international guideline. Several disease sites advertised were not present in any consensus guidelines, including pancreatobiliary (52·2%), breast (50·0%), and esophageal (43·5%) cancers. Multivariate analysis found increasing number of disease sites and claiming their centre was a local or regional leader in proton radiotherapy was associated with indicating proton radiotherapy offers greater disease control or cure. Conclusions: Information from PTC websites often differs from recommendations found in international consensus guidelines. As online marketing information may have significant influence on patient decision-making, alignment of such information with accepted guidelines and consensus opinion should be adopted by PTC providers

Cost Minimization Analysis of Hypofractionated Radiotherapy

Early-stage breast cancer patients comprise a large proportion of patients treated with radiotherapy in Canada. Proponents have suggested that five-fraction hypofractionated radiotherapy for these patients would result in significant cost savings. An assessment of this argument is thus warranted. The FAST-Forward and UK FAST clinical trials each demonstrated that their respective hypofractionated regimens provided equivalent outcomes compared with standard regimens. Thus, a cost-minimization analysis was performed to quantify the potential savings associated with these regimens, which were designated as FAST-Forward 1 (26 Gy/5 fractions/1 week) and FAST-Forward 2 (27 Gy/5 fractions/1 week), and UK FAST 1 (28.5 Gy/5 fractions/5 weeks) and UK FAST 2 (30 Gy/5 fractions/5 weeks). A standard regimen of 42.5 Gy/16 fractions/5 weeks was also included. A comprehensive model of radiotherapy costs for a Canadian cancer centre was created. Time, labour costs, and capital costs were calculated for each regimen and applied using established measures. The total costs per patient for the FAST-Forward trials were $851.77 for FAST-Forward 1 and$874.77 for FAST-Forward 2, providing a total savings of $487.99 and$464.99, respectively. Similarly, the total costs per patient for the FAST trials were $979.75 for UK FAST 1 and$1017.70 for UK FAST 2, providing savings of $360.01 and$322.06, respectively. Following the FAST-Forward 1 regimen results in the greatest reduction of infrastructure and human resources costs at 36.42% compared with the standard. Sensitivity analysis shows a maximum per-patient costs savings ranging from $474.60 to$508.53 for the FAST-Forward 1 trial, which translates to an annual savings of $174,700/year locally and$2.06 million/year province-wide, based on a moderate-to-large size department workload. Compared with a standard radiotherapy regimen, all FAST-Forward and UK FAST hypofractionated regimens provide cost savings for the treatment of early-stage breast cancer. The cost savings associated with each of these equivalent regimens can be directly calculated; activities in this model can easily be adjusted to account for cost variations, allowing other centres to calculate cost impacts specific to their own centres

Is prostate brachytherapy a dying art? Trends and variation in the definitive management of prostate cancer in Ontario, Canada

Background and purpose: Declining prostate brachytherapy utilization has been reported in several studies, despite strong evidence for efficacy and safety compared to alternatives. We sought to evaluate contemporary trends in brachytherapy, external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and prostatectomy utilization in a publicly funded healthcare system. Materials and methods: Men with localized prostate cancer diagnosed and treated between 2006 and 2017 in Ontario, Canada were identified using administrative data. Men received EBRT, brachytherapy (monotherapy or boost) or prostatectomy as initial definitive management. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated patient-, tumour-, and provider-factors on treatment utilization. Results: 61,288 men were included. On multivariable regression, the odds of receiving brachytherapy boost increased 24% per year (odds ratio [OR]:1.24, 95% CI 1.22–1.26, p \u3c 0.01), brachytherapy monotherapy increased 3% per year (OR:1.03, 95% CI:1.02–1.04, p \u3c 0.01), and prostatectomy declined by 6% per year (OR:0.94, 95% CI 0.93–0.95, p \u3c 0.01). Treatment year was not significant on multivariable modelling of EBRT. In a separate multivariable model limited to those who received radiotherapy, if the first radiation oncologist seen performed brachytherapy, the OR of receiving brachytherapy monotherapy over EBRT was 5.66 (95% CI: 5.11–6.26, p \u3c 0.01) and 2.88 (95% CI: 2.60–3.19, p \u3c 0.01) for brachytherapy boost over EBRT alone. Substantial geographic, provider and patient variation in treatment receipt was observed. Conclusion: We found increasing brachytherapy utilization, largely driven by increasing utilization of brachytherapy boost. To our knowledge, this is the first report of increasing brachytherapy use in the era of dose escalated EBRT