Breast Cancer Screening in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Lung and Colorectal Cancer: A Population-Based Study of Utilization

Purpose—To assess breast cancer screening utilization in Medicare beneficiaries with colorectal and lung cancer versus cancer-free controls. Methods—Female fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries who were ≥ 67 years old and diagnosed with lung or colorectal cancer between 2000 and 2011 and who reported to a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry (case group) were followed for 2 years after their diagnoses, unless death, a diagnosis of breast cancer, or the end of 2013 came first. A similar number of cancer-free controls were individually matched to cases by age, race, registry region, and follow-up time. Screening utilization was defined as the percentage of women with ≥1 screening mammogram during follow-up. Results—Overall, 104,164 cases (48% colorectal, 52% lung; 30% advanced cancer) and 104,164 controls were included. Among women with lung or colorectal cancer, 22% underwent ≥ 1 screening mammogram versus 26% of controls (odds ratio [OR] 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.78–0.82). Stratified by cancer type, 28% of colorectal cancer cases versus 29% of controls (OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.95–1.01) and 17% of lung cancer cases versus 23% of controls (OR 0.63; 95% CI 0.60–0.65) received ≥ 1 mammogram. When stratified by stage, 8% with advanced cancer versus 18% of controls (OR 0.33; 95% CI 0.31–0.35) and 30% with early-stage cancer versus 30% of controls (OR 1; 95% CI 0.97–1.02) underwent ≥ 1 mammogram. Conclusion—Screening mammography utilization rates are similar between Medicare beneficiaries with early-stage cancer versus controls. Although the majority of patients with advanced-stage cancer appropriately do not pursue screening mammography, a small number (8%) continue with screening

Definitive intensity modulated proton re-irradiation for lung cancer in the immunotherapy era

IntroductionAs immunotherapy has improved distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC), isolated locoregional recurrences have increased. However, management of locoregional recurrences can be challenging. We report our institutional experience with definitive intent re-irradiation using Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT).MethodRetrospective cohort study of recurrent or second primary NSCLC or LS-SCLC treated with IMPT. Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test were used for time-to-event analyses.Results22 patients were treated from 2019 to 2021. After first course of radiation (median 60 Gy, range 45-70 Gy), 45% received adjuvant immunotherapy. IMPT re-irradiation began a median of 28.2 months (8.8-172.9 months) after initial radiotherapy. The median IMPT dose was 60 GyE (44-60 GyE). 36% received concurrent chemotherapy with IMPT and 18% received immunotherapy after IMPT. The median patient’s IMPT lung mean dose was 5.3 GyE (0.9-13.9 GyE) and 5 patients had cumulative esophagus max dose >100 GyE with 1-year overall survival (OS) 68%, 1-year local control 80%, 1-year progression free survival 45%, and 1-year DMFS 60%. Higher IMPT (HR 1.4; 95% CI 1.1-1.7, p=0.01) and initial radiotherapy mean lung doses (HR 1.3; 95% CI 1.0-1.6, p=0.04) were associated with worse OS. Two patients developed Grade 3 pneumonitis or dermatitis, one patient developed Grade 2 pneumonitis, and seven patients developed Grade 1 toxicity. There were no Grade 4 or 5 toxicities.DiscussionDefinitive IMPT re-irradiation for lung cancer can prolong disease control with limited toxicity, particularly in the immunotherapy era

Treatment outcomes and roles of transplantation and maintenance rituximab in patients with previously untreated mantle cell lymphoma: Results from large real-world cohorts

PURPOSE: Commonly used first-line (1L) treatments for mantle cell lymphoma include high-dose cytarabine-based induction followed by autologous stem-cell transplant (ASCT) for younger patients and several chemoimmunotherapy regimens for older patients. Continuous debates exist on the role of ASCT in younger patients and maintenance rituximab (MR) after bendamustine plus rituximab (BR). METHODS: Retrospective data from 4,216 patients with mantle cell lymphoma in the Flatiron Health electronic record-derived deidentified database diagnosed between 2011 and 2021, mostly in US community oncology settings, were evaluated for treatment patterns and outcomes. The efficacy findings with ASCT and MR were validated in an independent cohort of 1,168 patients from 12 academic centers. RESULTS: Among 3,614 patients with documented 1L treatment, BR was the most used. Among 1,265 patients age \u3c 65 years, 30.5% received cytarabine-based induction and 23.5% received ASCT. There was no significant association between ASCT and real-world time to next treatment (hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.03; CONCLUSION: In this large cohort of patients treated primarily in the US community setting, only one in four young patients received cytarabine or ASCT consolidation, suggesting the need to develop treatments that can be delivered effectively in routine clinical practice. Together with the validation cohort, data support future clinical trials exploring regimens without ASCT consolidation in young patients, whereas MR should be considered for patients after 1L BR and rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone

The use of a predictive statistical model to make a virtual control arm for a clinical trial.

BackgroundRandomized clinical trials compare participants receiving an experimental intervention to participants receiving standard of care (SOC). If one could predict the outcome for participants receiving SOC, a trial could be designed where all participants received the experimental intervention, with the observed outcome of the experimental group compared to the prediction for those individuals.MethodsWe used the CancerMath calculator to predict outcomes for participants in two large clinical trials of adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: NSABPB15 and CALGB9344. NSABPB15 was the training set, and we used the modified algorithm to predict outcomes for two groups from CALGB9344: one which received standard of care (SOC) chemotherapy and one which received paclitaxel in addition. We made a prediction for each individual CALGB9344 participant, assuming each received only SOC.ResultsThe predicted outcome for the group which received only SOC matched what was observed in the CALGB9344 trial. In contrast, the predicted outcome for the group also receiving paclitaxel was significantly worse than what was observed for this group. This matches the conclusion of CALGB9344 that adding paclitaxel to SOC improves survival.ConclusionThis project proves that a statistical model can predict the outcome of clinical trial participants treated with SOC. In some circumstances, a predictive model could be used instead of a control arm, allowing all participants to receive experimental treatment. Predictive models for cancer and other diseases could be constructed using the vast amount of outcomes data available to the federal government, and made available for public use

Breast reconstruction and post-mastectomy radiation practice

Purpose: The goal of this study was to explore the perspectives and practice of radiation oncologists who treat breast cancer patients who have had breast reconstruction. Methods: In 2010, an original electronic survey was sent to all physician members of the American Society of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Research Institute-Breast Cancer Studies Group in the United Kingdom, Thai Society of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, Swiss Society of Radiation Oncology, and Turkish Radiation Oncology Society. We identified factors associated with radiation oncologists who treat breast cancer patients with reconstruction performed prior to radiation and obtained information regarding radiation management of the breast reconstruction. Results: 358 radiation oncologists responded, and 60% of the physicians were from the United States. While 64% of participants agree or strongly agree that breast image affects a woman’s quality of life during radiation, 57% feel that reconstruction challenges their ability to deliver effective breast radiation. Compared with other countries, treatment within the United States was associated with a high reconstruction rate (>/= 50% of mastectomy patients) prior to radiation (p < 0.05). Delayed-immediate reconstruction with a temporary tissue expander was more common in the United States than in other countries (52% vs. 23%, p = 0.01). Among physicians who treat patients with tissue expanders, the majority (60%) prefer a moderately inflated implant with 150-250 cc of fluid rather than a completely deflated (13%) or inflated expander (28%) during radiation. Among radiation oncologists who treat reconstructions, 49% never use bolus and 40% never boost a breast reconstruction. United States physicians were more likely than physicians from other countries to boost or bolus the reconstruction irrespective of the type of reconstruction seen in their clinic patients (p < 0.01). Conclusions: Great variation in practice is evident from our study of radiation treatment for breast cancer patients with reconstruction. Further research on the impact and delivery of radiation to a reconstructed breast may validate some of the observed practices, highlight the variability in treatment practice, and help create a treatment consensus

Neoadjuvant Hormonal Therapy is Associated with Comparable Outcomes to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Post-Menopausal Women with Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer

Objectives: We compared outcomes in post-menopausal estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant hormonal therapy (NAHT) or neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT).Methods: We retrospectively identified post-menopausal women who received either NAHT or NACT for non-metastatic, non-inflammatory, ER+, Her2neu negative breast cancer from 2004 to 2011. We compared long-term rates of locoregional relapse free survival (LRFS), distant metastasis free survival (DMFS), and overall survival (OS) using the Kaplan-Meier method. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify patient and disease factors significantly associated with these endpoints. Results: We identified 99 patients in our study, including 27 who received NAHT and 72 who received NACT. There were no differences in 4-year LRFS, DMFS, or OS between groups. On Cox proportional hazards modeling, the type of systemic therapy (NAHT vs. NACT) was not associated with OS. However, patients with progesterone receptor (PR) positive disease had a 92% lower risk of death compared to patients with PR negative disease.Conclusions: Our data suggest that outcomes are not adversely affected by NAHT in post-menopausal women with ER+ breast cancer. Therefore, NAHT is a viable and potentially less toxic option than NACT in appropriately selected patients. Furthermore, although PR negative disease appears to be associated with poor prognosis, intensification of systemic treatment with chemotherapy may not be associated with improvement of disease-related outcomes in this patient population