Dataset Information

Prostate brachytherapy utilization in the COVID-19 era: A cross-sectional study of radiation oncologists in the United States

ABSTRACT:

PURPOSE

Despite advantages such as abbreviated treatment course, brachytherapy (BT) utilization rates for prostate cancer (PC) in the United States (US) are declining. We surveyed practicing US radiation oncologists (ROs) to determine the proportion who offer BT for PC and whether the COVID-19 pandemic influenced practice patterns.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From July-October 2021, we surveyed practicing US ROs. Provider demographic and practice characteristics were collected. Questions assessing utilization of BT and external beam (EBRT) for patients of varying risk groups and the effect of the pandemic on practice patterns were administered. Descriptive statistics were reported. The bivariate relationships between provider characteristics and likelihood of offering BT were assessed using the Chi-square test (α < 0.05).

RESULTS

Six percent of surveyed ROs responded, with 203 meeting inclusion criteria (72% male, 72% white, 53% non-academic, 69% >10 years in practice) and 156 (77%) treating PC. For low-risk, fewer providers offered BT (41% total; 25% low dose rate [LDR], 10% high dose rate [HDR], 6% both) than stereotactic body (SBRT) (54%) and moderately hypofractionated radiation therapy (MHFRT) (83%). For favorable intermediate risk, fewer offered BT (37% total; 21% LDR, 10% HDR, 6% both) than SBRT (48%), MHFRT (87%), and conventionally fractionated EBRT (38%). For high (44%) and very-high (37%) risk, fewer offered EBRT+BT than EBRT alone. For every risk group, academic ROs were significantly more likely to offer BT (all p-values<0.05). <1% of respondents reported increased pandemic-related BT usage.

CONCLUSIONS

US ROs, particularly in non-academic settings, do not routinely offer BT monotherapy or boost (<50%). Practice patterns were unaffected by COVID-19. Retraining may be critical to increasing utilization.

SUBMITTER: Prasad R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9489987 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRadiation oncologists (ROs) play an important role in managing cancer pain; however, their opioid prescribing patterns remain poorly described.MethodsThe 2016 Medicare Physician Compare National Downloadable and the 2016 Medicare Part D Prescriber Data files were cross-linked to identify RO-written opioid prescriptions.ResultsOf 4,627 identified ROs, 1,360 (29.3%) wrote >10 opioid prescriptions. The average number of opioid prescriptions written was significantly (P ≤ .05) associated with the following RO characteristics: sex [13.1 ± 36.5 male vs 7.5 ± 16.9 female]; years since medical school graduation [4.5 ± 11.5 1-10 years vs 12.6 ± 26.0 11-24 years vs 13.3 ± 40.9 ≥25 years]; practice size [15.5 ± 44.6 size ≤10 vs 13.3 ± 25.9 size 11-49 vs 8.5 ± 12.7 size 50-99 vs 8.8 ± 26.9 size ≥100]; Medicare Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) participation [12.6 ± 31.8 yes vs 7.0 ± 35.4 no]; and practice location [17.4 ± 47.0 South vs 10.6 ± 29.4 Midwest vs 8.1 ± 13.9 West vs 6.9 ± 15.2 Northeast]. On multivariable regression modeling, male sex (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.22-1.35, P < .001), ≥25 years since graduation (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64-0.70, 1-10 years vs ≥25 years; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 - 1.04, 11-24 years vs ≥25 years; P < .001), practice size <10 members (RR 1.51, CI 1.44-1.59, ≤10 vs ≥100 members, RR 1.27, CI 1.20-1.34, 10-49 vs ≥100 members, RR 0.86, CI 0.80-0.92, 50-99 vs ≥100 members, P < .001), PQRS participation (RR 1.12, CI 1.04-1.19, P < .002), and Southern location (RR 0.67, CI 0.64-0.70, Midwest vs South; RR 0.39, CI 0.37-0.41, Northeast vs South; RR 0.43, CI 0.41-0.46, West vs South; P < .001) were predictive of higher opioid prescription rates.ConclusionsFactors associated with increased number of RO-written opioid prescriptions were male sex, ≥25 years since graduation, group practice <10, PQRS participation, and Southern location. Additional research is required to establish optimal opioid prescribing practices for ROs.

Project description:PurposeOur purpose was to determine the utilization of and barriers to implementation of radiopharmaceutical therapy (RPT) among U.S. radiation oncologists.Methods and materialsAn anonymous, voluntary 21-item survey directed toward attending radiation oncologists was distributed via social media platforms (Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, Student Doctor Network). Questions assessed practice characteristics, specific RPT prescribing patterns, RPT prescribing interest, and perceived barriers to RPT implementation. Nonparametric χ2 test was used for correlation statistics.ResultsOf the 142 respondents, 131 (92.3%) practiced in the United States and were included for this analysis. Respondents were well balanced in terms of practicing region, population size served, practice setting, and years in practice. Forty-eight percent (n = 63) reported prescribing at least 1 RPT. An additional 7% (n = 8) participate in RPT administration without billing themselves. Among those that actively prescribed RPT, the mean cumulative cases per month was 4.2 (range, 1-5). The most commonly prescribed radionuclides were radium-223 (40%; mean 2.8 cases/mo), iodine-131 (18%; mean 2.3 cases/mo), yttrium-90 (13%; mean 3.4 cases/mo), "other" (8%), samarium-153 (6%; mean 1.0 cases/mo), and strontrium-89 and phosphorous-32 (2% each; mean 1.8 and 0.4 cases/mo, respectively). Of those who answered "other," lutetium-177 dotatate was most commonly prescribed (8%). No significant (P < .05) association was noted between practice type, practice location, years of practice, or practice volume with utilization of any RPTs. Most radiation oncologists (56%, n = 74) responded they would like to actively prescribe more RPT, although 27% (n = 35) were indifferent, and 17% (n = 22) said they would not like to prescribe more RPT. Perceived barriers to implementation were varied but broadly categorized into treatment infrastructure (44%, n = 57), interspecialty relations (41%, n = 53), lack of training (23%, n = 30), and financial considerations (16%, n = 21).ConclusionsAmong surveyed U.S. radiation oncologists, a significant number reported prescribing at least 1 RPT. The majority expressed interest in prescribing additional RPT. Wide-ranging barriers to implementation exist, most commonly interspecialty relations, treatment infrastructure, lack of training, and financial considerations.

Project description:ObjectivesChildren of minority background have reduced access to surgery. This study assessed for racial/ethnic differences in surgical utilization by location.Materials and methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional analysis of U.S. children (0-17 years of age) participating in the nationally representative Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS, 2015-2018). Race/ethnicity was the variable of interest. The primary outcome variables were prevalence rates of surgery defined by location of surgical procedure (inpatient, emergency department, hospital outpatient, and office). Covariates included contextual factors that may influence access to and need for healthcare services, including age, sex, insurance status, residential geographic status, usual source of care, and parental reports of child's physical and mental health. We employed multivariate logistic regression models to assess the relationship between outcomes and race/ethnicity.ResultsThe study population included 31,024 children with an overall surgical rate of 4.8%. Adjusted odds of surgery in an ambulatory location were lower for all racial/ethnic minority groups compared to non-Hispanic White counterparts (non-Hispanic Black aOR = 0.3, 95% CI: 0.2-0.5; Hispanic aOR = 0.4, 95% CI: 0.3-0.6; non-Hispanic Asian aOR = 0.2, 95% CI 0.0-0.5 for hospital outpatient surgery; for office-based setting, non-Hispanic Black aOR = 0.4, 95% CI 0.3-0.6; Hispanic aOR = 0.5, 95% CI: 0.4-0.7; non-Hispanic Asian aOR = 0.4; 95% CI 0.3-0.7). No racial/ethnic differences were observed for surgical procedures in inpatient or emergency department locations.ConclusionsStaggering differences exist in pediatric surgery utilization patterns by racial/ethnic background, even after adjusting for important contextual factors (income, insurance, health status). Our findings in a nationally representative dataset may suggest systemic barriers related to racial/ethnic background for the pediatric surgical population.

Project description:PurposeUtilization of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for brain metastases (BM) has increased, prompting reassessment of whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT). A pattern of care analysis of SRS and WBRT dose-fractionations was performed in patients presenting with BM at the time of cancer diagnosis.Methods and materialsAdults with BM at cancer diagnosis between 2010 to 2015 and no prior malignancy were identified in the National Cancer Database. SRS was defined using published thresholds. Short (ShWBRT), standard (StWBRT), and extended (ExWBRT) dose-fractionations were defined as 4 to 9, 10 to 15, and >15 fractions. Radioresistant histology was defined as melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, sarcoma or spindle cell, or gastrointestinal primary.ResultsOf 4,087,967 adults with their first lifetime cancer, 90,388 (2.2%) had BM at initial diagnosis. Of these, 11,486 (12.7%) received SRS and 24,262 (26.8%) WBRT as first-course radiation therapy. The proportion of annual WBRT use decreased from 27.8% to 23.5% of newly diagnosed patients, and SRS increased from 8.7% to 17.9%. Common dose-fractionations were 30 Gy in 10 fractions (56.8%) for WBRT and 20 Gy in 1 fraction (13.0%) for SRS. On multivariate analysis, factors significantly associated with SRS versus WBRT included later year of diagnosis (2015 vs 2010, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.4), radioresistance (aOR = 2.0), academic facility (aOR = 1.9), highest income quartile (aOR = 1.6), chemotherapy administration (aOR = 1.4), and longer travel distance (>15 vs < 5 miles, aOR = 1.4). Linear regression revealed significant ExWBRT reductions (-22.4%/y, R2 = 0.97, P < .001) and no significant change for ShWBRT or StWBRT. Patients were significantly more likely to receive ShWBRT than StWBRT if not treated with chemotherapy (aOR = 3.5).ConclusionsUtilization of WBRT, particularly ExWBRT, decreased while SRS utilization doubled as the first radiation therapy course in patients with BM at diagnosis. Patients with radioresistant histologies were more likely to receive SRS. Those not receiving chemotherapy, potentially owing to poor performance status, were less likely to receive SRS and more likely to receive ShWBRT.

Project description:PurposeThe Open Payments transparency program publishes data on industry-physician payments, in part to discourage relationships considered inappropriate including gifts, meals, and speaker's bureau fees. We evaluated trends in physician-level payments to test whether implementation of Open Payments resulted in fewer industry-radiation oncologist (RO) interactions or shifted interactions toward those considered more appropriate compared with medical oncologists (MOs) and other hospital-based physicians (HBPs).Methods and materialsWe performed a retrospective, population-based cohort study of practicing US ROs versus MOs and HBPs in 2014 matched to general (nonresearch) payments between 2014 and 2018. Trends in payments were analyzed and reported by nature of payment. Values of payments to ROs from the top 10 companies were identified.ResultsFrom 2014 to 2018, 3379 (90.3%) ROs accepted 106,930 payments totaling $40.8 million. The per-physician number and value of payments was lower in radiation oncology than in medical oncology and higher than HBPs. The proportion of ROs accepting payments increased from 61.8% in 2014 to 64.2% in 2018; the proportion of MOs accepting payments decreased from 78.7% to 77.7%; and the proportion of HBPs decreased from 40.8% to 37.5%, respectively. The annual per-physician value and number of payments accepted by ROs and MOs increased. Payments in entertainment, meals, travel and lodging, and gifts increased among ROs and remained stable or decreased among MOs and HBPs. Consulting payments increased across all groups. Top RO payors produced novel cancer therapeutics, hydrogel spacers, radiation treatment machines, and opioids.ConclusionsIndustry payments to ROs have become more common since OP's inception, while becoming less common for MOs and HBPs. Payments to ROs and MOs have become more frequent and of modestly increasing value compared with other HBPs, for whom the value is decreasing. No large changes in the nature of relationships were seen in ROs. Increased engagement with financial conflicts of interest is needed in radiation oncology.

Project description:PurposeAdvancing equity, diversity, and inclusion in the physician workforce is essential to providing high-quality and culturally responsive patient care and has been shown to improve patient outcomes. To better characterize equity in the field of radiation oncology, we sought to describe the current academic radiation oncology workforce, including any contemporary differences in compensation and rank by gender and race/ethnicity.Methods and materialsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the Society of Chairs of Academic Radiation Oncology Programs (SCAROP) 2018 Financial Survey. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with associate or full professor rank. Compensation was compared by gender and race/ethnicity overall and stratified by rank and was further analyzed using multivariable linear regression models.ResultsOf the 858 academic radiation oncologists from 63 departments in the United States in the sample, 33.2% were female, 65.2% were White, 27.2% were Asian, and 7.6% were underrepresented in medicine (URiM). There were 44.0% assistant professors, 32.0% associate professors, and 22.8% full professors. Multivariable logistic regression analysis for factors associated with associate or full professor rank did not reveal statistically significant associations between gender or race/ethnicity with academic rank (odds ratio [OR], 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-1.32; P = .48 for gender; OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.5-1.30; P = .37 for Asian vs White; and OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.31-1.55; P = .37 for URiM vs White), but CIs were wide due to sample size, and point estimates were <1. Similarly, multivariable linear regression analysis modeling the log relative total compensation did not detect statistically significant differences between radiation oncologists by gender (-1.7%; 95% CI, -6.8% to 3.4%; P = .51 for female vs male) or race/ethnicity (-1.6%; 95% CI, -7.3% to 4.0%; P = .57 for Asian vs White and -3.0%; 95% CI, -12.1% to 6.0%; P = .51 for URiM vs White).ConclusionsThe low numbers of women and faculty with URiM race/ethnicity in this radiation oncology faculty sample limits the ability to compare career trajectory and compensation by those characteristics. Given that point estimates were <1, our findings do not contradict larger multispecialty studies that suggest an ongoing need to monitor equity.