Waddle, Mark R

Abstract Background Vorasidenib is Food and Drug Administration‐approved for treatment of grade 2 isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH)–mutant gliomas and has demonstrated a benefit in progression‐free survival compared to a placebo. This study assessed the cost‐effectiveness of this treatment strategy compared to standard treatment: observation or chemoradiation (CRT). Methods The authors used an integrated Markov model to compare quality‐adjusted life‐years (QALY) gained and cost‐effectiveness of patients with IDH‐mutated low‐grade glioma (LGG) treated with vorasidenib, observation, or CRT. Outcomes were expressed as incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per QALY gained. Treatment is considered cost‐effective if it meets the commonly accepted willingness‐to‐pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained. Results Based on model parameters, vorasidenib demonstrated an ICER of $356,756 per QALY when compared to CRT. When compared to observation, vorasidenib demonstrated an improved ICER of $215,191 per QALY. On one‐way sensitivity analysis compared to observation, median cost of vorasidenib and median overall survival were most likely to affect ICER with only marginal changes on analysis of other model factors. For ICER to become ≤$100,000 compared to observation, the cost of vorasidenib would need to drop to below $14,072 monthly or have a median survival gain of at least 11.9 years. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that vorasidenib was favored in none of 5000 Monte Carlo iterations. Conclusion Using the best available data, the current price of vorasidenib does not meet commonly accepted cost‐effectiveness thresholds in treatment of IDH‐mutated LGGs.

PURPOSE Cancer recurrence is a critical outcome for patients and physicians. Retrospective cancer recurrence data can evaluate recurrence-directed treatment and generate novel interventions targeting recurrent cancers. However, large cancer databases do not provide recurrence-related information, stymying study at scale, and consequently require significant manual record review. Automated evaluation of records may allow for the rapid generation of easily analyzed data sets, accelerating the evaluation of recurrence altogether. METHODS Patients treated with radiation therapy at one tertiary referral center from 2010 to 2018 with a verified cancer status (cancer recurrence v no cancer recurrence) were identified. Patients with recurrent disease were initially identified through manual record review, and the associated pathology report was collected. Google Automated Machine Learning with Natural Language Processing (AutoNLP) and Google Gemini 1.5 Pro were used to generate a model for binary classification, with comparison to the gold-standard manually developed data set. RESULTS A total of 7,054 patients were identified. 3,431 (48.6%) were female, with a median age of 64 years. Head and neck (1,482, 21%), breast (1,480, 21%), upper GI (1,307, 18.5%), and lung/thorax (1,107, 15.7%) were the most common disease sites. Recurrence was verified for 1,546 patients (21.9%) using pathology reports, of which 1,249 positive cases were paired with 651 negative pathology reports for model development. Google Gemini 1.5 Pro consistently outperformed AutoNLP across all measurements of accuracy, generating a greater absolute difference in precision, recall, negative predictive value, and specificity, and a higher likelihood of correct classification at the individual level, rendering Gemini superior in recurrence status extraction. CONCLUSION AutoNLP and Google Gemini 1.5 Pro are promising tools for identifying recurrence from pathology reports, with the latter demonstrating superior overall performance, making it particularly suitable for clinical translation.

Abstract Background Partial breast irradiation (PBI) is an effective treatment for early-stage breast cancer. However, evidence comparing different PBI modalities is limited. Methods This trial emulation uses electronic health records from a multi-state large tertiary health system. Three PBI modalities were compared: proton radiation therapy, photon radiation therapy, and applicator-based brachytherapy. Inverse probability weighting (IPW) was used to balance confounders. The primary outcome was ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR). Results Between 2013 and 2023, 1041 women with early-stage breast cancer were treated with PBI. Of these, 1026 patients were included in the analyses. The median age was 66 years; 22.51% had ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), and 97.56% were estrogen receptor positive. With median follow-up of 38.2 months, the rate of IBR in the overall group was 3.05% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.99% to 4.65%) at 3 years. After IPW, compared with photon PBI, the hazard ratio for IBR for proton PBI was 2.11 (95% CI = 0.70 to 6.33) and for brachytherapy, 3.86 (95% CI = 1.39 to 10.69). Compared with proton PBI, the hazard ratio for IBR for brachytherapy was 1.83 (95% CI = 0.88 to 3.81). IBR risk was similar across PBI modalities for patients with tumor size ≤ 10 mm and in patients treated for DCIS. Among patients with tumor size >10 mm, the hazard ratio for IBR for brachytherapy was 7.64 (95% CI = 1.64 to 35.58) and 3.59 (95% CI = 1.22 to 10.56) relative to photons and protons, respectively. Conclusion PBI with applicator-based brachytherapy was associated with higher IBR than photon or proton PBI in patients with tumor size > 10 mm, suggesting the need for more careful PBI patient selection for this modality.

PURPOSE The COVID-19 pandemic led to rapid expansion of telemedicine. The implications of telemedicine have not been rigorously studied in radiation oncology, a procedural specialty. This study aimed to evaluate the characteristics of in-person patients (IPPs) and virtual patients (VPs) who presented to a large cancer center before and during the pandemic and to understand variables affecting likelihood of receiving radiotherapy (yield) at our institution. METHODS A total of 17,915 patients presenting for new consultation between 2019 and 2021 were included, stratified by prepandemic and pandemic periods starting March 24, 2020. Telemedicine visits included video and telephone calls. Area deprivation indices (ADIs) were also compared. RESULTS The overall population was 56% male and 93% White with mean age of 63 years. During the pandemic, VPs accounted for 21% of visits, were on average younger than their in-person (IP) counterparts (63.3 years IP v 62.4 VP), and lived further away from clinic (215 miles IP v 402 VP). Among treated VPs, living closer to clinic was associated with higher yield (odds ratio [OR], 0.95; P < .001). This was also seen among IPPs who received treatment (OR, 0.96; P < .001); however, the average distance from clinic was significantly lower for IPPs than VPs (205 miles IP v 349 VP). Specialized radiotherapy (proton and brachytherapy) was used more in VPs. IPPs had higher ADI than VPs. Among VPs, those treated had higher ADI ( P < .001). CONCLUSION Patient characteristics and yield were significantly different between IPPs and VPs. Telemedicine increased reach to patients further away from clinic, including from rural or health care–deprived areas, allowing access to specialized radiation oncology care. Telemedicine has the potential to increase the reach of other technical and procedural specialties.

AbstractBackgroundThis study was aimed at developing and validating a decision‐making tool predictive of overall survival (OS) for patients receiving stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for spinal metastases.MethodsThree hundred sixty‐one patients at one institution were used for the training set, and 182 at a second institution were used for external validation. Treatments most commonly involved one or three fractions of spine SBRT. Exclusion criteria included proton therapy and benign histologies.ResultsThe final model consisted of the following variables and scores: Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS) ≥ 6 (1), time from primary diagnosis < 21 months (1), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status = 1 (1) or ECOG performance status > 1 (2), and >1 organ system involved (1). Each variable was an independent predictor of OS (p < .001), and each 1‐point increase in the score was associated with a hazard ratio of 2.01 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.79–2.25; p < .0001). The concordance value was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.71–0.78). The scores were discretized into three groups—favorable (score = 0–1), intermediate (score = 2), and poor survival (score = 3–5)—with 2‐year OS rates of 84% (95% CI, 79%–90%), 46% (95% CI, 36%–59%), and 21% (95% CI, 14%–32%), respectively (p < .0001 for each). In the external validation set (182 patients), the score was also predictive of OS (p < .0001). Increasing SINS<zaq;6> was predictive of decreased OS as a continuous variable (p < .0001).ConclusionsThis novel score is proposed as a decision‐making tool to help to optimize patient selection for spine SBRT. SINS may be an independent predictor of OS.

BackgroundPatients with high‐risk prostate cancer (HRPC) have multiple accepted treatment options. Because there is no overall survival benefit of one option over another, appropriate treatment must consider patient life expectancy, quality of life, and cost.MethodsThe authors compared quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs) and cost effectiveness among treatment options for HRPC using a Markov model with three treatment arms: (1) external‐beam radiotherapy (EBRT) delivered with 20 fractions, (2) EBRT with 23 fractions followed by low‐dose‐rate (LDR) brachytherapy boost, or (3) radical prostatectomy alone. An exploratory analysis considered a simultaneous integrated boost according to the FLAME trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01168479).ResultsTreatment strategies were compared using the incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER). EBRT with LDR brachytherapy boost was a cost‐effective strategy (ICER, $20,929 per QALY gained). These results were most sensitive to variations in the biochemical failure rate. However, the results still demonstrated cost effectiveness for the brachytherapy boost paradigm, regardless of any tested parameter ranges. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that EBRT with LDR brachytherapy was favored in 52% of 100,000 Monte Carlo iterations. In an exploratory analysis, EBRT with a simultaneous integrated boost was also a cost‐effective strategy, resulting in an ICER of $62,607 per QALY gained; however, it was not cost effective compared with EBRT plus LDR brachytherapy boost.ConclusionsEBRT with LDR brachytherapy boost may be a cost‐effective treatment strategy compared with EBRT alone and radical prostatectomy for HRPC, demonstrating high‐value care. The current analysis suggests that a reduction in biochemical failure alone can result in cost‐effective care, despite no change in overall survival.