Abstract
Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the most common malignancies associated with bone metastases, and palliative radiation therapy (RT) is an effective treatment option. A total of 2641 patients were identified with PCa and bone metastases at diagnosis from 2010 to 2014 in the NCDB. Fractionation scheme was designated as short course ([SC‐RT]: 8 Gy in 1 fraction and 20 Gy in 5 fractions) vs long course ([LC‐RT]: 30 Gy in 10 fractions and 37.5 Gy in 15 fractions). Patient characteristics were correlated with fractionation scheme using logistic regression. Overall survival was analyzed using the Kaplan‐Meier method, log‐rank test, Cox proportional hazards models, and propensity score‐matched analyses. A total of 2255 (85.4%) patients were included in the LC‐RT group and 386 (14.6%) patients in the SC‐RT group. SC‐RT was more common in patients over 75 years age (odds ratio [OR]: 1.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.32‐2.20), treatment at an academic center (OR: 1.76, 1.20‐2.57), living greater than 15 miles distance to treatment facility (OR: 1.38, 1.05‐1.83), treatment to the rib (OR: 2.99, 1.36‐6.60), and in 2014 (OR: 1.73, 1.19‐2.51). RT to the spine was more commonly long course (P < .0001). In the propensity‐matched cohort, LC‐RT was associated with improved OS (P < .0001), but no OS difference was observed between 37.5 Gy and either 8 Gy in one fraction or 20 Gy in 5 fractions (P > .5). LC‐RT remains the most common treatment fractionation scheme for palliative bone metastases in PCa patients. Use of palliative SC‐RT is increasing, particularly in more recent years, for older patients, treatment at academic centers, and with increasing distance from a treatment center.
Keywords: metastatic prostate cancer, National Cancer Database, palliative radiation
1. INTRODUCTION
Prostate cancer is among the most frequently diagnosed malignancies in men and is one of the most common malignancies associated with osseous metastases.1, 2, 3 Since 2007, the incidence of metastatic prostate cancer at diagnosis has risen significantly.4 Patients who present with bone metastases at diagnosis often have significant pain or other skeletal‐related comorbidities. Radiation therapy (RT) is a safe and highly effective means to alleviate symptoms from bone metastases. Many different dose fractionation schedules have been reported, with 30 Gy in 10 fractions the most common schedule in the United States.2 Multiple prospective randomized trials and meta‐analysis have analyzed pain‐related outcomes with multifraction radiation therapy compared to single or shorter fraction treatments and have found similar pain control.5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Given these findings, and the potential to decrease the financial burden on the healthcare system, many medical societies including the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) have released practice guidelines advocating single fraction or shorter course radiotherapy.10 In this study, we analyzed prostate cancer patients with metastatic bone disease present at diagnosis from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to investigate patterns of care and overall survival. Of particular interest were changes in the patterns of care following ASTRO's bone metastasis evidence‐based guidelines and recommendations.10, 11
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1. Data source and study population
The NCDB Participant User File (PUF) for prostate tumors was reviewed to identify all patients between 18 and 90 years of age with a diagnosis of prostate cancer with bone metastases present at diagnosis. The NCDB is a joint program of the American College of Surgeons and the American Cancer Society. Data from approximately 70% of patients diagnosed at Commission on Cancer‐accredited cancer centers are included with patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics. Data elements are collected and submitted to the NCDB from commission‐accredited oncology registries using standardized coding and data item definitions, including RT dose/technique, chemotherapy use/timing, and Charlson‐Deyo comorbidity score. The Participant User File contains de‐identified patient and center information and was exempt from Institutional Review Board review.
De‐identified data for patients diagnosed with prostate cancer (PUF code: Primary Site = C619) who were diagnosed between 2010 and 2014 were evaluated. All included patients had bone metastases at the time of diagnosis (PUF code: CS Mets at DX‐Bone = 1) and were coded in the database as analytical Stage 4 (M1b). Demographic and clinical data included age, race, year of diagnosis, Charlson‐Deyo comorbidity index (CCI), treatment location and facility type, income, distance to treatment facility, primary insurance status, tumor T‐stage, and when available Gleason Score and PSA. Radiation treatment schedules were classified as short course (SC‐RT: 8 Gy in 1 fraction and 20 Gy in 5 fractions) or long course (LC‐RT: 30 Gy in 10 fractions and 37.5 Gy in 15 fractions). Only patients receiving RT to the bone were included (spine, ribs, hip, pelvic bones, shoulder, and extremity). We excluded patients who received radiation to the “Spinal Cord” who may have had spinal cord compression. Data regarding overall survival (OS) were available from patients with diagnosis between 2010 and 2013.
2.2. Statistical analysis
Descriptive statistics were used to analyze patterns of fractionation scheme use. The chi‐square test and Fisher's exact test were used to evaluate contingency tables, as appropriate. Logistic regression was used to assess for predictors of SC‐RT compared to LC‐RT. Variables with P‐values <.1 on univariate testing were entered into a multivariable analysis. Propensity score analysis was performed to correct for baseline differences between short‐course and long‐course groups. A matching algorithm including the variables used in univariate analysis, as well as receipt of hormone therapy and chemotherapy, was used with a caliper of 0.2. Exact matching was performed on the “treatment site” variable. Overall survival was calculated from diagnosis until death, censoring at last follow‐up for patients who were alive. The Kaplan‐Meier method was used to estimate overall survival probabilities and multivariable Cox regression was performed on all patients using the same variables as above. Significance was considered at a value of P < .05. All levels of significance were two‐sided. SPSS Statistics v.24 (IBM Corporation; Armonk, New York) was used for all statistical analyses.
3. RESULTS
3.1. Demographics and patient characteristics
A total of 2641 patients were included in the analysis. A total of 2255 (85.4%) patients were included in the LC‐RT group, and 386 (14.6%) patients were included in the SC‐RT group. One hundred and forty‐three (5.4%) received 8 Gy in 1 fraction, 243 (9.2%) patients received 20 Gy in 5 fractions, 1915 (72.5%) patients received 30 Gy in 10 fractions, and 340 (12.9%) patients received 37.5 Gy in 15 fractions. Median age of patients in the SC‐RT group was 73 years (range, 42‐90) vs 69 years (range, 39‐90) for the LC‐RT group. The frequency of SC‐RT increased from 11.3% in 2010 to 18.8% in 2014 (Figure 1). The most common site of bone metastases was spine (65.2%), hip (13.7%), pelvis (10.0%), and extremity (7.7%). 13.1% of patients living within 5 miles of their treatment facility received SC‐RT compared to 17.2% of patients living greater than 15 miles (P = .019). Complete details of patient characteristics are available in Table 1.
Figure 1.
Distribution of short‐course radiation therapy (SC‐RT) by year of diagnosis (N = 2641 patients; 386 received SC‐RT)
Table 1.
Demographics and clinical characteristics
| Percentage of patients (#) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Short course | Long course | P‐value | |
| Age | |||
| <75 y | 12.2% (207) | 87.8% (1486) | <.0001 |
| ≥75 y | 18.9% (179) | 81.1% (769) | |
| Race | |||
| White | 14.1% (292) | 85.9% (1774) | .246 |
| Black | 15.6% (70) | 84.4% (380) | |
| Other | 19.2% (24) | 80.8% (101) | |
| Year of diagnosis | |||
| 2010 | 11.3% (44) | 88.7% (345) | .003 |
| 2011 | 12.2% (55) | 87.8% (396) | |
| 2012 | 13.8% (70) | 86.2% (439) | |
| 2013 | 14.4% (85) | 85.6% (506) | |
| 2014 | 18.8% (132) | 81.2% (569) | |
| Charlson‐Deyo comorbidity | |||
| 0 | 14.0% (284) | 86.0% (1741) | .296 |
| 1 | 16.5% (70) | 83.5% (354) | |
| >1 | 16.7% (32) | 83.3% (160) | |
| Site of treatment | |||
| Spine | 11.8% (204) | 88.2% (1518) | <.0001 |
| Ribs | 46.9% (15) | 53.1% (17) | |
| Hip | 17.4% (63) | 82.6% (300) | |
| Pelvic bones | 17.4% (46) | 82.6% (219) | |
| Shoulder | 21.8% (12) | 78.2% (43) | |
| Extremity | 22.5% (46) | 77.5% (158) | |
| Facility type | |||
| Academic/Research Program | 19.7% (181) | 80.3% (736) | <.0001 |
| Community Caner Program | 12.9% (37) | 87.1% (250) | |
| Comprehensive Community Cancer Program | 11.4% (128) | 88.6% (994) | |
| Integrated Network Cancer Program | 12.7% (40) | 87.3% (275) | |
| Insurance status | |||
| Medicaid | 17.0% (38) | 83.0% (186) | .021 |
| Medicare | 15.9% (234) | 84.1% (1239) | |
| Not insured | 12.0% (22) | 88.0% (162) | |
| Other government | 23.9% (11) | 76.1% (35) | |
| Private | 11.3% (76) | 88.7% (594) | |
| Unknown | 11.4% (5) | 88.6% (39) | |
| Income | |||
| <$38 000 | 14.4% (73) | 85.6% (435) | .907 |
| $38 000‐47 999 | 13.5% (84) | 86.5% (536) | |
| $48 000‐62 999 | 15.3% (110) | 84.7% (611) | |
| >$63 000 | 15.1% (117) | 84.9% (659) | |
| Unknown | 12.5% (2) | 87.5% (14) | |
| Distance | |||
| 0‐5 miles | 13.1% (117) | 86.9% (775) | .019 |
| >5‐10 miles | 12.3% (79) | 87.7% (561) | |
| >10‐15 miles | 16.9% (56) | 83.1% (276) | |
| >15 miles | 17.2% (134) | 82.8% (643) | |
Bold values represent statistical significance between short‐course and long‐course radiation therapy (P < 0.05).
3.2. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression
On multivariable analysis, variables associated with increased likelihood of receiving SC‐RT included the following: increasing year of age (OR: 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01‐1.04; P < .0001), age group >70 years (OR: 1.56, (95% CI 1.25‐1.94); P < .0001), age group >75 years (OR: 1.70, (95% CI 1.32‐2.20); P < .0001), most recent year (2014) of diagnosis (OR: 1.73, (95% CI 1.19‐2.51); P = .004), year of diagnosis (2013‐2014) (OR: 1.50, (95% CI 1.11‐2.12); P = .01), treatment at an academic/research program (OR: 1.76, (95% CI 1.20‐2.57); P = .004), treatment to the rib (OR: 2.99, (95% CI 1.36‐6.60); P = .007), and living >15 miles from treatment facility (OR: 1.38, (95% CI 1.05‐1.83); P = .023). Regarding distance from treatment facility, with each increase in mile from the treatment center, there was an increased likelihood of receiving SC‐RT (OR: 1.01, (95% CI 1.00‐1.02); P = .040). Treatment to the spine was more commonly treated with LC‐RT (OR: 0.49, (95% CI 0.34‐0.71); P < .0001). CCI, insurance status, and income were not associated with receipt of either fractionation scheme. Complete details of both univariable and multivariable analysis are found in Table 2.
Table 2.
Univariate and multivariate logistic regression for short‐course RT
| Univariate | Multivariate | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Odds ratio | P‐value | Odds ratio | P‐value | |
| Age | ||||
| <70 y | Reference Group | Reference Group | ||
| ≥70 y | 1.56 (1.25‐1.94) | <.0001 | 1.58 (1.30‐2.18) | <.0001 |
| <75 y | Reference Group | Reference Group | ||
| ≥75 y | 1.67 (1.34‐2.08) | <.0001 | 1.70 (1.32‐2.20) | <.0001 |
| Race | ||||
| White | Reference Group | — | ||
| Black | 1.12 (0.84‐1.50) | .436 | ||
| Other | 1.44 (0.91‐2.29) | .119 | ||
| Year of diagnosis | ||||
| 2010 | Reference Group | Reference Group | ||
| 2011 | 1.09 (0.71‐1.66) | .692 | 1.06 (0.69‐1.64) | .786 |
| 2012 | 1.25 (0.84‐1.87) | .277 | 1.22 (0.81‐1.83) | .353 |
| 2013 | 1.32 (0.89‐1.94) | .165 | 1.30 (0.86‐1.94) | .192 |
| 2014 | 1.82 (1.26‐2.62) | .001 | 1.73 (1.19‐2.51) | .004 |
| Charlson‐Deyo Comorbidity | ||||
| 0 | Reference Group | — | ||
| 1 | 1.21 (0.91‐1.61) | .186 | ||
| >1 | 1.23 (0.82‐1.83) | .318 | ||
| Site of treatment | ||||
| Extremity | Reference Group | Reference Group | ||
| Spine | 0.46 (0.32‐0.66) | <.0001 | 0.49 (0.34‐0.71) | <.0001 |
| Ribs | 3.03 (1.41‐6.53) | .005 | 2.99 (1.36‐6.60) | .007 |
| Hip | 0.72 (0.47‐1.11) | .133 | 0.79 (0.51‐1.22) | .290 |
| Pelvic bones | 0.72 (0.46‐1.14) | .161 | 0.77 (0.49‐1.24) | .289 |
| Shoulder | 0.96 (0.47‐1.97) | .908 | 1.15 (0.55‐2.40) | .719 |
| Facility type | ||||
| Integrated Network Cancer Program | Reference Group | Reference Group | ||
| Academic/Research Program | 1.69 (1.17‐2.45) | .005 | 1.76 (1.20‐2.57) | .004 |
| Community Caner Program | 1.02 (0.63‐1.64) | .943 | 0.94 (0.58‐1.54) | .808 |
| Comprehensive Community Cancer Program | 0.89 (0.61‐1.29) | .529 | 0.88 (0.59‐1.29) | .505 |
| Insurance status | ||||
| Not insured | Reference Group | Reference Group | ||
| Medicaid | 1.54 (0.85‐2.65) | .157 | 1.45 (0.81‐2.61) | .207 |
| Medicare | 1.39 (0.87‐2.22) | .166 | 1.08 (0.66‐1.78) | .757 |
| Other government | 2.31 (1.03‐5.21) | .043 | 1.78 (0.77‐4.12) | .180 |
| Private | 0.94 (0.57‐1.56) | .817 | 0.89 (0.53‐1.49) | .652 |
| Unknown | 0.94 (0.34‐2.65) | .913 | 0.95 (0.33‐2.72) | .926 |
| Income | ||||
| <$38 000 | Reference Group | — | ||
| $38 000‐47 999 | 0.93 (0.67‐1.31) | .692 | ||
| $48 000‐62 999 | 1.07 (0.78‐1.48) | .667 | ||
| >$63 000 | 1.06 (0.77‐1.45) | .727 | ||
| Unknown | 0.85 (0.19‐3.82) | .834 | ||
| Distance | ||||
| 0‐5 miles | Reference Group | Reference Group | ||
| >5‐10 miles | 0.93 (0.69‐1.27) | .655 | 0.91 (0.66‐1.25) | .557 |
| >10‐15 miles | 1.34 (0.95‐1.90) | .095 | 1.31 (0.91‐1.87) | .143 |
| >15 miles | 1.38 (1.05‐1.81) | .019 | 1.38 (1.05‐1.83) | .023 |
Bold value represent statistical significance of the odds ratio between short‐course and long‐course radiation therapy (P < 0.05).
3.3. Outcomes
The median follow‐up was 19.2 months. The median OS of the entire cohort was 24.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 22.7‐25.8 months). Patients treated with SC‐RT had median OS of 14.9 months (95% CI, 12.7‐17.2) compared to 25.9 (95% CI, 24.1‐27.7) months for LC‐RT (P < .0001) (Figure 2). The median overall survival for patients treated with 8 Gy in a single fraction was 15.2 months (95% CI, 11.1‐19.3) vs 14.8 months (95% CI, 12.0‐17.6) for those treated with 20 Gy in 5 fractions (P = .832). There was also no significant difference in OS between those treated with 30 Gy in 10 fractions and 37.5 Gy in 15 fractions (P = .758).
Figure 2.
Kaplan‐Meier overall survival curve of patients treated with long‐course radiation therapy (LG‐RT) vs short‐course radiation therapy (SC‐RT). P < .0001
3.4. Univariate and multivariable Cox analyses
On univariate analyses, OS was affected by length of radiation course (SC vs LC), receipt of hormone therapy, age, CCI, insurance status, distance to treatment facility, and clinical T‐stage (Table 3). On multivariable analysis, factors associated with worse OS included the following: short course of RT course (HR: 1.57 [95% CI, 1.34‐1.85]; P < .0001), no hormone therapy (HR: 1.36 [95% CI, 1.13‐1.63]; P = .001), age >75 years (HR: 1.70 [95% CI, 1.32‐2.20]; P < .0001), and CCI ≥ 1 (for >1, HR: 1.44 [95% CI, 1.17‐1.78]; P = .001).
Table 3.
Univariate and multivariate Cox regression for overall survival
| Univariate | Multivariate | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hazard ratio | P‐value | Hazard ratio | P‐value | |
| Fractionation scheme | ||||
| Long‐Course RT | Reference Group | Reference Group | ||
| Short‐Course RT | 1.64 (1.40‐1.92) | <.0001 | 1.57 (1.34‐1.85) | <.0001 |
| Hormone therapy | ||||
| Yes | Reference Group | Reference Group | ||
| No | 1.42 (1.19‐1.71) | <.0001 | 1.36 (1.13‐1.63) | .001 |
| Chemotherapy | ||||
| Yes | Reference Group | — | ||
| No | 0.94 (0.75‐1.18) | .617 | ||
| Clinical T‐Stage | ||||
| T1 | Reference Group | Reference Group | ||
| T2 | 1.04 (0.86‐1.25) | .676 | 1.00 (0.83‐1.20) | .970 |
| T3 | 0.83 (0.51‐1.36) | .436 | 0.94 (0.73‐1.20) | .598 |
| T4 | 1.32 (1.05‐1.66) | .018 | 1.26 (1.00‐1.58) | .054 |
| TX | 1.11 (0.78‐1.59) | .556 | 1.01 (0.70‐1.46) | .949 |
| Unknown | 1.24 (1.06‐1.45) | .008 | 1.17 (0.99‐1.37) | .061 |
| Age | ||||
| <75 y | Reference Group | Reference Group | ||
| ≥75 y | 1.52 (1.41‐1.78) | <.0001 | 1.70 (1.32‐2.20) | <.0001 |
| Race | ||||
| White | Reference Group | — | ||
| Black | 0.92 (0.79‐1.07) | .292 | ||
| Other | 0.78 (0.58‐1.05) | .099 | ||
| Year of diagnosis | ||||
| 2010 | Reference Group | — | ||
| 2011 | 0.90 (0.76‐1.05) | .177 | ||
| 2012 | 1.0 (0.85‐1.17) | .969 | ||
| 2013 | 0.93 (0.78‐1.10) | .400 | ||
| Charlson‐Deyo Comorbidity | ||||
| 0 | Reference Group | Reference Group | ||
| 1 | 1.19 (1.02‐1.39) | .030 | 1.19 (1.02‐1.38) | .029 |
| >1 | 1.59 (1.29‐1.95) | <.0001 | 1.44 (1.17‐1.78) | .001 |
| Site of treatment | ||||
| Extremity | Reference Group | — | ||
| Spine | 1.10 (0.88‐1.38) | .388 | ||
| Ribs | 1.43 (0.83‐2.47) | .204 | ||
| Hip | 0.88 (0.67‐1.15) | .340 | ||
| Pelvic bones | 0.92 (0.70‐1.22) | .577 | ||
| Shoulder | 1.29 (0.87‐1.92) | .210 | ||
| Facility type | ||||
| Integrated Network Cancer Program | Reference Group | — | ||
| Academic/Research Program | 0.86 (0.70‐1.04) | .124 | ||
| Community Caner Program | 1.10 (0.87‐1.41) | .423 | ||
| Comprehensive Community Cancer Program | 0.86 (0.70‐1.04) | .498 | ||
| Insurance status | ||||
| Not insured | Reference Group | Reference Group | ||
| Medicaid | 1.06 (0.78‐1.43) | .705 | 1.04 (0.77‐1.41) | .795 |
| Medicare | 1.32 (1.05‐1.67) | .018 | 1.09 (0.85‐1.34) | .499 |
| Other government | 1.06 (0.63‐1.78) | .836 | 1.02 (0.60‐1.72) | .946 |
| Private | 0.87 (0.68‐1.12) | .281 | 0.86 (0.67‐1.11) | .246 |
| Unknown | 0.98 (0.60‐1.62) | .939 | 0.88 (0.53‐1.46) | .167 |
| Income | ||||
| <$38 000 | Reference Group | — | ||
| $38 000‐47 999 | 0.97 (0.82‐1.15) | .722 | ||
| $48 000‐62 999 | 0.94 (0.79‐1.11) | .445 | ||
| >$63 000 | 0.92 (0.78‐1.08) | .303 | ||
| Unknown | 1.92 (0.99‐3.75) | .054 | ||
| Distance | ||||
| 0‐5 miles | Reference Group | Reference Group | ||
| >5‐10 miles | 0.87 (0.75‐1.01) | .074 | 0.85 (0.73‐0.99) | .042 |
| >10‐15 miles | 0.75 (0.62‐0.91) | .003 | 0.73 (0.60‐0.90) | .002 |
| >15 miles | 0.92 (0.80‐1.06) | .251 | 0.92 (0.79‐1.06) | .230 |
Bold value represent statistical significance of the hazards ratio between short‐course and long‐course radiation therapy (P < 0.05).
3.5. Matched Cohort
Propensity score matching between the SC‐RT and LC‐RT groups was performed to address confounding patient, tumor, and demographic bias between the groups. A propensity score match resulted in successful match of 242 pairs of patients between SC and LC‐RT (484 total patients). There were no significant imbalances in matched variables in the resulting cohort, and propensity scores were well matched (all standardized mean differences < 0.2). In the matched cohort, median OS for LC‐RT patients was 24.7 months (95% CI, 19.2‐30.3) vs. 14.8 months (95% CI, 12.4‐17.1) for patients treated with SC‐RT (P < .0001, Figure 3A). In analysis of the individual RT groups, there was no statistically significant difference in OS between 37.5 Gy in 15 fractions, 20 Gy in 5 fractions, and 8 Gy in 1 fraction (8 Gy vs 20 Gy, P = .776; 8 Gy vs 37.5 Gy, P = .409; 20 Gy vs 37.5 Gy, P = .278) (Figure 3B). The longest median OS was seen in those patients receiving 30 Gy in 10 fractions (30 Gy vs 8 Gy and 20 Gy, P < .0001; 30 Gy vs 37.5 Gy, P = .513). On multivariable analysis factors associated with worse OS included the following: short course of RT course (HR: 1.45 [95% CI, 1.22‐1.67]; P < .0001), no hormone therapy (HR: 1.38 [95% CI, 1.15‐1.69]; P = .001), age >75 years (HR: 1.75 [95% CI, 1.42‐2.29]; P < .0001), and CCI ≥ 1 (for >1, HR: 1.54 [95% CI, 1.31‐1.88]; P < .0001).
Figure 3.
Propensity‐matched cohort. A, Kaplan‐Meier overall survival curve of patients treated with long‐course radiation therapy (LG‐RT) vs short‐course radiation therapy (SC‐RT). P < .0001. B, Kaplan‐Meier overall survival curve of patients treated with 8 Gy in 1 fraction (800 cGy), 20 Gy in 5 fractions (2000 cGy), 30 Gy in 10 fractions (3000 cGy), and 37.5 Gy in 15 fractions (3750 cGy). 8 Gy vs 20 Gy, P = .776; 8 Gy vs 37.5 Gy, P = .409; 20 Gy vs 37.5 Gy, P = .278; 30 Gy vs 8 Gy and 20 Gy, P < .0001; 30 Gy vs 37.5 Gy, P = .513
4. DISCUSSION
Prostate cancer is among the most common malignancies to metastasize to bone, and of those patients dying from prostate cancer, the rate of skeletal involvement ranges between 85 and 100% within 10 years of a metastatic diagnosis despite hormone therapy.12, 13, 14, 15 Bone metastases from prostate cancer are commonly associated with significant morbidity including pathological fracture, spinal cord compression, pain, and other skeletal‐related events. The current standard of care for palliation of pain and prevention of further morbidity caused by bone metastases is external beam radiation therapy. Multiple radiation fractionation schemes are used in the palliative setting with longer course (ie, >10 fractions) being more common in the United States.2 This is despite equivalent pain control and response rates with single fraction or shorter course treatments in several prior randomized studies and a large meta‐analysis.5, 6, 7, 16, 17, 18 Similar to prior reports, in this large hospital‐based study of patients with bone metastases at diagnosis, we found that ≥10 treatments remain the dominant fractionation scheme in the United States from 2010 to 2014 (85.4%).
Numerous clinical and demographic factors influence decisions pertaining to the choice of fractionation scheme in the treatment of bone metastases. These factors include, but are not limited to, many of the variables investigated in this study. We observed that those patients most likely to SC‐RT were those that were older, treated at an academic/research facility, received radiation o the rib, and lived over 15 miles from the treatment center. Additionally, we found that patients diagnosed in the most recent year evaluated (2014) were more likely to receive SC‐RT on logistic regression.
Multiple previous studies have observed that older patients are more likely to receive short‐course palliative radiation therapy.2, 19 This is likely due to the increasing medical comorbidities and declining performance status associated with increased age. While we incorporated Charlson‐Deyo comorbidity in our analysis, we did not appreciate an association between comorbidity score and selection of fractionation scheme. This is likely due to inherent difficulties capturing true comorbidity in the NCDB and lack of documented performance status. It can also be hypothesized that elderly patients likely have more difficulty in transportation to treatment facilities and are therefore more likely to receive SC‐RT. Our analysis found that patients residing more than 15 miles from a treatment facility were more likely to receive SC‐RT which supports this hypothesis. The trend toward more frequent use of SC‐RT also increased as the distance to treatment center was increased as well.
Our study also found that patients treated at academic/research facilities were more likely to receive SC‐RT than at nonacademic facilities. This finding is in keeping with studies in other disease sites, particularly breast cancer, that have reported earlier adoption of short‐course radiation therapy at academic centers compared to community practice as randomized trial evidence has emerged supporting the move to shorter radiation courses.15, 20 There are multiple potential explanations for this observation. Physician training and a lack of comfort with short‐course palliative radiation therapy, particularly single fraction treatment, clearly plays an important role in limiting the adoption of short‐course palliative treatments. These factors may be somewhat mitigated at academic centers in which the development and adoption of new treatment strategies are emphasized. It is unclear to what extent differences in reimbursement between short‐course and longer course palliative radiation influence behavior, but the current reimbursement model introduces bias in favor of longer courses of radiation. Differential reimbursement has been documented to influence choices among palliative treatments, such as palliative chemotherapy regimens, and this relationship is likely also present in radiation therapy decision making.19, 20, 21 Interestingly, our findings did not show any association between treatment scheme and patient insurance status, with uninsured patients no more likely to receive SC‐RT.
Anatomic location of bone metastases was also associated with the receipt of SC‐RT. Patients with rib metastases were more likely to receive a SC regimen and those with spine metastases more likely to receive a longer course. While we attempted to exclude patients with documented spine cord compression, this finding likely represents the use of LC‐RT for more durable control in the setting of spine metastases to prevent cord compression. This is supported by studies that have shown that the 18%‐20% retreatment rate in single fraction radiotherapy which is approximately double that of 10 or more fractions.2 It has been reported, however, that 16 Gy in 2 fractions or 8 Gy in one fraction are also effective in the treatment of metastatic cord compression.22
Another finding from this study is the increasing use of SC‐RT in the most recent time period examined. Schreiber et al2 published a similar study using the NCDB with metastatic prostate patients diagnosed between 2004 and 2012. In their study, longer fractionations schemes (≥10) were used in over 91% of patients. They did find, however, that year of diagnosis 2009 or later was associated with an increased likelihood of receiving SC‐RT. It may be considered that further increased use observed in our study coincides with multiple medical associations recommending shorter treatment courses. In 2011, Lutz et al10 published “Palliative Radiotherapy for Bone Metastasis: An ASTRO Evidence‐Based Guideline”. Following publication, it was noted to be one of the most downloaded International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, and Physics articles each year for 4 years following publication.23 It was our hypothesis that following the release of these guidelines, a slow but apparent increase in SC‐RT would be appreciated. In our analysis, the frequency of SC‐RT increased from 11.3% in 2010 to 18.8% in 2014. In subgroup analysis, the rate of single fraction palliative radiation therapy also increased over the same time period (3.8% over 4 years).
However, there is ambiguity in the recommendations provided by ASTRO.24 The guidelines suggest that there is equivalent pain relief following 30 Gy in 10 fractions, 20 Gy in 5 fractions, or a single 8 Gy fraction, but do not frankly recommend adoption of short‐course or single fraction RT despite randomized evidence showing equivalence of the different fractionation schemes. For example, both the Choosing Wisely Canada campaign and The American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine Choosing Wisely campaign are direct stating: “Don't recommend more than a single fraction of palliative radiation for an uncomplicated painful bone metastasis.”25, 26 Perhaps with a more firm stance from ASTRO adoption of shorter course RT would be implemented in the United States, similar to the more prevalent use seen in other countries such as Canada and the UK.19
In this study, we found that overall survival was superior in the group of patients treated with LC‐ RT on multivariable analysis. This overall survival finding is consistent with prior database reports, and is likely due to factors influencing the selection of radiation therapy treatment scheme that cannot be measured in the NCDB. In a propensity‐matched cohort, we continued to find an improved overall survival benefit to LC‐RT; however, in subgroup analysis, there was no overall survival benefit to 37.5 Gy in 15 fractions compared to either short‐course fractionation scheme evaluated. This conflicts the idea that more aggressive local palliative radiation therapy is associated with improved overall survival, and supports that patients selected for 30 Gy in 10 fractions likely have selection bias that cannot be measured in the NCDB.
Lastly, the adoption of single fraction or short‐course RT has significant financial implications for the radiation and medical community. A Dutch randomized controlled trial of 1157 patients with painful bone metastases compared both pain responses and cost of radiotherapy. They found no difference in pain response, and that the estimated cost of radiation therapy, including retreatments and other nonmedical costs, was significantly lower for a single fraction schedule compared to multiple fraction schedule ($2438 vs $3311, difference = $873, 95% confidence interval on the difference = $449 to $1297; P < .001).27 The Radiation Oncology Group (RTOG) found a similar financial advantage with single fraction over longer treatment courses in evaluation of RTOG 9714.28 In a New Zealand study, patient costs for single fraction RT were NZ$1344 (95% uncertainty level $855 to $1846) lower than multifraction RT for palliative bone metastases in the prostate cancer setting.29 Additionally, a recent SEER analysis reported a difference of $3094 (95% CI: $2107‐4081) between single fraction and 10 or longer fractionation schemes.30 There are estimates that an absolute increase of 10% use of single fraction palliative radiation therapy for metastatic prostate cancer could generate over $70 million per year in health cost savings.2, 31, 32
There are several limitations to this study, many of which are inherent to the NCDB and a retrospective analysis. The lack of clinical details regarding the specifics of each bone metastases is a major limitation. For example, degree of pain, number of metastases, complicated vs uncomplicated lesions, and additional courses of radiotherapy are all lacking from the database and likely significantly contribute to the selection of fractionation scheme. Additionally, while the NCDB codes for Charlson‐Deyo comorbidity, there are significant limitations to this variable in the NCDB and true comorbidities are likely vastly underestimated. The information regarding time to palliative RT is poorly coded in the database, and it may be possible that the length of life from time of metastatic diagnosis and need for palliative treatment may impact fractionation scheme of RT and survival. Lastly, there are no data in the NCDB regarding effectiveness or toxicity of RT, and overall survival is the only survival outcome available.
5. CONCLUSION
In this large observational study of the NCDB, the most common palliative radiation fraction scheme for men with prostate cancer and metastatic bone disease at diagnosis is ≥10 fractions. Despite recommendations from numerous medical societies and randomized data showing equivalent pain control with shorter treatment courses, LC‐RT remains the dominant fractionation scheme in the United States. Increasing age, treatment at an academic/research center, treatment to the rib, increasing distance to treatment facility, and diagnosis in 2014 were associated with increased likelihood of receiving short‐course RT. Increasing use of shorter fractionation schemes would provide significant costs reductions in healthcare spending.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Authors have no conflict of interests.
Fischer‐Valuck BW, Baumann BC, Apicelli A, et al. Palliative radiation therapy (RT) for prostate cancer patients with bone metastases at diagnosis: A hospital‐based analysis of patterns of care, RT fractionation scheme, and overall survival. Cancer Med. 2018;7:4240–4250. 10.1002/cam4.1655
REFERENCES
- 1. Miller KD, Siegel RL, Lin CC, et al. Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66:271‐289. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Schreiber D, Safdieh J, Becker DJ, Schwartz D. Patterns of care and survival outcomes of palliative radiation for prostate cancer with bone metastases: comparison of </=5 fractions to >/=10 fractions. Ann Palliat Med. 2017;6:55‐65. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Tofe AJ, Francis MD, Harvey WJ. Correlation of neoplasms with incidence and localization of skeletal metastases: an analysis of 1,355 diphosphonate bone scans. J Nucl Med. 1975;16:986‐989. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Weiner AB, Matulewicz RS, Eggener SE, Schaeffer EM. Increasing incidence of metastatic prostate cancer in the United States (2004‐2013). Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2016;19:395‐397. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Yarnold JR. 8 Gy single fraction radiotherapy for the treatment of metastatic skeletal pain: randomised comparison with a multifraction schedule over 12 months of patient follow‐up. Bone Pain Trial Working Party. Radiother Oncol. 1999;52:111‐121. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Kaasa S, Brenne E, Lund JA, et al. Prospective randomised multicenter trial on single fraction radiotherapy (8 Gy x 1) versus multiple fractions (3 Gy x 10) in the treatment of painful bone metastases. Radiother Oncol. 2006;79:278‐284. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Hartsell WF, Scott CB, Bruner DW, et al. Randomized trial of short‐ versus long‐course radiotherapy for palliation of painful bone metastases. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:798‐804. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Steenland E, Leer JW, van Houwelingen H, et al. The effect of a single fraction compared to multiple fractions on painful bone metastases: a global analysis of the Dutch Bone Metastasis Study. Radiother Oncol. 1999;52:101‐109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Ben‐Josef E, Shamsa F, Youssef E, Porter AT. External beam radiotherapy for painful osseous metastases: pooled data dose response analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;45:715‐719. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Lutz S, Berk L, Chang E, et al. Palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases: an ASTRO evidence‐based guideline. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;79:965‐976. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Hahn C, Kavanagh B, Bhatnagar A, et al. Choosing wisely: the American Society for Radiation Oncology's top 5 list. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2014;4:349‐355. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Briganti A, Passoni N, Ferrari M, et al. When to perform bone scan in patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer: external validation of the currently available guidelines and proposal of a novel risk stratification tool. Eur Urol. 2010;57:551‐558. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Carlin BI, Andriole GL. The natural history, skeletal complications, and management of bone metastases in patients with prostate carcinoma. Cancer. 2000;88(12 Suppl):2989‐2994. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Rigaud J, Tiguert R, Le Normand L, et al. Prognostic value of bone scan in patients with metastatic prostate cancer treated initially with androgen deprivation therapy. J Urol. 2002;168:1423‐1426. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Groot MT, Boeken Kruger CG, Pelger RC, Uyl‐de Groot CA. Costs of prostate cancer, metastatic to the bone, in the Netherlands. Eur Urol. 2003;43:226‐232. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Wu JS, Wong R, Johnston M, Bezjak A, Whelan T, Cancer Care Ontario Practice Guidelines Initiative Supportive Care Group . Meta‐analysis of dose‐fractionation radiotherapy trials for the palliation of painful bone metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;55:594‐605. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Chow E, Harris K, Fan G, Tsao M, Sze WM. Palliative radiotherapy trials for bone metastases: a systematic review. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:1423‐1436. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Roos DE, Turner SL, O'Brien PC, et al. Randomized trial of 8 Gy in 1 versus 20 Gy in 5 fractions of radiotherapy for neuropathic pain due to bone metastases (Trans‐Tasman Radiation Oncology Group, TROG 96.05). Radiother Oncol. 2005;75:54‐63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Rutter CE, Yu JB, Wilson LD, Park HS. Assessment of national practice for palliative radiation therapy for bone metastases suggests marked underutilization of single‐fraction regimens in the United States. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015;91:548‐555. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Earle CC, Park ER, Lai B, Weeks JC, Ayanian JZ, Block S. Identifying potential indicators of the quality of end‐of‐life cancer care from administrative data. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:1133‐1138. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Earle CC, Landrum MB, Souza JM, Neville BA, Weeks JC, Ayanian JZ. Aggressiveness of cancer care near the end of life: is it a quality‐of‐care issue? J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:3860‐3866. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Maranzano E, Trippa F, Casale M, et al. 8 Gy single‐dose radiotherapy is effective in metastatic spinal cord compression: results of a phase III randomized multicentre Italian trial. Radiother Oncol. 2009;93:174‐179. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Zietman AL. The Red Journal's most downloaded articles of 2012. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;86:218‐221. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Raman S, Chow R, Hoskin P, Chow E. How should radiation oncologists interpret the ASTRO evidence‐based guideline and ASTRO Choosing Wisely campaign for the treatment of uncomplicated bone metastases? Pract Radiat Oncol. 2017;7:13‐15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Mitera G, Earle C, Latosinsky S, et al. Choosing Wisely Canada cancer list: ten low‐value or harmful practices that should be avoided in cancer care. J Oncol Pract. 2015;11:e296‐e303. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Fischberg D, Bull J, Casarett D, et al. Five things physicians and patients should question in hospice and palliative medicine. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2013;45:595‐605. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. van den Hout WB, van der Linden YM, Steenland E, et al. Single‐ versus multiple‐fraction radiotherapy in patients with painful bone metastases: cost‐utility analysis based on a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95:222‐229. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Konski A, James J, Hartsell W, et al. Economic analysis of radiation therapy oncology group 97‐14: multiple versus single fraction radiation treatment of patients with bone metastases. Am J Clin Oncol. 2009;32:423‐428. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Collinson L, Kvizhinadze G, Nair N, McLeod M, Blakely T. Economic evaluation of single‐fraction versus multiple‐fraction palliative radiotherapy for painful bone metastases in breast, lung and prostate cancer. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2016;60:650‐660. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Bekelman JE, Epstein AJ, Emanuel EJ. Single‐ vs multiple‐fraction radiotherapy for bone metastases from prostate cancer. JAMA. 2013;310:1501‐1502. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Olson RA, Tiwana MS, Barnes M, et al. Use of single‐ versus multiple‐fraction palliative radiation therapy for bone metastases: population‐based analysis of 16,898 courses in a Canadian province. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;89:1092‐1099. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Olson RA, Tiwana M, Barnes M, et al. Impact of using audit data to improve the evidence‐based use of single‐fraction radiation therapy for bone metastases in British Columbia. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016;94:40‐47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]