Abstract
High-quality treatment for intact cervical cancer requires external radiation therapy, brachytherapy, and chemotherapy, carefully sequenced and completed without delays. We sought to determine how frequently current treatment meets quality benchmarks and whether new technologies have influenced patterns of care. By searching diagnosis and procedure claims in MarketScan, an employment-based health care claims database, we identified 1508 patients with nonmetastatic, intact cervical cancer treated from 1999 to 2011, who were <65 years of age and received >10 fractions of radiation. Treatments received were identified using procedure codes and compared with 3 quality benchmarks: receipt of brachytherapy, receipt of chemotherapy, and radiation treatment duration not exceeding 63 days. The Cochran-Armitage test was used to evaluate temporal trends. Seventy-eight percent of patients (n=1182) received brachytherapy, with brachytherapy receipt stable over time (Cochran-Armitage Ptrend=.15). Among patients who received brachytherapy, 66% had high-dose rate and 34% had low-dose rate treatment, although use of high-dose rate brachytherapy steadily increased to 75% by 2011 (Ptrend<.001). Eighteen percent of patients (n=278) received intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and IMRT receipt increased to 37% by 2011 (Ptrend<.001). Only 2.5% of patients (n=38) received IMRT in the setting of brachytherapy omission. Overall, 79% of patients (n=1185) received chemotherapy, and chemotherapy receipt increased to 84% by 2011 (Ptrend<.001). Median radiation treatment duration was 56 days (interquartile range, 47-65 days); however, duration exceeded 63 days in 36% of patients (n=543). Although 98% of patients received at least 1 benchmark treatment, only 44% received treatment that met all 3 benchmarks. With more stringent indicators (brachytherapy, ≥4 chemotherapy cycles, and duration not exceeding 56 days), only 25% of patients received treatment that met all benchmarks. In this cohort, most cervical cancer patients received treatment that did not comply with all 3 benchmarks for quality treatment. In contrast to increasing receipt of newer radiation technologies, there was little improvement in receipt of essential treatment benchmarks.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
More From: International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.