Demographic changes in the United States will result in a marked increase in the number of cancer diagnoses over the next 20 years. Continued efforts are needed to improve cancer care for older adults and minorities.

Renal impairment is common among HF patients and confers excess mortality. Renal function should be considered in risk stratification and evaluation of therapeutic strategies for HF patients.

Background: Patients with cancer experience financial toxicity from the costs of treatment, as well as material and psychologic stress related to this burden. A synthesized understanding of predictors and outcomes of the financial burdens associated with cancer care is needed to underpin strategic responses in oncology care. This study systematically reviewed risk factors and outcomes associated with financial burdens related to cancer treatment. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, PsychINFO, and the Cochrane Library were searched from study inception through June 2018, and reference lists were scanned from studies of patient-level predictors and outcomes of financial burdens in US patients with cancer (aged ≥18 years). Two reviewers conducted screening, abstraction, and quality assessment. Variables associated with financial burdens were synthesized. When possible, pooled estimates of associations were calculated using random-effects models. Results: A total of 74 observational studies of financial burdens in 598,751 patients with cancer were identified, among which 49% of patients reported material or psychologic financial burdens (95% CI, 41%–56%). Socioeconomic predictors of worse financial burdens with treatment were lack of health insurance, lower income, unemployment, and younger age at cancer diagnosis. Compared with patients with health insurance, those who were uninsured demonstrated twice the odds of financial burdens (pooled odds ratio [OR], 2.09; 95% CI, 1.33–3.30). Financial burdens were most severe early in cancer treatment, did not differ by disease site, and were associated with worse health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and nearly twice the odds of cancer medication nonadherence (pooled OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.13–2.56). Only a single study demonstrated an association with increased mortality. Studies assessing the comparative effectiveness of interventions to mitigate financial burdens in patients with cancer were lacking. Conclusions: Evidence showed that financial burdens are common, disproportionately impacting younger and socioeconomically disadvantaged patients with cancer, across disease sites, and are associated with worse treatment adherence and HRQoL. Available evidence helped identify vulnerable patients needing oncology provider engagement and response, but evidence is critically needed on the effectiveness of interventions designed to mitigate financial burden and impact.

PURPOSE Whether dosimetric advantages of proton beam therapy (PBT) translate to improved clinical outcomes compared with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) remains unclear. This randomized trial compared total toxicity burden (TTB) and progression-free survival (PFS) between these modalities for esophageal cancer. METHODS This phase IIB trial randomly assigned patients to PBT or IMRT (50.4 Gy), stratified for histology, resectability, induction chemotherapy, and stage. The prespecified coprimary end points were TTB and PFS. TTB, a composite score of 11 distinct adverse events (AEs), including common toxicities as well as postoperative complications (POCs) in operated patients, quantified the extent of AE severity experienced over the duration of 1 year following treatment. The trial was conducted using Bayesian group sequential design with three planned interim analyses at 33%, 50%, and 67% of expected accrual (adjusted for follow-up). RESULTS This trial (commenced April 2012) was approved for closure and analysis upon activation of NRG-GI006 in March 2019, which occurred immediately prior to the planned 67% interim analysis. Altogether, 145 patients were randomly assigned (72 IMRT, 73 PBT), and 107 patients (61 IMRT, 46 PBT) were evaluable. Median follow-up was 44.1 months. Fifty-one patients (30 IMRT, 21 PBT) underwent esophagectomy; 80% of PBT was passive scattering. The posterior mean TTB was 2.3 times higher for IMRT (39.9; 95% highest posterior density interval, 26.2-54.9) than PBT (17.4; 10.5-25.0). The mean POC score was 7.6 times higher for IMRT (19.1; 7.3-32.3) versus PBT (2.5; 0.3-5.2). The posterior probability that mean TTB was lower for PBT compared with IMRT was 0.9989, which exceeded the trial’s stopping boundary of 0.9942 at the 67% interim analysis. The 3-year PFS rate (50.8% v 51.2%) and 3-year overall survival rates (44.5% v 44.5%) were similar. CONCLUSION For locally advanced esophageal cancer, PBT reduced the risk and severity of AEs compared with IMRT while maintaining similar PFS.

EART FAILURE IS A NATIONAL epidemic, affecting nearly 5 million persons in the United States, with an additional 550 000 diagnosed each year. 1 This burden is disproportionately borne by black Americans, who have a higher incidence and prevalence of heart failure than members of other racial groups. 1 Despite this greater burden, black patients may receive less intensive and poorer-quality care for heart failure than whites. 2-5 Some studies, however, suggest that black patients receive similar quality of care as members of other racial groups. 6-10 Because prior studies evaluated patients treated in selected centers or regions 6-10 and assessed treatment or utilization patterns and not objective measures of quality of care, 3,9,10 it is unclear if reported racial differences reflect shortfalls in care or appropriate treatment or are representative of current national practice patterns. A national evaluation of racial patterns of heart failure care is timely given the

Purpose Cerebrovascular disease is common in head and neck cancer patients, but it is unknown whether radiotherapy increases the cerebrovascular disease risk in this population. Patients and Methods We identified 6,862 patients (age > 65 years) from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) –Medicare cohort diagnosed with nonmetastatic head and neck cancer between 1992 and 2002. Using proportional hazards regression, we compared risk of cerebrovascular events (stroke, carotid revascularization, or stroke death) after treatment with radiotherapy alone, surgery plus radiotherapy, or surgery alone. To further validate whether treatment groups had equivalent baseline risk of vascular disease, we compared the risks of developing a control diagnosis, cardiac events (myocardial infarction, percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass graft, or cardiac death). Unlike cerebrovascular risk, no difference in cardiac risk was hypothesized. Results Mean age was 76 ± 7 years. Ten-year incidence of cerebrovascular events was 34% in patients treated with radiotherapy alone compared with 25% in patients treated with surgery plus radiotherapy and 26% in patients treated with surgery alone (P < .001). After adjusting for covariates, patients treated with radiotherapy alone had increased cerebrovascular risk compared with surgery plus radiotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.77) and surgery alone (HR = 1.50; 95% CI, 1.18 to 1.90). However, no difference was found for surgery plus radiotherapy versus surgery alone (P = .60). As expected, patients treated with radiotherapy alone had no increased cardiac risk compared with the other treatment groups (P = .63 and P = .81). Conclusion Definitive radiotherapy for head and neck cancer, but not postoperative radiotherapy, was associated with excess cerebrovascular disease risk in older patients.

IMPORTANCESeminal investigation 2 decades ago alerted the oncology community to age disparities in participation in cooperative group trials; less is known about whether these disparities persist in industry-funded research. OBJECTIVE To characterize the age disparities among trial enrollees on randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of common cancers in clinical oncology and identify factors associated with wider age imbalances. DATA SOURCES Phase 3 clinical oncology RCTs were identified through ClinicalTrials.gov. STUDY SELECTION Multiarm RCTs assessing a therapeutic intervention for patients with breast, prostate, colorectal, or lung cancer (the 4 most common cancer disease sites) were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Trial data were extracted from ClinicalTrials.gov. Trial screening and parameter identification were independently performed by 2 individuals. Data were analyzed in 2018. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe difference in median age (DMA) between the trial participant median age and the population-based disease-site-specific median age was determined for each trial.RESULTS Three hundred two trials met inclusion criteria. The trials collectively enrolled 262 354 participants; 249 trials (82.5%) were industry-funded. For all trials, the trial median age of trial participants was a mean of 6.49 years younger than the population median age (95% CI, −7.17 to −5.81 years; P < .001). Age disparities were heightened among industry-funded trials compared with non-industry-funded trials (mean DMA, −6.84 vs −4.72 years; P = .002). Enrollment criteria restrictions based on performance status or age cutoffs were associated with age disparities; however, industry-funded trials were not more likely to use these enrollment restrictions than non-industry-funded trials. Age disparities were also larger among trials that evaluated a targeted systemic therapy and among lung cancer trials. Linear regression modeling revealed a widening gap between trial and population median ages over time at a rate of −0.19 years annually (95% CI, −0.37 to −0.01 years; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEAge disparities between trial participants and the incident disease population are pervasive across trials and appear to be increasing over time. Industry sponsorship of trials is associated with heightened age imbalances among trial participants. With an increasing role of industry funding among cancer trials, efforts to understand and address age disparities are necessary to ensure generalizability of trial results as well as equity in trial access.

In this cohort, VEGF positivity was the most significant predictor of poor prognosis. VEGF status may prove to be an important prognostic factor in head and neck cancer.