PurposeGrade 4 lymphopenia (G4L) during radiation therapy (RT) is associated with higher rates of distant metastasis and decreased overall survival in a number of malignancies, including esophageal cancer (EC). Through a reduction in integral radiation dose, proton RT (PRT) may reduce G4L relative to photon RT (XRT). The purpose of this study was to compare G4L in patients with EC undergoing PRT versus XRT.Methods and materialsPatients receiving curative-intent RT and concurrent chemotherapy for EC were identified. Lymphocyte nadir was defined as the lowest lymphocyte count during RT. G4L was defined as absolute lymphocyte count <200/mm3. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses (MVA) were performed to assess patient and treatment factors associated with lymphopenia. A propensity-matched (PM) cohort was created using logistic regression, including baseline covariates.ResultsA total of 144 patients met the inclusion criteria. The median age was 66 years (range, 32-85 years). Of these patients, 79 received XRT (27% 3-dimensional chemo-RT and 73% intensity modulated RT) and 65 received PRT (100% pencil-beam scanning). Chemotherapy consisted of weekly carboplatin and paclitaxel (99%). There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the groups, except for age (median 4 years older in the PRT cohort). G4L was significantly higher in patients who received XRT versus those who received PRT (56% vs 22%; P < .01). On MVA, XRT (odds ratio [OR]: 5.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.35-11.18; P < .001) and stage III/IV (OR: 4.54; 95% CI, 1.87-11.00; P < .001) were associated with G4L. PM resulted in 50 PRT and 50 XRT patients. In the PM cohort, G4L occurred in 60% of patients who received XRT versus 24% of patients who received PRT. On MVA, XRT (OR: 5.28; 95% CI, 2.14-12.99; P < .001) and stage III/IV (OR: 3.77; 95% CI, 1.26-11.30; P = .02) were associated with G4L.ConclusionsXRT was associated with a significantly higher risk of G4L in comparison with PRT. Further work is needed to evaluate a potential association between RT modality and antitumor immunity as well as long-term outcomes.
BACKGROUND:Insurers have started to deny reimbursement for routine brain surveillance with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) after stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for brain metastases in favor of symptom-prompted imaging. The authors investigated the clinical and economic impact of symptomatic versus asymptomatic metastases and related these findings to the use of routine brain surveillance. METHODS: Between January 2000 and December 2010, 442 patients underwent upfront SRS for brain metastases. In total, 127 asymptomatic patients and 315 symptomatic patients were included. Medical records were used to determine the presenting symptoms, distant and local brain failure, retreatment, and need for hospital and rehabilitative care. Cost-of-care estimates were based on Medicare payment rates as of January 2013. RESULTS: Symptomatic patients had an increased hazard for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.448) and were more likely to experience neurologic death (42% vs 20%; P <.0001). Relative to asymptomatic patients, symptomatic patients required more craniotomies (43% vs 5%; P <.0001), had more prolonged hospitalization (2 vs 0 days; P <.0001), were more likely to have Radiation Therapy Oncology Group grade 3 and 4 post-treatment symptoms (24% vs 5%; P <.0001), and required $11,957 more on average to manage per patient. Accounting for all-cause mortality rates and the probability of diagnosis at each follow-up period, the authors estimated that insurers would save an average $1326 per patient by covering routine surveillance MRI after SRS to detect asymptomatic metastases. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who presented with symptomatic brain metastases had worse clinical outcomes and cost more to manage than asymptomatic patients. The current findings argue that routine brain surveillance after radiosurgery has clinical benefits and reduces the cost of care. Cancer 2014;120:433-41.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.