Yale University School of Medicine, Department of Therapeutic Radiology, 40 Park St, New Haven, CT 06511, USA.
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013 Jan 2;105(1):25-32. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djs463. Epub 2012 Dec 14.
Proton radiotherapy (PRT) is an emerging treatment for prostate cancer despite limited knowledge of clinical benefit or potential harms compared with other types of radiotherapy. We therefore compared patterns of PRT use, cost, and early toxicity among Medicare beneficiaries with prostate cancer with those of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT).
We performed a retrospective study of all Medicare beneficiaries aged greater than or equal to 66 years who received PRT or IMRT for prostate cancer during 2008 and/or 2009. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with receipt of PRT. To assess toxicity, each PRT patient was matched with two IMRT patients with similar clinical and sociodemographic characteristics. The main outcome measures were receipt of PRT or IMRT, Medicare reimbursement for each treatment, and early genitourinary, gastrointestinal, and other toxicity. All statistical tests were two-sided.
We identified 27,647 men; 553 (2%) received PRT and 27,094 (98%) received IMRT. Patients receiving PRT were younger, healthier, and from more affluent areas than patients receiving IMRT. Median Medicare reimbursement was $32,428 for PRT and $18,575 for IMRT. Although PRT was associated with a statistically significant reduction in genitourinary toxicity at 6 months compared with IMRT (5.9% vs 9.5%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.38 to 0.96, P = .03), at 12 months post-treatment there was no difference in genitourinary toxicity (18.8% vs 17.5%; OR = 1.08, 95% CI = 0.76 to 1.54, P = .66). There was no statistically significant difference in gastrointestinal or other toxicity at 6 months or 12 months post-treatment.
Although PRT is substantially more costly than IMRT, there was no difference in toxicity in a comprehensive cohort of Medicare beneficiaries with prostate cancer at 12 months post-treatment.
尽管质子放疗 (PRT) 在临床获益或潜在危害方面与其他放疗类型相比所知甚少,但它仍是治疗前列腺癌的一种新兴方法。因此,我们比较了 Medicare 受益人群中接受 PRT 与调强放疗 (IMRT) 的前列腺癌患者的 PRT 使用模式、成本和早期毒性。
我们对在 2008 年和/或 2009 年期间接受 PRT 或 IMRT 治疗的所有年龄大于或等于 66 岁的 Medicare 受益人群进行了回顾性研究。我们使用多变量逻辑回归来确定接受 PRT 的相关因素。为了评估毒性,每位 PRT 患者都与具有相似临床和社会人口统计学特征的两名 IMRT 患者进行了匹配。主要结局指标包括接受 PRT 或 IMRT、每种治疗的 Medicare 报销以及早期泌尿生殖、胃肠道和其他毒性。所有统计检验均为双侧检验。
我们确定了 27647 名男性;553 名(2%)接受了 PRT,27094 名(98%)接受了 IMRT。接受 PRT 的患者比接受 IMRT 的患者年龄更小、更健康、来自更富裕的地区。PRT 的 Medicare 报销中位数为 32428 美元,IMRT 为 18575 美元。尽管与 IMRT 相比,PRT 在 6 个月时泌尿生殖毒性明显降低(5.9% vs 9.5%;比值比 [OR] = 0.60,95%置信区间 [CI] = 0.38 至 0.96,P =.03),但在治疗后 12 个月时,泌尿生殖毒性无差异(18.8% vs 17.5%;OR = 1.08,95% CI = 0.76 至 1.54,P =.66)。在治疗后 6 个月或 12 个月时,胃肠道或其他毒性无统计学差异。
尽管 PRT 的成本明显高于 IMRT,但在接受前列腺癌治疗的 Medicare 受益人群的综合队列中,在治疗后 12 个月时,毒性无差异。