MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3209852691 · doi:10.14338/ijpt-21-00012.1

Evaluating Disparities in Proton Radiation Therapy Use in AHOD1331, a Contemporary Children's Oncology Group Trial for Advanced-Stage Hodgkin Lymphoma

2021· article· en· W3209852691 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Particle Therapy · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Cancer InstituteSt. Baldrick's Foundation
KeywordsProton therapyRadiation therapyContext (archaeology)ReceiptHodgkin lymphomaRadiation oncologyLymphomaSystemic therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To the Editor:The indications for proton radiation therapy carry the strongest evidence in pediatric cancers. In a recently published letter, Bitterman et al [1] reviewed factors associated with receipt of proton radiation therapy in patients enrolled in Children's Oncology Group (COG) solid tumor and CNS tumor trials. They demonstrated that Black children were less likely to receive this treatment than non-Hispanic white patients, a disparity that persisted when controlling for other demographic and clinical variables. We strongly commend them for their work, as addressing racism and infrastructural barriers to care requires its identification.Disparities and unequal access to radiation therapy reflect barriers and systemic biases of the health system. As radiation oncologists are highly specialized, it is rare for them to primarily diagnose cancers, particularly in the pediatric setting. Unequal access reflects those obstacles or biases acting on (1) the relationship between pediatric oncologist and radiation oncologist; (2) the recommendation of radiation oncologist; or (3) patient choice. Determining what factors and processes lead to disparities as evidenced previously are paramount in addressing them.The aforementioned analysis did not include lymphoma, as it focused on pediatric solid tumors. Furthermore, the authors characterized a cohort generally enrolled more than a decade ago. Proton therapy represents a radiation modality with the potential to reduce dose to healthy tissues. Within the context of Hodgkin lymphoma, especially for patients with large mediastinal adenopathy (LMA), dose reduction is important for at-risk organs, including the lungs, heart, and breasts [2, 3]. We now share our analysis of factors associated with proton therapy receipt on a contemporary COG trial for Hodgkin lymphoma, AHOD 1331 [4]. The primary aim of the randomized clinical trial was to determine the efficacy of brentuximab vedotin in a pediatric chemotherapy regimen for de novo high-risk classical Hodgkin lymphoma. Radiation therapy was indicated for all patients with LMA or slow-responding lesions after 2 cycles of chemotherapy on either treatment arm. As the primary trial endpoint has not been reported, we focus the analysis on factors associated with receipt of proton radiation therapy for LMA in Hodgkin lymphoma.We conducted a univariate analysis by χ2 test to evaluate the association of receipt of proton radiation therapy with age (< or ≥12 years), sex, race, ethnicity, payment method as private versus nonprivate insurance, and neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES), based on a binary 5-digit zip code–derived census-tract definition of poverty level as low or non-low (< or ≥20%).Among 265 patients with LMA who received radiation therapy, 65 (25%) received proton therapy and 200 (75%) received photon radiation therapy. The results of the analyses are presented in Table 1.Among those receiving proton versus photon radiation therapy, 13.8% vs 12.0% were Black, 24.6% vs 19.5% were Hispanic, and 13.8% vs 10.0% were of low SES, respectively, with no difference in radiation therapy receipt by race, ethnicity, or SES detected. When payment method was evaluated, a significantly higher proportion of patients receiving proton radiation therapy were privately insured (67.7% with proton versus 50.5% with photon radiation therapy; P = .016).Disparities in Hodgkin lymphoma outcome faced by Black children are documented [5, 6]. Black children with Hodgkin lymphoma have been shown to have significantly worse overall survival than their white counterparts in a large national database, and in children enrolled in COG trials. In contrast to the finding of Bitterman et al [1] of racial disparities in receipt of proton therapy, our analysis in a more contemporary national study for a hematologic cancer did not demonstrate racial or ethnic disparity in proton therapy access for children enrolled in trial. Given the different periods under which enrollment was conducted, the fact that more proton therapy centers existed during accrual for AHOD 1331, which enrolled from 2015 to 2019, may partly account for our findings compared to the historical trials included by Bitterman et al [1]. As our initial analysis is limited to the group with LMA, it is possible that the examination of disparities may yield different results when the entire radiation cohort is considered. With greater sample size and availability to analyze all enrolled children after the primary endpoint is released, it will be important to conduct multivariable analyses to control for any confounding factors to better evaluate individual associations. Given the ability of proton delivery to dosimetrically spare healthy organs and with favorable cost-effectiveness for survivors of Hodgkin lymphoma [7], proton therapy's allocation and receipt merits continued monitoring to ensure equal access.The American Society of Clinical Oncology has called for continued prospective reevaluation of disparities in access to care and outcomes in order to eliminate inequalities that systemic and infrastructural racism may engender [8]. This is especially important with the advent of novel therapies like proton therapy with its goal of reducing second cancers and cardiotoxicity in survivors.Conflicts of Interest: Bradford S. Hoppe is an Associate Editor of the International Journal of Particle Therapy. Raymond B. Mailhot Vega reports educational travel grants from Varian and IBA outside the submitted work. The authors have no additional conflicts of interest to disclose.Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge the work of Qinglin Pei as statistician. Support for AHOD1331 came from the following grants: COG NCTN Operations Center Grant U10 CA180886, COG NCTN Statistics & Data Center Grant U10 CA180899, and St. Baldrick's Foundation.Ethical Approval: This editorial did not involve human subjects/participants and was exempt from IRB approval.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.288
Threshold uncertainty score0.449

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.130
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Particle TherapySame topicLymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207