When it comes to specialized cancer surgery, the more experienced the surgeon, the better the outcome is generally true. The same might hold true for radiation therapy used to treat head and neck cancer, according to a new study.
Published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (2014; doi:10.1200/JCO.2014.56.5218) with an accompanying editorial (doi:10.1200/JCO.2014.58.2239), the study compared survival and other outcomes in 470 patients treated with radiation therapy at 101 treatment centers through a clinical trial held from 2002 to 2005. The trial was sponsored by the National Cancer Institute and organized by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG). It was conducted by researchers at The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital in Columbus.
The findings indicated that patients treated at the less-experienced centers were more likely to have cancer recurrence compared with highly experienced centers (62% vs 42%, respectively, at 5 years) and had poorer overall survival compared with those at the highly experienced centers (51% vs 69% 5-year survival, respectively).
“Our findings suggest that institutional experience strongly influences outcomes in patients treated with radiation therapy for head and neck cancer,” said first author Evan Wuthrick, MD. “They indicate that patients do better when treated at centers where more of these procedures are performed versus centers that do fewer.”
Radiation therapy for head and neck cancer requires complex treatment planning that can vary considerably between institutions and physicians. In addition, significant short-term and long-term side effects can occur that require management by a carefully coordinated multidisciplinary care team.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend that head and neck cancer patients receive treatment at experienced centers, but whether provider experience affects outcomes was previously unknown.
The research team used participation in previous RTOG head and neck cancer clinical trials as a surrogate for experience. They identified 88 low-accruing centers that enrolled an average of four patients yearly to the trials, and 13 high-accruing centers that enrolled an average of 65 patients annually. Next, the researchers compared outcomes based on whether patients were treated at the high-accruing (more experienced) or low-accruing (less experienced) centers.
They found that 5-year local recurrence rates were higher among patients treated at less experienced centers versus more experienced centers (36% vs 21%). The radiation therapy plan was more likely to deviate from protocol at less experienced centers (18% vs 6%).
Treatment at low-accruing centers was associated with a 91% increased risk of death and an 89% increase in progression or death when compared with high-accruing centers.
Institutional elements not assessed by the study that can also influence outcomes included use of a tumor board, the number of colleagues and their years of practice, and ancillary services such as speech and swallowing therapy, diet and nutrition support, and specialized nursing.