- Joined
- Oct 4, 2017
- Messages
- 5,013
- Reaction score
- 9,778
I am assuming it is ccf practice to offer adt; these were just pts who declined?
I don't know for sure but I know Eric Klein and Jay Czieski (sp?) felt that for intermediate risk disease the findings of 9408 (66.6 Gy 2D with no image guidance) were not relevant to contemporary dose-escalated XRT and they routinely recommended XRT alone (brachy) in patients with UIR disease.I am assuming it is ccf practice to offer adt; these were just pts who declined?
So, not only was the tone wrong, but the substance was incorrect?I don't know for sure but I know Eric Klein and Jay Czieski (sp?) felt that for intermediate risk disease the findings of 9408 (66.6 Gy 2D with no image guidance) were not relevant to contemporary dose-escalated XRT and they routinely recommended XRT alone (brachy) in patients with UIR disease.
The results of 0815 will be presented at ASTRO Plenary next week. I won't reproduce them here but the ARR of OS is very small. 95% of deaths were due to something other than prostate cancer and based on the update from 9408 the OS curves are not likely to converge further as follow-up continues. Competing comorbidities...
Would also assume that brachy pts younger and healthier and care abt sexual function. I have plenty of pts who decline adt, when I tell them small os benefit, although I offer it to all uir. Been years since I looked at d Amico and Australian studies. I don’t know if orgovyx changes anything because supposedly testosterone recovers faster. In any case if cc docs have nuanced discussion with pt and they decline adt, that is a very reasonable.I don't know for sure but I know Eric Klein and Jay Czieski (sp?) felt that for intermediate risk disease the findings of 9408 (66.6 Gy 2D with no image guidance) were not relevant to contemporary dose-escalated XRT and they routinely recommended XRT alone (brachy) in patients with UIR disease.
The results of 0815 will be presented at ASTRO Plenary next week. I won't reproduce them here but the ARR of OS is very small. 95% of deaths were due to something other than prostate cancer and based on the update from 9408 the OS curves are not likely to converge further as follow-up continues. Competing comorbidities...
Believe it or not if you look at all the drugs CMS pays for in terms of annual growth rate in spending per unit 2015-2019, at the top of the list for a drug which is mostly oncology-specific, the drug with the biggest growth rate (26% per yr) is:
Amifostine is a pain... but willing to get back in the saddle for this reimbursementBelieve it or not if you look at all the drugs CMS pays for in terms of annual growth rate in spending per unit 2015-2019, at the top of the list for a drug which is mostly oncology-specific, the drug with the biggest growth rate (26% per yr) is:
Amifostine.
375 Americans received the drug in 2019 at a cost of about $4m to CMS.
Definitely had some reps stop by and try to pimp it. Thought it was pretty much dead in the IMRT era?Amifostine is a pain... but willing to get back in the saddle for this reimbursement
Definitely had some reps stop by and try to pimp it. Thought it was pretty much dead in the IMRT era?
Time to look up the pro fees for amifostine I guess.In the era of APM, extreme hypofractionation, surplus workforce, and decreasing jobs we will see a worsening "the tail wagging the dog" phenomenon in Rad Onc. Anything that can increase revenue will be ruthlessly pursued.
New grads aren't eligible lol. Guessing BC with a few years of experience will be the name of the gameMay have to give Simul a security detail at ASTRO to avoid a fatal stampede when new grads hear about this.
Would also assume that brachy pts younger and healthier and care abt sexual function. I have plenty of pts who decline adt, when I tell them small os benefit, although I offer it to all uir. Been years since I looked at d Amico and Australian studies. I don’t know if orgovyx changes anything because supposedly testosterone recovers faster. In any case if cc docs have nuanced discussion with pt and they decline adt, that is a very reasonable.
I haven't even tried to go down that road yet - the insurance companies keep me on my toes enough as it is with existing treatments.have you used orgovyx at all? I'm 0/1 on getting it approved by insurance and this was in a patient with a possible depot injection (PEG) allergy.
Apparently reduced cardiovascular events compared to lupron as well, though that makes my skepticism alarm go off a bit
I think it's only indicated if pts need it for at least 12 months right? Basically eliminates using it except in high riskhave you used orgovyx at all? I'm 0/1 on getting it approved by insurance and this was in a patient with a possible depot injection (PEG) allergy.
Apparently reduced cardiovascular events compared to lupron as well, though that makes my skepticism alarm go off a bit
I think it's only indicated if pts need it for at least 12 months right? Basically eliminates using it except in high risk
Maybe its regional? We've used it on a handful of patients and its never been denied. But depending on insurance they might get hit with a hefty copay so have to check that first.have you used orgovyx at all? I'm 0/1 on getting it approved by insurance and this was in a patient with a possible depot injection (PEG) allergy.
Apparently reduced cardiovascular events compared to lupron as well, though that makes my skepticism alarm go off a bit
no, my practice can’t handle drug approvals so we refer back to medonc or urology. Have had a few pts get 2 months free from company.have you used orgovyx at all? I'm 0/1 on getting it approved by insurance and this was in a patient with a possible depot injection (PEG) allergy.
Apparently reduced cardiovascular events compared to lupron as well, though that makes my skepticism alarm go off a bit
Depends on where the patient gets radiationWe’re gonna “rad onc” all day about the cost of the radiation when the 18 mos of orgovix will dwarf it. Very on brand.
Nope. Got pushed to next year. Reach out to me if you have thoughts/ideas on how to make it more meaningful/useful!Is Astro putting on a “masterclass” or other seminar in “leadership” this year? .
Nope. Got pushed to next year. Reach out to me if you have thoughts/ideas on how to make it more meaningful/useful!
Last thing we need is more MBAs telling us what to do.Don't do it at all. Rad onc "leadership" is running our specialty into the ground.
If you are going to do it, invite experts from outside radiation oncology like business school types who actually study leadership.
Last thing we need is more MBAs telling us what to do.
Who do you think is incentivizing them? How many MD CEOs are there? How many CFOs have MDs? Why are rad onc departments opening satellites and underpaying faculty if not to pay for the administrative bloat of all the stellar leadership (and lack of any profit center) that MBAs bring to the health care table.I'd rather those who study leadership for a living in academics tell me how to lead than rad onc MDs who managed to make chair and now congratulate themselves on their stellar leadership opening satellites and underpaying faculty.
Why kind of sick, f— attends a talk by Lou Harrison, mikey steinberg, etc about how to be a leader? Would love to know about the lapdogs who sit in the front row?I'd rather those who study leadership for a living in academics tell me how to lead than rad onc MDs who managed to make chair and now congratulate themselves on their stellar leadership opening satellites and underpaying faculty.
Exactly, Just combine the specialty with something else if the plan is for residents to do several years of Instructorships.$100-150k a year is an interesting number
You could just restart as a PGY-2 in radiology and do a few linac locums gigs every year or do preliminary CT reads for an ER
In my humble opinion the results reported at this year's ASTRO are simply premature.The results of 0815 will be presented at ASTRO Plenary next week. I won't reproduce them here but the ARR of OS is very small. 95% of deaths were due to something other than prostate cancer and based on the update from 9408 the OS curves are not likely to converge further as follow-up continues. Competing comorbidities...
Are you using decipher Rx at all for those decisions?In my humble opinion the results reported at this year's ASTRO are simply premature.
RTOG0815 was designed to test if short-duration ADT impacts overall survival in patients with intermediate risk prostate cancer receving dose escalated RT.
Here is the abstract:
Dose Escalated Radiotherapy Alone or in Combination With Short-Term Androgen Suppression for Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer: Outcomes From the NRG Oncology/RTOG 0815 Randomized Trial
Androgen suppression can improve outcomes when added to radiotherapy (RT) for intermediate risk prostate cancer, but no study to date has reported its…www.sciencedirect.com
Bear in mind this trial included both favorable and unfavorable intermediate risk cancer patients.
So, we have a median follow-up of 6.2 years and there is no difference in overall survival. Is that surprising? I find not.
These patients have intermediate risk prostate cancer, a disease that has the potential to kill a patient only many years down the road. It is the same disease, we do not offer radiotherapy at all if the overall prognosis of the patients (due to age and comorbidities) is <10 years.
I would even advocate that if RTOG 0815 was a randomized trial testing RT or no RT in the very same patients, there would be no difference in OS at 6 years.
What is more interesting than OS are the differences in PFS.
It seems that 16% of patients in the no-ADT arm suffered a recurrence, while that number was 9% in the ADT arm.
The question is if that 7% difference in PFS will result into an OS-difference with an adequate follow-up. It's possible, but it depends on age of recruited patients and their comorbidities.
We have already omitted ADT for favorable intermediate risk cancer in our clinic for several years and RTOG 0815 does support this practice. I am looking forward to seeing how many of the patients in RTOG0815 were favorable or unfavorable risk, all the abstract tells us is that two thirds had only one intermediate-risk factor.
Unfortunately not, it's not reimbursed over here.Are you using decipher Rx at all for those decisions?
You make good points. I wonder how they came up with a 93.3% vs 90% OS improvement at 5 years. That's a NNT of 30, which is a pretty low NNT in oncology--and a kind of a high impact intervention. And I wouldn't expect that OS bump from 6 mos AAS in a high-surviving population. That's a 33% drop in the death rate. But if they had chosen 92% vs 90% OS improvement, they'd need about 3000 patients in the study; 91% vs 90% (a 10% drop in death rate), maybe 5-6000. (And in fact they did see a 91% vs 90% survival improvement, p=0.22, almost good enough in SABR-COMET-land.) So I guess they had to choose 93.3 vs 90 to keep accrual numbers manageable. On the MSKCC nomogram, a T2b, Gleason 3+4 (3/18 cores positive), PSA 9 fellow has a 99% chance of 10 year cancer-specific survival after RP (no hormone therapy). I'd give an RT patient those odds too I think. In summary, 93.3% vs 90% OS improvement at 5 years was NEVER going to happen; ultimately, I'm saying the trial was under-powered IRL (but properly powered in the authors' minds/on paper). So the results weren't premature per se, just expected. The trial was set up over-optimistically... by the prostate "experts" no less.In my humble opinion the results reported at this year's ASTRO are simply premature.
RTOG0815 was designed to test if short-duration ADT impacts overall survival in patients with intermediate risk prostate cancer receving dose escalated RT.
Here is the abstract:
Dose Escalated Radiotherapy Alone or in Combination With Short-Term Androgen Suppression for Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer: Outcomes From the NRG Oncology/RTOG 0815 Randomized Trial
Androgen suppression can improve outcomes when added to radiotherapy (RT) for intermediate risk prostate cancer, but no study to date has reported its…www.sciencedirect.com
Bear in mind this trial included both favorable and unfavorable intermediate risk cancer patients.
So, we have a median follow-up of 6.2 years and there is no difference in overall survival. Is that surprising? I find not.
These patients have intermediate risk prostate cancer, a disease that has the potential to kill a patient only many years down the road. It is the same disease, we do not offer radiotherapy at all if the overall prognosis of the patients (due to age and comorbidities) is <10 years.
I would even advocate that if RTOG 0815 was a randomized trial testing RT or no RT in the very same patients, there would be no difference in OS at 6 years.
What is more interesting than OS are the differences in PFS.
It seems that 16% of patients in the no-ADT arm suffered a recurrence, while that number was 9% in the ADT arm.
The question is if that 7% difference in PFS will result into an OS-difference with an adequate follow-up. It's possible, but it depends on age of recruited patients and their comorbidities.
We have already omitted ADT for favorable intermediate risk cancer in our clinic for several years and RTOG 0815 does support this practice. I am looking forward to seeing how many of the patients in RTOG0815 were favorable or unfavorable risk, all the abstract tells us is that two thirds had only one intermediate-risk factor.
You mean it was a trial designed to "prove" the equivalence of de-escalation?You make good points. I wonder how they came up with a 93.3% vs 90% OS improvement at 5 years. That's a NNT of 30, which is a pretty low NNT in oncology--and a kind of a high impact intervention. And I wouldn't expect that OS bump from 6 mos AAS in a high-surviving population. That's a 33% drop in the death rate. But if they had chosen 92% vs 90% OS improvement, they'd need about 3000 patients in the study; 91% vs 90% (a 10% drop in death rate), maybe 5-6000. (And in fact they did see a 91% vs 90% survival improvement, p=0.22, almost good enough in SABR-COMET-land.) So I guess they had to choose 93.3 vs 90 to keep accrual numbers manageable. On the MSKCC nomogram, a T2b, Gleason 3+4 (3/18 cores positive), PSA 9 fellow has a 99% chance of 10 year cancer-specific survival after RP (no hormone therapy). I'd give an RT patient those odds too I think. In summary, 93.3% vs 90% OS improvement at 5 years was NEVER going to happen; ultimately, I'm saying the trial was under-powered IRL (but properly powered in the authors' minds/on paper). So the results weren't premature per se, just expected. The trial was set up over-optimistically... by the prostate "experts" no less.
I think it demonstrates (ie "proves") de-escalation looks statistically un-different from escalation if not enough patients are given not enough time to have measurable events in a study. The revealing of the effects of minor interventions in CaP (adjuvant tx's e.g.) takes a lot of time. And patients. And patience.You mean it was a trial designed to "prove" the equivalence of de-escalation?
It's that time of year again!
View attachment 344877
I decided against personally attending ASTRO or paying however much money they wanted for the virtual event this year, so on the off chance it doesn't make it to Twitter, hopefully someone can post the results on SDN for the rest of us to see.
Prediction: based on my experience and conversations with the Class of 2021, I expect unemployment to remain low. I expect this to be spun as a good thing, of course, and people will say the negative projections/worry about the job market are wrong because of it.
If that is indeed the messaging academia chooses to use with us:
In no other sector of the economy would a survey sent by the trainee arm of a professional organization to 200 people before they even leave residency and start the jobs which they may have marked as "satisfactory" be held up as the best available evidence of a robust job market.
(I could obviously be wrong about what they're going to say, but I noticed on the "Agenda" slide the survey is listed under "what is going well", so I have a suspicion about where this will go)
Does employment include Instructorships and fellowships?
Doesn't look much much changes to ACGME case log requirements?
Lot to unpack on these slides but yeah - what's the impact of these changes? I feel like this is when an intern sees a potassium of 3.4 and "repletes" it to 3.6. You can tweak the numbers, but what does it mean clinically?
This. Median survival in the latest trials of de novo METASTATIC disease is 7 years. Only going to go up with parp inhibitors and other new agents. To see a CSM or OS benefit of local therapy you need probably a minimum of 15 years for any reasonably sized trial.I think it demonstrates (ie "proves") de-escalation looks statistically un-different from escalation if not enough patients are given not enough time to have measurable events in a study. The revealing of the effects of minor interventions in CaP (adjuvant tx's e.g.) takes a lot of time. And patients. And patience.
In my opinion, nearly every prostate trial I have seen is remarkably underpowered with very unrealistic expectations for differences in survival. There is a reason that Stampede provides the best data in terms of survival for localized prostate treatment (in a patient population with non-localized disease) and it is all about the competing risk story.I wonder how they came up with a 93.3% vs 90% OS improvement at 5 years.
Indeed.I think it demonstrates (ie "proves") de-escalation looks statistically un-different from escalation if not enough patients are given not enough time to have measurable events in a study. The revealing of the effects of minor interventions in CaP (adjuvant tx's e.g.) takes a lot of time. And patients. And patience.
20 Meq, damn man saved a life!Lot to unpack on these slides but yeah - what's the impact of these changes? I feel like this is when an intern sees a potassium of 3.4 and "repletes" it to 3.6. You can tweak the numbers, but what does it mean clinically?