Since 2014, American states have had the option to expand their Medicaid programs as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which was signed into law by former President Barack H. Obama in 2010. Emerging research has found that Medicaid expansion has had a significant impact on patients with cancer, who often face significant financial barriers to receiving the care they need. In this review, we aim to provide a comprehensive examination of the research conducted thus far on the impact of Medicaid expansion on patients with cancer. We begin with a discussion of the history of Medicaid expansion and the key features of the ACA that facilitated it. We then review the literature, analyzing studies that have investigated the impact of Medicaid expansion on cancer patients in terms of access to care, quality of care, and health outcomes. Our findings suggest that Medicaid expansion has had a positive impact on patients with cancer in a number of ways. Patients in expansion states are more likely to receive timely cancer screening and diagnoses, and are more likely to receive appropriate cancer-directed treatment. Additionally, Medicaid expansion has been associated with improvements in cancer-related health outcomes, including improved survival rates. However, limitations and gaps in the current research on the impact of Medicaid expansion on patients with cancer exist, including a lack of long-term data on health outcomes. Additionally, further research is needed to better understand the mechanisms through which Medicaid expansion impacts cancer care.

Thirty percent of patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) are at least 70 years of age. This number continues to rise as life expectancy continues to increase. Still, older adults with HNSCC remain underrepresented in clinical trials, resulting in ambiguity on optimal management. Older adults are a complex patient population, often requiring increased support due to issues relating to functional and performance status, medical comorbidities, and medication management. Furthermore, in older adults with HNSCC, many of these conditions are independently associated with increased toxicity and worse outcomes. Toxicity in the older adult remains difficult to predict and to understand, and as treatment decisions are based on treatment tolerability, it is essential to understand the toxicities and how to minimize them. Novel predictive scores are being developed specifically for older adults with HNSCC to understand toxicity and to assist in personalized treatment decisions. There are clinical trials presently underway that are investigating shortened radiation courses and novel, less toxic systemic treatments in this population. In the forthcoming sections, we provide a detailed overview of the clinical data, treatment paradigms, and considerations in this population. This review provides a comprehensive overview of existing clinical data and clinical considerations in the older adult head and neck cancer population. Additionally, we provide a detailed overview of pertinent current and ongoing clinical trials, as well as future areas for investigation.

Treatment options for recurrent esophageal cancer (EC) previously treated with radiation therapy (RT) are limited. Reirradiation (reRT) with proton beam therapy (PBT) can offer lower toxicities by limiting doses to surrounding tissues. In this study, we present the first multi-institutional series reporting on toxicities and outcomes after reRT for locoregionally recurrent EC with PBT. Analysis of the prospective, multicenter, Proton Collaborative Group registry of patients with recurrent EC who had previously received photon-based RT and underwent PBT reRT was performed. Patient/tumor characteristics, treatment details, outcomes, and toxicities were collected. Local control (LC), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Event time was determined from reRT start. Between 2012 and 2020, 31 patients received reRT via uniform scanning/passive scattering (61.3%) or pencil beam scanning (38.7%) PBT at 7 institutions. Median prior RT, PBT reRT, and cumulative doses were 50.4 Gy (range, 37.5-110.4), 48.6 Gy (relative biological effectiveness) (25.2-72.1), and 99.9 Gy (79.1-182.5), respectively. Of these patients, 12.9% had 2 prior RT courses, and 67.7% received PBT with concurrent chemotherapy. Median follow-up was 7.2 months (0.9-64.7). Post-PBT, there were 16.7% locoregional only, 11.1% distant only, and 16.7% locoregional and distant recurrences. Six-month LC, DMFS, and OS were 80.5%, 83.4%, and 69.1%, respectively. One-year LC, DMFS, and OS were 67.1%, 83.4%, and 27%, respectively. Acute grade ≥3 toxicities occurred in 23% of patients, with 1 acute grade 5 toxicity secondary to esophageal hemorrhage, unclear if related to reRT or disease progression. No grade ≥3 late toxicities were reported. In the largest report to date of PBT for reRT in patients with recurrent EC, we observed acceptable acute toxicities and encouraging rates of disease control. However, these findings are limited by the poor prognoses of these patients, who are at high risk of mortality. Further research is needed to better assess the long-term benefits and toxicities of PBT in this specific patient population.

Background: Patients treated for lung cancer (LC) often experience locoregional failure after initial treatment. Due to technological advances, thoracic reirradiation (re-RT) has become a viable treatment option. We sought to investigate the use of thoracic re-RT in LC patients over a time period characterized by technological advances in a large, multi -center cohort. Methods and materials: LC patients treated with thoracic re-RT in two University Hospitals from 2010-2020 were identified. Clinical variables and RT data were extracted from the medical records and treatment planning systems. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from the last day of re-RT until death or last follow up. Results: 296 patients (small cell LC n = 30, non -small cell LC n = 266) were included. Three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy was the RT technique used most frequently (63%), and 86% of all pa tients were referred for re-RT with palliative treatment intent. During the second half of the study period, the use of thoracic re-RT increased in general, more patients received curative re-RT, and there was an increased use of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Median time between initial RT and re-RT was 18 months (range 1-213 months). Only 83/296 patients had combined treatment plans that allowed for registration of combined doses to organs at risk (OAR). Most of the combined doses to OAR were below recommendations from guidelines. Multivariate analysis showed superior OS (p < 0.05) in patients treated with curative intent, SBRT or intensity modulated radiation therapy or had excellent performance status prior to re-RT. Conclusions: The use of re-RT increased in the second half of the study period, although 2020 did not follow the trend. The use of SBRT and IMRT became more frequent over the years, yet the majority received palliative re-RT. Combined dose plans were only created for one third of the patients.

The purpose of this correspondence is to expand upon the recent review article by Noiret et al. addressing management of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and proposing anatomically guided treatment strategies. While tumor location influences surgical complexity and functional outcomes, we caution against an overly anatomy centric framework that may oversimplify treatment selection and underemphasize patient preferences and biological determinants of response. Current evidence does not support the assertion that chemotherapy followed by surgery provides superior long-term functional outcomes compared with total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) with organ preservation (OP). Contemporary management of LARC includes multiple curative-intent strategies, each associated with distinct tradeoffs in oncologic control, toxicity, and quality of life. In particular, modern radiotherapy techniques and OP strategies have demonstrated favorable response rates, functional outcomes, and quality of life compared with radical surgery. We argue that future treatment paradigms should move beyond anatomy alone and prioritize biologic risk stratification, response adaptive treatment, and incorporation of multi-omic biomarkers. Ultimately, treatment decisions should integrate patient preferences, oncologic risk, functional outcomes, and evolving biologic understanding to optimize individualized care for patients with LARC.