Treatment Facility: An Important Prognostic Factor for Dedifferentiated Liposarcoma Survival

Private insurance was the most common form of insurance followed in decreasing order by Medicare, Medicaid, uninsured, and other government insurance. About 42% of the cohort had Medicare, which is a federally funded US insurance program designated for patients aged ≥ 65 years and certain younger patients with disabilities.

Patients with private insurance demonstrated the longest OS, essentially twice the median OS of all other insured groups at 101 months. Medicare had the worst 5-year OS probability and median OS of all groups. A previous study of 77 patients with DDLPS reported that patients aged > 65 years had reduced OS.13 Medicare patients in this study were older, with a mean and median age at DDLPS diagnosis of 71 and 72 years, respectively, while private insurance had a mean and median age at diagnosis of 56 and 57 years, respectively. Medicare inherently covers older patients and this age difference could account for the decrease in overall survival.

Improved OS for privately insured patients was most notable compared with the uninsured or patients with other government insurance. Uninsured patients had an 83.7% increased risk of mortality when compared with patients with private insurance. When compared with patients with private insurance, patients with other government insurance had an 111.5% increased risk of mortality. Comparing patients with Medicare vs patients with no insurance or other government insurance, there was a decreased risk of mortality of 38.5% and 46.6%, respectively. This decreased OS in patients with other government insurance could be related to the choice of treatment facility, because only 31% of the patients with other government insurance went to academic or research centers when compared with the 58.4% and 50.8% of patients with private and Medicare insurance treated there (data not shown). Such centers often have access to more advanced technology and protocols that may not be available at other treatment facilities.

A little more than half of the patients in the cohort went to an academic or research center for treatment (53.7%); comprehensive community cancer programs were the second most common treatment facility at 28%. Patients treated at academic or research centers demonstrated the best outcomes with a 5-year OS of 52.6%, followed in decreasing order by comprehensive community cancer programs (49.7%), integrated network cancer programs (48.8%), and community cancer programs (41.1%). In our patient cocohort, patients treated at an academic/research center had slightly decreased 10-year OS rates compared with those patients treated at a comprehensive community cancer program, although the median OS for the academic/research centers were still the highest of all treatment facilities.

Treatment options varied significantly by facility, and the number of patients treated surgically followed a similar trend, with 92% undergoing surgery as the primary treatment at academic or research programs compared with 89% at comprehensive cancer programs and 82.7% at community cancer programs (data not shown). Another potential explaination for differing OS outcomes across facilities is the surgical margin outcome. Surgeries performed at community cancer programs or comprehensive cancer programs resulted with no residual tumor in 36% and 40% of cases, respectively, whereas cases performed at academic or research programs resulted with no residual tumor in 47% of cases (data not shown). Regardless, multivariate analysis demonstrated a marked decrease in the chance of mortality when comparing treatment received at academic facility centers with that received at comprehensive cancer centers (22.9%) and community cancer centers (38.3%) (data not shown).