National Patterns of Early Adoption of Magnetic Resonance Imaging–Guided Linear Accelerators in 2018 to 2019

PURPOSE: Adaptive magnetic resonance imaging–guided linear accelerators (aMRI-LINACs) are an emerging technology with the potential to improve radiation treatment for cancer through improved visualization and adaptive treatment. Given the competing forces of the increased cost, knowledge, and staff required for aMRI-LINAC therapy, it is unpredictable how rapidly and for whom aMRI-LINAC therapy is being adopted. Therefore, given that aMRI-LINAC therapy was granted approval from the Food and Drug Administration in late 2017, we evaluated the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to obtain a nationwide view of early aMRI-LINAC adoption in 2018 to 2019. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Forty-three disease sites were aggregated. A sample of patients who underwent intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) from 2018 to 2019 were matched 1:1 by stage for the top 4 cancer sites. We then compared 9 characteristics of interest (age, % White [vs non-White], % residing in metro areas, % living in the greatest income quartile, % insured by Medicare, % uninsured or unknown insurance status, % treated at a comprehensive cancer center or academic center, % with no recorded Charlson-Deyo comorbidities, and % residing in an area with highest educational) between the 2 samples (aMRI-LINAC and matched IMRT). RESULTS: Only 171 patients were recorded as having been treated with aMRI-LINACs in the NCDB in 2018 to 2019. Fifty-six percent were male, 89% White, and 54% enrolled in Medicare. The most common sites of disease treated were lung (33 patients), pancreas (30 patients), prostate (29 patients), and breast (23 patients). There were no significant differences between aMRI-LINAC- and IMRT-matched patients except that patients with lung or breast cancer treated with aMRI-LINAC were significantly more likely to be treated at a comprehensive cancer center or academic center. CONCLUSIONS: aMRI-LINAC adoption recorded in the NCDB after Food and Drug Administration approval was potentially underreported, slow, and attributed to academic sites of practice. Further longitudinal study will be needed to assess how practice patterns evolve with greater adoption.