Search

Background: Optimal management of metastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC) improves functional outcomes in patients with metastatic disease. This survey study evaluated management of MSCC by Veterans Health Administration (VHA) radiation oncologists (ROs), to determine whether management of MSCC correlates with American College of Radiology (ACR) guidelines, and to compare times to initiation of treatment between surgery and radiotherapy (RT)., Methods: Surveys emailed to 79 VHA ROs included questions on steroid use, surgical care, palliative care, fractionation of irradiation, re-irradiation, and management of common MSCC case scenarios. Follow-up phone calls were made to encourage survey participation. Descriptive statistics and chi-square testing were done to show significant associations., Results: The survey yielded an 81.0% response rate; 79.4% of ROs had read the ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Spinal Bone Metastases. The majority (87.3%) prefer 30 Gy/10 fractions for MSCC, and all respondents recommend steroid therapy in conjunction with RT. When used, RT was more often initiated within 24 hours than was neurosurgery (83.9% vs. 34.5%, P<0.001). All ROs report use of palliative care services. Re-irradiation is given by 66.1%: 30.7% with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), 17.7% using intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and 17.7% using conventional RT. For the case scenarios, most respondents' (>75%) management concurred with ACR guidelines., Conclusions: The majority of VHA ROs are familiar with the ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Spinal Bone Metastases and practice accordingly. Treatment within 24 hours is more likely when RT is the primary modality compared to when surgical decompression precedes RT.

Purpose: To highlight 5 interventions that patients should question, as part of the Choosing Wisely campaign. This initiative, led by the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation, fosters conversations between physicians and patients about treatments and tests that may be overused, unnecessary, or potentially harmful., Methods and Materials: Potential items were initially compiled using an online survey. They were then evaluated and refined by a work group representing the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Clinical Affairs and Quality, Health Policy, and Government Relations Councils. Literature reviews were carried out to support the recommendation and narrative, as well as to provide references for each item. A final list of 5 items was then selected by the ASTRO Board of Directors., Results: ASTRO's 5 recommendations for the Choosing Wisely campaign are the following: (1) Don't initiate whole-breast radiation therapy as a part of breast conservation therapy in women age ≥50 with early-stage invasive breast cancer without considering shorter treatment schedules; (2) don't initiate management of low-risk prostate cancer without discussing active surveillance; (3) don't routinely use extended fractionation schemes (>10 fractions) for palliation of bone metastases; (4) don't routinely recommend proton beam therapy for prostate cancer outside of a prospective clinical trial or registry; and (5) don't routinely use intensity modulated radiation therapy to deliver whole-breast radiation therapy as part of breast conservation therapy., Conclusions: The ASTRO list for the Choosing Wisely campaign highlights radiation oncology interventions that should be discussed between physicians and patients before treatment is initiated. These 5 items provide opportunities to offer higher quality and less costly care.

Background: Surveys demonstrate < 20% of radiation oncologists in the United States offer single-fraction palliative radiotherapy (RT) even though it is an acceptable standard of care. A study was conducted to investigate whether this held true for those practicing within the Veterans Healthcare Administration (VHA)., Methods: All radiation oncologists currently practicing at VHA medical centers were surveyed. Comparisons and associations of responses were evaluated by Fisher's exact test., Results: The response rate was 90%. Half were full-time employees of the VHA, and the majority (70%) had thoroughly read guidelines on palliative RT for bone metastases recently published by either the American College of Radiology (ACR, 2009, 2012) or the American Society of Radiation Oncology (ASTRO, 2011). Single-fraction palliative RT for bone metastases had been prescribed by 76% of respondents, and 93% had prescribed a short course of ≤ 6 fractions. Respondents were less likely to have prescribed a single fraction for patients who had survival estimates of either > 6 months or > 12 months (66% versus 37%, p < 0.0001).Those not offering single-fraction palliative RT (24%) were more likely to be > 10 years out of training (37% versus 10%, p = 0.01), and to have worked in a private practice setting at some point in their career (36% versus 12%, p = 0.03)., Conclusions: A majority of radiation oncologists within the VHA offer single-fraction therapy to their patients. These data ensure access to palliative RT is not limited within this health care system by a preference for prolonged treatment courses that may discourage patients and clinicians from seeking this care.

Purpose: This study explored international radiation oncology trainee decision making in the management of radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV)., Methods: Radiation oncology trainees who were members of the national radiation oncology associations of the USA, Canada, Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand, France, Spain and Singapore completed a Web-based survey. Respondents estimated the risks of nausea and vomiting associated with six standardised radiotherapy-only clinical case vignettes modelled after international anti-emetic guidelines and then committed to prophylactic, rescue or no therapy as an initial management approach for each case., Results: One hundred and seventy-six trainees from 11 countries responded. Only 28 % were aware of any anti-emetic guideline. In general, risk estimates and management approaches for the high-risk and minimal risk cases varied less and were more in line with guideline standards than were estimates and approaches for the moderate- and low-risk cases. Prophylactic therapy was the most common approach for the high-risk and a moderate-risk case (83 and 71 % of respondents respectively), while rescue therapy was the most common approach for a second moderate-risk case (69 %), two low-risk cases (69 and 76 %) and a minimal risk case (68 %). A serotonin receptor antagonist was the most commonly recommended prophylactic agent. On multivariate analysis, a higher estimated risk of nausea predicted for recommending prophylactic therapy, and a lower estimated risk of nausea predicted for recommending rescue therapy., Conclusions: Radiation oncology trainee risk estimates and recommended management approaches for RINV clinical case vignettes varied and matched guideline standards more often for high-risk and minimal risk cases than for moderate- and low-risk cases. Risk estimates of nausea specifically were strong predictors of management decisions.

Purpose: To update the international consensus on palliative radiotherapy endpoints for future clinical trials in bone metastases by surveying international experts regarding previous uncertainties within the 2002 consensus, changes that may be necessary based on practice pattern changes and research findings since that time., Methods and Materials: A two-phase survey was used to determine revisions and new additions to the 2002 consensus. A total of 49 experts from the American Society for Radiation Oncology, the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, the Faculty of Radiation Oncology of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists, and the Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology who are directly involved in the care of patients with bone metastases participated in this survey., Results: Consensus was established in areas involving response definitions, eligibility criteria for future trials, reirradiation, changes in systemic therapy, radiation techniques, parameters at follow-up, and timing of assessments., Conclusion: An outline for trials in bone metastases was updated based on survey and consensus. Investigators leading trials in bone metastases are encouraged to adopt the revised guideline to promote consistent reporting. Areas for future research were identified. It is intended for the consensus to be re-examined in the future on a regular basis., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Quality in cancer care is an issue that has come to the forefront over the past decade. Although the American Society of Clinical Oncology has developed extensive quality metrics and goals, such as limiting chemotherapy being provided within the last 14 days of a patient's life, there are no similar quality metrics, and few data, in the field of radiation oncology., Methods: In this study, morbidity and mortality records from 2008 to 2011 were reviewed for patients at Indiana University who received radiation therapy (RT) within 30 days of death; 63 patients met those criteria., Results: Analysis showed that 22.2% of patients had Karnofsky Performance Status Scale scores >80, whereas 66.7% of patients had scores < 60. Just over half of patients (52%) were still on treatment at death, and more than half of patients (54%) had completed less than half of their original RT plans. Six patients had their final treatments on the days of their deaths, and another 43 patients had their last treatments within 10 days of death. Forty-eight percent of patients received RT for less than one-fifth of their final month of life and 21% for more than half of their last month alive., Conclusions: These data are valuable in ongoing discussions of RT use at the end of life, especially as related to hospice underutilization., (Copyright © 2012 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Radiotherapy commonly is employed to address symptoms in patients with symptoms caused by cancer. For this article, the authors reviewed data supporting the use of hypofractionated palliative radiotherapy. In addition to single-fraction treatment for painful bony metastasis, the available literature suggested that courses of 2 to 14 external-beam fractions may provide equivalent relief to longer course treatment in patients with a poor prognosis who have primary cancers of the lung, rectum, bladder, prostate, head and neck, spleen, and gynecologic system. Hypofractionated treatment delivers palliation that is time efficient, cost effective, and minimally toxic. Evidence suggests that the reluctance of radiation oncologists to provide single-fraction treatment acts as a barrier to referrals from palliative care professionals. Collaboration in education, research, and patient advocacy will advance the common objectives of the 2 specialties and lead to an appropriate increase in the use of palliative hypofractionated radiotherapy.

When delivered with palliative intent, radiotherapy can help to alleviate a multitude of symptoms related to advanced cancer. In general, time to symptom relief is measured in weeks to months after the completion of radiotherapy. Over the past several years, an increasing number of studies have explored rates of radiotherapy use in the final months of life and have found variable rates of radiotherapy use. The optimal rate is unclear, but would incorporate anticipated efficacy in patients whose survival allows it and minimize overuse among patients with expected short survival. Clinician prediction has been shown to overestimate the length of survival in repeated studies. Prognostic indices can provide assistance with estimations of survival length and may help to guide treatment decisions regarding palliative radiotherapy in patients with potentially short survival times. This review explores the recent studies of radiotherapy near the end of life, examines general prognostic models for patients with advanced cancer, describes specific clinical circumstances when radiotherapy may and may not be beneficial, and addresses open questions for future research to help clarify when palliative radiotherapy may be effective near the end of life. CA Cancer J Clin 2014;64:295-310. © 2014 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]