Search

Standardized collection and use of clinical patient-reported outcomes (PRO) have potential to benefit the care of individual patients and improve radiotherapy system performance. Its centralized health-care system makes Canada a prime candidate to take a leader and collaborator role in international endeavors to promote expansion of patient-reported outcome collection and use in radiotherapy. The current review discusses the development of a pan-Canadian approach to PRO use, through a quality improvement initiative led by the Canadian Partnership for Quality Radiotherapy (CPQR), a unique partnership of Canadian radiotherapy professional organizations (Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology-CARO, Canadian Organization of Medical Physicists-COMP, and the Canadian Association of Medical Radiation Technologists-CAMRT)., (© 2018 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.)

Purpose: Incident investigation, reporting, and learning are core elements of quality improvement in radiation treatment. This report describes the development of a Canadian National System for Incident Reporting in Radiation Treatment (NSIR-RT), focusing especially on the taxonomy., Methods and Materials: The NSIR-RT was developed to provide a framework in Canada for reporting and analyzing radiation treatment incidents. A key objective was to assure compatibility with other international reporting systems to facilitate future information exchange. The Canadian community was engaged at every step of the development process through Delphi consensus building and inter-user agreement testing to promote awareness of the system and motivate broad-based utilization across the country., Results: The final taxonomy was comprised of 6 data groups (impact, discovery, patient, details, treatment delivery, and investigation) and 33 data categories with predefined menu options. There was a high level agreement within the Canadian community about the final suite of data categories, and broad alignment of these categories with the World Health Organization and other American and European radiation treatment incident classifications., Conclusions: The Canadian NSIR-RT taxonomy will be implemented as an online, web-based reporting and analysis system. It is expected that the taxonomy will evolve and mature over time to meet the changing needs of the Canadian radiation treatment community and support radiation treatment incident learning on a global scale., (Copyright © 2016 American Society for Radiation Oncology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The expanded prostate cancer index composite-26 (EPIC-26) instrument is a validated research tool used for capturing patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes related to the domains of bowel, bladder, and sexual functioning for men undergoing curative treatment for prostate cancer. The purpose of this pilot study was to explore the perceptions and experiences of clinicians with using EPIC-26 in a clinical setting for patients receiving curative radiotherapy., Methods: Ten clinicians reviewed EPIC-26 scores either before or during weekly clinical encounters with patients receiving curative radiation treatment for prostate cancer. After a period of 2 months, clinicians underwent individual semi-structured interviews where they were asked about their views on measuring patient-reported outcomes in practice, the value of EPIC-26, impressions on patient acceptability, and operational issues., Results: There was a general willingness and acceptance by clinicians to use EPIC-26 for routine clinical practice. Clinician participants found EPIC-26 to be generally informative, and added value to the clinical encounter by providing additional information that was specific to prostate cancer patients. EPIC-26 was also felt to improve overall communication and provide additional insight into the patient experience., Conclusions: Our qualitative findings suggest that there may be a role for incorporating patient-reported outcome measure assessment tools like EPIC-26 routinely into clinical practice. However, further qualitative and quantitative research is required in order to assess the impact of patient-reported outcome information on communication, patient and clinician satisfaction, and how these and other related outcomes can be used for guiding treatment decision-making.

Purpose: Peer review of radiation treatment (RT) plans is a key component of quality assurance programs in radiation medicine. A 2011 current state assessment identified considerable variation in the percentage of RT plans peer reviewed across Ontario's 14 cancer centers.In response, Cancer Care Ontario launched an initiative to increase peer review of plans for patients receiving radical intent RT., Methods: The initiative was designed consistent with the Kotter eight-step process for organizational transformation. A multidisciplinary team conducted site visits to promote and guide peer review and to develop education and implementation processes in collaboration with the centers. A centralized reporting infrastructure enabled the monitoring of the percentage of RT courses peer reviewed and the timing of peer review (before completion of 25%of treatment visits, after completion of >25%treatment visits)., Results: The initiative is ongoing, but early results indicate that the proportion of radical intent RT courses peer reviewed province wide increased from 43.5% (April 2013) to 68.0%(March 2015). This proportion is now a quality metric in Ontario and is publicly reported through the Cancer System Quality Index. The performance target for this metric was initially set at 50%(cases treated with radical intent) and revised to 60% in 2014. Provincial performance exceeded targets in both years (58.2% and 68.2%, respectively). Considerable variation was observed, however, in rates and timing of peer review among Cancer Care Ontario centers., Conclusion: This initiative demonstrates that a change management framework can be useful for planning and achieving substantial increases in jurisdictional peer review activities.

Purpose: Based on our demonstration of a circadian rhythm in the human oral mucosa cell cycle, with most cells in the G(1) phase in the morning and M phase at night, we hypothesized that morning radiotherapy (RT) would lead to less oral mucositis than afternoon RT., Methods and Materials: A total of 216 patients were randomized to morning (8-10 AM) vs. afternoon (4-6 PM) RT and stratified by radiation dose, smoking status, and center. Patients receiving primary or postoperative RT alone were eligible. Oral mucositis was scored using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) criteria and a validated scoring system., Results: Of 205 evaluable patients, 52.9% vs. 62.4% developed RTOG Grade 3 or greater mucositis after morning vs. afternoon RT, respectively (p = 0.17). Morning RT was also associated with significantly less weight loss after 5 months (p = 0.024). In a subgroup of 111 patients treated to a dose of 66-70 Gy in 33-35 fractions, exploratory analyses revealed a significant reduction in Grade 3 or greater mucositis with morning RT (44.6% vs. 67.3%, p = 0.022) and a longer interval to the development of Grade 3 or greater mucositis (median, >7.9 vs. 5.6 weeks, p = 0.033). In 53 patients, who smoked during therapy, a significant reduction was found in Grade 3 or greater mucositis with morning RT (42.9% vs. 76%, p = 0.025)., Conclusion: In this proof of principle study, morning RT was associated with significantly less weight loss after 5 months and an apparent reduction in oral mucositis in a subset of patients receiving >/=66 Gy and in patients who smoked during therapy.

Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic dexamethasone for the control of radiation induced emesis (RIE) when added to ondansetron during days 1 to 5 of fractionated radiotherapy. The study had two hypotheses: ondansetron and dexamethasone could provide superior control of RIE over ondansetron alone during the prophylactic period and; the combination could provide sustained control of RIE during subsequent fractions of radiotherapy., Patients and Methods: Between May 2001 to Jan 2004, 211 patients receiving radiotherapy (> or = 15 fractions) to the upper abdomen were randomly assigned to receive ondansetron 8 mg bid with either dexamethasone 4 mg daily or placebo during fractions 1 to 5. Rescue antiemetics were provided., Results: During the prophylactic period there was a trend for improved complete control of nausea in the dexamethasone arm (50% v 38%; P = .06) while complete and partial control of emesis, average nausea score, and use of rescue medications were similar in the two groups. During the overall study period patients receiving dexamethasone had better complete control of emesis (23% v 12%; P = .02) and a lower average nausea score (0.28 v 0.39; P = .03); there was a trend towards less use of rescue medications with dexamethasone (70% v 80%; P = .09); other outcomes were similar on the two arms. Quality of life analysis showed a significant difference in appetite., Conclusion: The addition of dexamethasone to ondansetron as prophylaxis provides a modest improvement in protection against RIE during moderately emetogenic fractionated radiotherapy. It is a potentially useful addition to 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists in this setting.

Purpose: To report the development, structure, and implementation of a real-time clinical radiotherapy audit of the practice of radiation oncology in a regional cancer center., Methods and Materials: Radiotherapy treatment plans were audited by a real-time peer-review process over an 8-year period (1989-1996). The overall goal of the audit was to establish a process for quality assurance (QA) of radiotherapy planning and prescription for individual patients. A parallel process was developed to audit the implementation of intervention-specific radiotherapy treatment policies., Results: A total of 3052 treatment plans were audited. Of these, 124 (4.1%) were not approved by the audit due to apparent errors in radiation planning. The majority of the nonapproved plans (79%) were modified prior to initiating treatment; the audit provided important clinical feedback about individual patient care in these instances. Most of the remaining nonapproved plans were deviations from normal practice due to patient-specific considerations. A further 110 (3.6% of all audited plans) were not approved by the audit due to deviations from radiotherapy treatment policy. A minority of these plans (22%) were modified prior to initiating treatment and the remainder provided important feedback for continuous quality improvement of treatment policies., Conclusion: A real-time audit of radiotherapy practice in a regional cancer center setting proved feasible and provided important direct and indirect patient benefits.

The study was designed to evaluate a treatment-tradeoff method for its potential in helping lung cancer patients make treatment decisions. A treatment-tradeoff interview was conducted to determine how patients weighed potential survival benefits against the potential toxicities of different treatment options: 1) low-dose versus high-dose radiotherapy, and 2) high-dose radiotherapy versus combination chemo-radiotherapy. Fifty-six patients who had experienced cancer and 20 clinic staff participated; twenty of these participants repeated the interview in an assessment of response consistency. The treatment-tradeoff method proved feasible: all staff and 53 of the 56 patients were able to complete the process. A wide range of threshold scores across participants was observed for both tradeoffs. Sixty percent of the patients would accept the more toxic combination therapy over high-dose radiotherapy if the former offered a 10% absolute improvement in three-year survival. The method also proved reliable: test-retest correlations were high (tau ranged from 0.7 to 0.87 and r from 0.82 to 0.94) and test-retest mean score differences were low (1.3-4.2). The most clinically useful measure of consistency was a "preference consistency" index, which revealed that most patients declared the same treatment preference at test and retest. The authors conclude that, while there is great interindividual variability in willingness to accept aggressive treatments for lung cancer, patients' values can be consistently elicited with the tradeoff method. The method has potential for clinical application in decision making and for health-care policy development.

Purpose: To determine how patients weigh potential survival benefits against the potential toxicity of different treatment strategies for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Specifically, we were interested in what improvement in survival probability patients would want to have before accepting more toxic therapy., Patients and Methods: Fifty-six outpatients who had experienced lung cancer (n = 22) or prostate cancer (n = 34), and 20 clinic nurses and radiation therapy technologists participated. A treatment trade-off interview was conducted with each participant that compared low-dose versus high-dose radiotherapy and high-dose radiotherapy versus combination chemo-radiotherapy. Preferences for treatments were assessed by systematically increasing the hypothetical survival advantage of the more toxic treatment until the person reached his or her threshold for choosing the more toxic treatment., Results: A wide range of thresholds was observed for both groups. The distributions of survival advantage thresholds for lung cancer and prostate cancer patients were not significantly different but were generally lower thresholds than those declared by staff. If the 3-year survival advantage was 10%, 60% of patients and 15% of staff would consider combination therapy over high-dose radiotherapy. Within patients, apparent willingness to consider more toxic treatments was not significantly related to age, sex, education, or preferred role in decision making. The treatment trade-off method had good test-retest reliability., Conclusion: There is great interindividual variability in willingness to accept aggressive treatments for locally advanced NSCLC. When choosing NSCLC treatment, each patient should be provided with comprehensive information about the options so that he or she may express his or her preferences should he or she wish to participate in the decision.

Background As part of Choosing Wisely Canada (a national campaign to encourage patient--provider conversations about unnecessary medical tests, treatments, and procedures), a list of ten oncology practices that could be low-value in some instances was developed. Of those practices, two were specific to radiation therapy (RT): conventional fractionation as part of breast-conserving therapy (BCT) for women with early-stage breast cancer, and multifraction radiation for palliation of uncomplicated painful bone metastases. Here, we report baseline findings for the current utilization rates of those two RT practices in Canada. Results The use of conventional fractionation as part of BCT varied substantially from province to province. Of women 50 years of age and older, between 8.8% (Alberta) and 36.5% (Saskatchewan) received radiation in 25 fractions (excluding boost irradiation) as part of BCT. The use of hypofractionated RT (that is, 16 fractions excluding boost irradiation)--a preferred approach for many patients--was more common in all 6 reporting provinces, ranging from 43.2% in Saskatchewan to 94.7% in Prince Edward Island. The use of multifraction RT for palliation of bone metastases also varied from province to province, ranging from 40.3% in British Columbia to 69.0% in Saskatchewan. The most common number of fractions delivered to bone metastases was 1, at 50.2%; the second most common numbers were 2--5 fractions, at 41.7%. Conclusions Understanding variation in the use of potentially low-value RT practices can help to inform future strategies to promote higher-value care, which balances high-quality care with the efficient use of limited system resources. Further work is needed to understand the factors contributing to the interprovincial variation observed and to develop benchmarks for the appropriate rate of use of these RT practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To determine the preferred conventional radiation therapy (CRT) practice, and willingness to randomize to high dose spine SBRT, in a group of patients with complex spinal metastases. Methods and Material: The survey was based on four complex spinal metastases cases, considered candidates for the proposed Phase 2 randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing 24 Gy in 2 fractions delivered with SBRT to either 20 Gy in 5 fraction (frx) or 30 Gy in 10 frx CRT. Participants were asked to determine their preferred CRT practice, whether they would treat the same patient with SBRT, and if they would participate in the RCT. Two cases were of radioresistant histologies (renal cell and hepatocellular carcinoma), one had epidural disease, two were oligometastatic, and one consisted of a C2 level metastases with paraspinal extension. Results: 51 radiation oncologists from across the country participated. For each of the clinical scenarios, 20 Gy in 5 frx was the favored CRT practice. However, equivalence was noted for the one renal cell case. All respondents were comfortable with delivering the intended SBRT dose, and most would participate on the proposed RCT . With respect to the primary treatment intent, both local control (LC) and symptom relief were of primary importance; however, local control was more important than symptom relief for the two patients with oligometastatic disease and an expected long-term survival. 51 % of respondents would be able to randomize one patient per month and 35% could randomize 2 to 5 patients per month. Conclusion: 20Gy/5fx was the preferred CRT practice for the treatment of complex spinal metastases described in the survey. Most radiation oncologists surveyed would be willing to participate in the proposed Phase 2 RCT. Disclosure: No significant relationships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]