Search

Simple Summary: The effects of reduced prescription doses on normal tissue toxicity in the treatment of non-Hodgkin lymphomas of the neck/thorax region remain unclear. Acute side effects, which already occur at low organ doses, can only be described to a limited extent by the models given in the literature. Nonetheless, the knowledge about these dose–response relationships is particularly important to predict an acute response in normal tissue adequately. Considering a robust normal tissue toxicity model, dose prescriptions and treatment plans can be optimized to increase the treatment quality and, thus, the outcome for the patient. This biophysical study aimed to determine fitting parameters for the Lyman–Kutcher–Burman (LKB) dose–response model for normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) calculations of acute side effects and to investigate the impact of reduced radiation doses on the probability of their occurrence in supradiaphragmatic non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) irradiation. A cohort of 114 patients with NHL in the cervicothoracic region, treated between 2015 and 2021 at the University Hospitals of Münster, Hamburg, and Essen, with involved site radiation therapy (ISRT), were included. Among them, 68 patients with aggressive NHL (a-NHL) received consolidative radiation therapy with 24–54 Gy following (R-)CHOP chemotherapy. Additionally, 46 patients with indolent NHL (i-NHL) underwent radiotherapy with 22.5–45.0 Gy. Two treatment plans were prospectively created for each patient (a-NHL: 30.0/40.0 Gy; i-NHL: 24.0/30.0 Gy). NTCP were then calculated using the optimized LKB model. The adapted dose–response models properly predicted the patient's probability of developing acute side effects when receiving doses ≤ 50 Gy. In addition, it was shown that reduced radiation doses can influence the NTCP of acute side effects depending on the aggressiveness of NHL significantly. This study provided a foundation to prospectively assess the probability of adverse side effects among today's reduced radiation doses in the treatment of NHL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Ensuring patient safety in radiation oncology is crucial for delivering high-quality healthcare. Patient safety indicators (PSIs) provide a mechanism for identifying, quantifying and evaluating risks and the effectiveness of safety measures. However, there is currently no specialised set of PSIs tailored for radiation oncology in Germany. This study seeks to: (1) create PSIs specifically designed for radiation oncology settings, (2) develop and psychometrically validate an instrument for assessing safety in German radiation oncology facilities and (3) evaluate the feasibility of implementing this instrument in routine clinical practice. The finalised questionnaire will serve as a self-assessment instrument for radiation oncology departments, aiding them in evaluating their efficacy in ensuring patient safety, prioritising safety interventions and tracking performance over time., Methods and Analysis: We are undertaking a 3-year, mixed methods study to address our objectives. For the identification of PSIs, we will conduct a comprehensive review on the PubMed database, along with reviewing national and international guidelines and recommendations. To refine the initial set of indicators, we will consult with experts, including physicians, medical physicists, nurses, administrators and radiation therapists through focus groups. We will employ a Delphi study for the final consensus and selection of indicators. Additionally, the perspectives of patients will be incorporated by formation of a project patient's committee which meets throughout the project phases. We will reformulate the identified PSIs into questionnaire items. The questionnaire's clarity and comprehensibility will be validated through cognitive interviews, followed by psychometric testing in a pilot group of over 150 participants from German radiation oncology departments. The final version of the questionnaire will then be implemented in routine healthcare settings and we will interview individual users about their experiences with the questionnaire in semistructured interviews. We will convene a subsequent expert workshop to discuss the study results and explore avenues for the questionnaire's broader implementation. The finalised questionnaire will be made accessible via a web app. We hereby present the study potocol as a pre-results report., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval for this study was granted by the Hamburg Ethics Committee (Approval Number: 2023-101018-BO-ff). This trial is registered by the ARO (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Radioonkologie /working group for radiation oncology of the German Cancer Society), protocol number 2023-03 and in the German register for clinical trials with the number DRKS00034690. Study results will be published in conference papers and talks as well as journal papers with focus on open access journals. The results will be also disseminated during the implementation workshop in phase III, which will involve a diverse group of stakeholders., Trial Registration Number: DRKS00034690., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MG receives travel support from LAP GmbH Laser Applikationen. All other authors declare no competing interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background and Objective: Data on enteral tube feeding in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy vary considerably between German institutions. This survey aims to investigate the management of feeding tubes in an interdisciplinary context across Germany., Materials and Methods: Between December 2022 and May 2023, 70 participants (42 radiation oncologists, 12 medical oncologists, 14 head and neck surgeons, and 2 physicians covering several specialties) responded to our web-based survey. In addition to the type of institution (university hospital, private practice, etc.), their age, and professional experience (in years), participants were asked several questions on the indication and institutional policy for tube placement and management (prophylactic/reactive nasogastric or gastrostomy tube). All questions were mandatory single- or multiple-choice questions, while additional comments were possible by email., Results: Most participants were employed at a university hospital (n = 52; 74.3%) and came from a radiation oncology background (n = 42; 60%). Fifty-four contributors (77.1%) reported that no nutritional risk screening prior to chemoradiotherapy was routinely performed, and 71.4% (n = 50) stated that no standardized protocol was used at the institution to set the indication for tube placement. Generally, policies and methods of tube feeding vary considerably between the individual institutions and specialties. However, the majority (n = 56, 80%) recommended a prophylactic percutaneous enteral gastrostomy (PEG) tube to their patients before chemoradiotherapy. Still, there was no consistent trend regarding the approach for reactive tube feeding., Conclusion: The policies and methods of tube feeding vary considerably between the individual institutions and specialties in Germany. In the era of individualized medicine, uniform protocols are difficult to establish. However, a baseline nutritional risk screening could simplify decision-making in clinical practice., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose: The aim of this work was to assess the current state of digitalization in radiation oncology departments in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland., Methods: A comprehensive survey was conducted in a digital format, consisting of 53 questions that covered various aspects of digitalization including patient workflow, departmental organization, radiotherapy planning, and employee-related aspects., Results: Overall, 120 forms were eligible for evaluation. Participants were mainly physicians or medical physicists responsible for digitalization aspects in their departments. Nearly 70% of the institutions used electronic patient records, with 50% being completely paperless. However, the use of smartphone apps for electronic patient reported outcomes (ePROMs) and digital health applications (DIGA) was limited (9% and 4.9%, respectively). In total, 70.8% of the radio-oncology departments had interfaces with diagnostic departments, and 36% had digital interchanges with other clinics. Communication with external partners was realized mainly through fax (72%), e‑mails (55%), postal letters (63%), or other digital exchange formats (28%). Almost half of the institutions (49%) had dedicated IT staff for their operations., Conclusion: To the best of our knowledge, this survey is the first of its kind conducted in German-speaking radiation oncology departments within the medical field. The findings suggest that there is a varied level of digitalization implementation within these departments, with certain areas exhibiting lower rates of digitalization that could benefit from targeted improvement initiatives., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Patient misidentification in radiation oncology (RO) is a significant concern due to the potential harm to patient health and the burden on healthcare systems. Electronic patient identification systems (ePIS) are increasingly being used as an alternative or supplement to organizational systems (oPIS). The objective of this study was to assess the usability and usefulness of ePIS and oPIS in German-speaking countries., Methods: A cross-sectional survey was designed by a group of experts from various professional backgrounds in RO. The survey consisted of 38 questions encompassing quantitative and qualitative data on usability, user experience, and usefulness of PIS. It was available between August and October 2022., Results: Of 118 eligible participants, 37% had implemented some kind of ePIS. Overall, 22% of participants who use an oPIS vs. 10% of participants who use an ePIS reported adverse events in terms of patients' misidentification in the past 5 years. Frequent or very frequent drop-outs of electronic systems were reported by 31% of ePIS users. Users of ePIS significantly more often affirmed a positive cost-benefit ratio of ePIS as well as an improvement of workflow, whereas users of oPIS more frequently apprehended a decrease in staffs' attention through ePIS. The response rate was 8%., Conclusion: The implementation of ePIS can contribute to efficient PI and improved processes. Apprehensions by oPIS users and assessments of ePIS users differ significantly in aspects of the perceived usefulness of ePIS. However, technical problems need to be addressed to ensure the reliability of ePIS. Further research is needed to assess the impact of different PIS on patient safety in RO., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Patients and staffs are endangered by different failure modes during clinical routine in radiation oncology and risks are difficult to stratify. We implemented the method of failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) via questionnaires in our institution and introduced an adapted scale applicable for radiation oncology., Methods: Failure modes in physical treatment planning and daily routine were detected and stratified by ranking occurrence, severity, and detectability in a questionnaire. Multiplication of these values offers the risk priority number (RPN). We implemented an ordinal rating scale (ORS) as a combination of earlier published scales from the literature. This scale was optimized for German radiation oncology. We compared RPN using this ORS versus use of a rather subjective visual analogue rating scale (VRS)., Results: Mean RPN using ORS was 62.3 vs. 67.5 using VRS (p = 0.7). Use of ORS led to improved completeness of questionnaires (91 vs. 79%) and stronger agreement among the experts, especially concerning failure modes during radiation routine. The majority of interviewed experts found the analysis by using the ORS easier and expected a saving of time as well as higher intra- and interobserver reliability., Conclusion: The introduced rating scale together with a questionnaire survey provides merit for conducting FMEA in radiation oncology as results are comparable to the use of VRS and the process is facilitated.