Search

Introduction: Despite the availability of radiotherapy treatment protocols for lung cancer, considerable treatment variation occurs in clinical practice. This study assessed compliance with a radiotherapy protocol for the treatment of patients with stages I–III non‐small‐cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in routine clinical practice and to identify factors that were associated with compliance. Methods: The Cancer Institute New South Wales eviQ treatment protocol for external beam radiotherapy of stages I–III NSCLC was taken as the reference to measure compliance. All inoperable patients with stages I–III NSCLC and documented ECOG performance status treated with radiotherapy between 2007 and 2019 at two radiotherapy facilities were available for analysis. Protocol compliance rates were calculated. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models with 23 input factors were used to determine factors significantly associated with compliance. Survival analysis was conducted for both compliant and non‐compliant treatments. Results: Overall, 656 patients met the inclusion criteria. Protocol compliance was 16%. Alternative dose/fractionation was responsible for 49% of non‐compliant treatments with 30% receiving an alternative curative fractionation. Five of 23 factors (age at the start of radiotherapy, stage group, ECOG performance status, tumour location and alcoholism history) showed significant associations with protocol compliance on multivariate analysis. There was no significant difference in median survival between patients receiving protocol compliant treatment (15.1 months) and non‐compliant treatment (15.6 months). Conclusion: Adherence to the eviQ curative radiotherapy protocol for stages I–III NSCLC was low. Alternative dose/fractionation schemes were the main reason for non‐compliance. Protocol compliance was not associated with outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the connection between radiation oncology and cardiology in the treatment of cancer and cardiovascular disease. It emphasizes the need for collaboration between oncologists and cardiologists to optimize outcomes for patients with both conditions. The article also discusses the role of radiotherapy in treating cardiac arrhythmias and the challenges in implementing multidisciplinary care models. It calls for increased cooperation between radiation oncologists and cardiologists to provide comprehensive care for patients with cancer and cardiovascular disease. The author hopes that closer collaboration between specialties will improve patients' quality of life and outcomes. The article does not present new data but provides references to other studies and resources related to cancer treatment and survivorship. It also highlights the importance of considering cardiac substructures in radiation therapy toxicity and the role of real-world data in assessing cardiac toxicity after lung cancer radiotherapy. [Extracted from the article]

Background and Objective: Unwarranted variations in lung cancer care have been well described in both Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand, with shortfalls in hospital‐based workforce and infrastructure previously demonstrated. A survey of lung cancer clinicians was performed to gain an updated understanding of current workforce and infrastructure. Methods: An online Qualtrics survey included questions on institutional demographics, estimated lung cancer case load, multidisciplinary team (MDT) characteristics including workforce and local infrastructure. We sought to obtain one response from every institution treating lung cancer in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand. Results: Responses were received from 89 institutions, estimated to include 85% centres treating lung cancer in Australia and 100% of public hospitals in Aotearoa New Zealand. Lung cancer nurse specialist and Nuclear Medicine are poorly represented in multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) with just 34/88 (38%) institutions fulfilling recommended core workforce for MDT meetings. Case presentation is low with 32/88 (36%) regularly discussing all lung cancer patients at MDT. Metropolitan institutions appear to have a more comprehensive range of services on site, compared to non‐metropolitan institutions. Few (4/88) institutions have embedded smoking cessation services. Compared to the previous 2021 Landscape Survey, thoracic surgery representation and core MDT workforce have improved, with modest change in specialist nurse numbers. Conclusion: This wide‐reaching survey has identified persistent deficiencies and variations in lung cancer workforce and gaps in infrastructure. Multidisciplinary collaboration and care coordination are needed to ensure all patients can access timely and equitable lung cancer care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To develop a priority set of quality indicators (QIs) for use by colorectal cancer (CRC) multidisciplinary teams (MDTs). Methods: The review search strategy was executed in four databases from 2009–August 2019. Two reviewers screened abstracts/manuscripts. Candidate QIs and characteristics were extracted using a tailored abstraction tool and assessed for scientific soundness. To prioritize candidate indicators, a modified Delphi consensus process was conducted. Consensus was sought over two rounds; (1) multidisciplinary expert workshops to identify relevance to Australian CRC MDTs, and (2) an online survey to prioritize QIs by clinical importance. Results: A total of 93 unique QIs were extracted from 118 studies and categorized into domains of care within the CRC patient pathway. Approximately half the QIs involved more than one discipline (52.7%). One‐third of QIs related to surgery of primary CRC (31.2%). QIs on supportive care (6%) and neoadjuvant therapy (6%) were limited. In the Delphi Round 1, workshop participants (n = 12) assessed 93 QIs and produced consensus on retaining 49 QIs including six new QIs. In Round 2, survey participants (n = 44) rated QIs and prioritized a final 26 QIs across all domains of care and disciplines with a concordance level > 80%. Participants represented all MDT disciplines, predominantly surgical (32%), radiation (23%) and medical (20%) oncology, and nursing (18%), across six Australian states, with an even spread of experience level. Conclusion: This study identified a large number of existing CRC QIs and prioritized the most clinically relevant QIs for use by Australian MDTs to measure and monitor their performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The adoption of four‐dimensional cone beam computed tomography (4DCBCT) for image‐guided lung cancer radiotherapy is increasing, especially for hypofractionated treatments. However, the drawbacks of 4DCBCT include long scan times (∼240 s), inconsistent image quality, higher imaging dose than necessary, and streaking artifacts. With the emergence of linear accelerators that can acquire 4DCBCT scans in a short period of time (9.2 s) there is a need to examine the impact that these very fast gantry rotations have on 4DCBCT image quality. Purpose: This study investigates the impact of gantry velocity and angular separation between x‐ray projections on image quality and its implication for fast low‐dose 4DCBCT with emerging systems, such as the Varian Halcyon that provide fast gantry rotation and imaging. Large and uneven angular separation between x‐ray projections is known to reduce 4DCBCT image quality through increased streaking artifacts. However, it is not known when angular separation starts degrading image quality. The study assesses the impact of constant and adaptive gantry velocity and determines the level when angular gaps impair image quality using state‐of‐the‐art reconstruction methods. Methods: This study considers fast low‐dose 4DCBCT acquisitions (60–80 s, 200‐projection scans). To assess the impact of adaptive gantry rotations, the angular position of x‐ray projections from adaptive 4DCBCT acquisitions from a 30‐patient clinical trial were analyzed (referred to as patient angular gaps). To assess the impact of angular gaps, variable and static angular gaps (20°, 30°, 40°) were introduced into evenly separated 200 projections (ideal angular separation). To simulate fast gantry rotations, which are on emerging linacs, constant gantry velocity acquisitions (9.2 s, 60 s, 120 s, 240 s) were simulated by sampling x‐ray projections at constant intervals using the patient breathing traces from the ADAPT clinical trial (ACTRN12618001440213). The 4D Extended Cardiac‐Torso (XCAT) digital phantom was used to simulate projections to remove patient‐specific image quality variables. Image reconstruction was performed using Feldkamp‐Davis‐Kress (FDK), McKinnon‐Bates (MKB), and Motion‐Compensated‐MKB (MCMKB) algorithms. Image quality was assessed using Structural Similarity‐Index‐Measure (SSIM), Contrast‐to‐Noise‐Ratio (CNR), Signal‐to‐Noise‐Ratio (SNR), Tissue‐Interface‐Width‐Diaphragm (TIW‐D), and Tissue‐Interface‐Width‐Tumor (TIW‐T). Results: Patient angular gaps and variable angular gap reconstructions produced similar results to ideal angular separation reconstructions, while static angular gap reconstructions produced lower image quality metrics. For MCMKB‐reconstructions, average patient angular gaps produced SSIM‐0.98, CNR‐13.6, SNR‐34.8, TIW‐D‐1.5 mm, and TIW‐T‐2.0 mm, static angular gap 40° produced SSIM‐0.92, CNR‐6.8, SNR‐6.7, TIW‐D‐5.7 mm, and TIW‐T‐5.9 mm and ideal produced SSIM‐1.00, CNR‐13.6, SNR‐34.8, TIW‐D‐1.5 mm, and TIW‐T‐2.0 mm. All constant gantry velocity reconstructions produced lower image quality metrics than ideal angular separation reconstructions regardless of the acquisition time. Motion compensated reconstruction (MCMKB) produced the highest contrast images with low streaking artifacts. Conclusion: Very fast 4DCBCT scans can be acquired provided that the entire scan range is adaptively sampled, and motion‐compensated reconstruction is performed. Importantly, the angular separation between x‐ray projections within each individual respiratory bin had minimal effect on the image quality of fast low‐dose 4DCBCT imaging. The results will assist the development of future 4DCBCT acquisition protocols that can now be achieved in very short time frames with emerging linear accelerators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]