Building a New Model of Care for Rapid Breast Radiotherapy Treatment Planning: Evaluation of the Advanced Practice Radiation Therapist in Cavity Delineation

From novice to Expert: Reducing Breast Imaging rejection rates through physician mentorship in Advanced Practice Radiation therapy

Purpose

The study's goal was to evaluate the impact of a Radiation Oncologist (RO)-Radiation Therapist (RTT) mentorship on image approval rates for a breast population undergoing radiation therapy in a high-volume practice. The mentorship was undertaken within a large health system in partial fulfillment of the Expert Practice Module for a Masters (MSc) in Advanced Practice Radiotherapy and Oncology.

Methods

Images were retrieved from the MOSAIQ EMR on breast diagnostic code. 1,295 images/115 patients were reviewed pre-mentorship (October 2019-March 2020) and compared with 1,047 images/91patients during/post-mentorship (April 2020-September 2020). The Anderson-Gill (AG) model was used to estimate the hazard ratio for image rejection. Rejected images were classified by reason and compared using Fisher's exact test. Concordance data (RO/RTT image rejection) were collected during Phase Three of the mentorship.

Results

Of 115 patients assessed pre-mentorship, 16 (14 %) had at least 1 image rejected at any session. Of 91 patients assessed post-mentorship, 8 (9 %) had at least 1 image rejected. Likelihood of image rejection decreased by 54 %, with a hazard ratio of 0.46 [95 % CI: 0.24, 0.88]; p = 0.0195. Reasons for image rejection differed pre- and post-mentorship. Poor imaging technique accounted for rejection of 9 of 24 images (37.5 %) before compared to 0 of 11 images (0 %) post-mentorship. Other reasons for image rejection: depth at isocenter (25 % pre-mentorship; 18 % post-mentorship), supraclavicular medial border position (12.5 % vs. 9.09 %), isocenter location (12.5 % vs. 0 %), arm position (4.17 % vs. 54.55 %); hip alignment (8.33 % vs. 18.18 %). Concordance rate was 100 %.

Conclusions

The mentorship proved successful in elevating the RTT's skills and image approval rates, while contributing to improvements in departmental imaging best practices.

Established advanced practice roles in radiation therapy: A scoping review

Advanced practitioners are healthcare professionals that are highly skilled with a particular area of expertise. These roles have been successfully implemented in many healthcare settings, improving efficiency of the service, as well as enhancing the standard of care received by patients. Although advanced practice roles have been implemented in some radiation therapy departments, their implementation have yet to be facilitated in the majority of countries. The purpose of this review is to scope the literature available regarding established advanced practice roles in radiation therapy. The PRISMA strategy for the identification of relevant literature was adhered to. Two data bases, EMBASE and PubMed, were searched using combinations of the key words 'Advanced', 'Practice', 'APRT', 'Radiation', 'Therapy' and 'Radiotherapy'. Exclusion criteria were applied, and citation lists were also screened for additional relevant sources, including grey literature sources. A total of 35 relevant sources were identified that discussed advanced practice radiation therapy roles in the United Kingdom, Singapore, Canada, Australia and the USA. Means of role establishment and scope of practice were defined, and a number of advantages and challenges for advanced practice radiation therapist roles were identified. There are many benefits of implementing advanced practice roles in radiation therapy departments. Though the implementation of these roles can be challenging, the existing evidence indicates that it would be beneficial for the patient, the radiation therapist and the department as a whole. A more systematic approach, including reporting of quantitative outcomes may assist in the more widespread implementation of these roles.

An Environmental Scan of Advanced Practice Radiation Therapy in the United States: A PESTEL Analysis

PURPOSE

In 2021, the Advanced Practice Radiation Therapy Working Group (APRTWG) was established in the United States as a grassroots alliance of multidisciplinary radiation oncology professionals-radiation therapists, physicians, dosimetrists, and administrators-located across the country, interested in studying and establishing the Advanced Practice Radiation Therapist (APRT) level of practice in the United States. The APRT model has shown success in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Singapore, and other countries, documenting the value of the APRT to the quality and advancement of clinical care. In the United States, the APRTWG seeks to coordinate activities, align resources, and drive the national agenda to collectively develop and define novel models of care using APRT in line with the evolving needs of patients and the radiation therapy profession. This environmental scan aims to examine the context of radiation oncology medical practice in the United States to inform pathways ahead for a proposed APRT model through a Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Environmental, and Legal (PESTEL) analysis.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A literature search was conducted to understand the chronological timeline of the development of APRT during the past 25 years. Items that included the activities, scope of practice, and implementation of APRT nationally and internationally were identified. Papers describing advanced practitioner roles that are commonly found in the multidisciplinary team in radiation oncology both in the United States and internationally, such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners, were excluded.

RESULTS

Despite the environmental scan outcome, it is acknowledged that data collation and analysis was not as robust as that anticipated by undertaking a systematic review. Papers were identified by the lead author that aligned with each of the PESTEL factors. Defined broadly, a new care model can adjust how health services are delivered by incorporating best practices in patient care for a specific population, person, or patient cohort. As patients enter different stages of their disease, the purpose of a new model is to provide individuals with the right care, at the right time, by the right team, in the right place. It is clear that the opportunity for positive change and impact on the current state of practice in radiation oncology exists.

CONCLUSION

The environmental scan findings demonstrate the complexities associated with implementing APRT in the United States, with multifactorial political, environmental, societal, technological, economic, and legal aspects to consider. The APRTWG will continue to lead and participate in such activities to demonstrate and identify APRT role opportunities in the United States and drive the nationwide implementation of the APRT level of practice in this country.

Advanced practice roles of therapeutic radiographers/radiation therapists: A systematic literature review

INTRODUCTION

Advances in Radiotherapy (RT) technology and increase of complexity in cancer care have enabled the implementation of new treatment techniques. Subsequently, a greater level of autonomy, responsibility, and accountability in the practice of Therapeutic Radiographers/Radiation Therapists (TR/RTTs) has led to Advanced Practice (AP) roles. The published evidence of this role is scattered with confusing terminology and divergence regarding the perception of whether a specific role represents AP internationally. This study aims to establish an international baseline of evidence on AP roles in RT to identify roles and activities performed by TR/RTTs at advanced level practice and to summarise the impact.

METHODS

A systematic PRISMA review of the literature was undertaken. Thematic analysis was used to synthesise the roles and associated activities. Six RT external experts validated the list. The impact was scrutinised in terms of clinical, organisational, and professional outcomes.

RESULTS

Studies (n = 87) were included and categorised into four groups. AP roles were listed by clinical area, site-specific, and scope of practice, and advanced activities were organised into seven dimensions and 27 sub-dimensions. Three most-reported outcomes were: enhanced service capacity, higher patient satisfaction, and safety maintenance.

CONCLUSION

Evidence-based AP amongst TR/RTTs show how AP roles were conceptualised, implemented, and evaluated. Congruence studies have shown that TR/RTTs are at par with the gold-standard across the various AP roles.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This is the first systematic literature review synthetisising AP roles and activities of TR/RTTs. This study also identified the main areas of AP that can be used to develop professional frameworks and education guiding policy by professional bodies, educators and other stakeholders.

Acute and late toxicities of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 and treated for cancer with radiation therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic

PURPOSE

This study aimed to assess the risk of acute and late radiation-induced toxicity in patients with COVID-19.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All the patients irradiated in Institut Curie from March to July 2020 were included if the first symptoms related to COVID-19 occurred no more than two months before the start of radiation therapy (RT) or 15 days after the end of RT.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients were included in this analysis. Twenty-five patients had no co-morbidities (86.2%), including morbid obesity. The diagnosis of COVID-19 infection was based on a positive SARS-CoV-2 RNA test for 18 patients (62.1%), a positive serology test for three patients (10.3%), and/or radiologic findings for 12 patients (41.4%). Three patients with symptoms highly suggestive of COVID-19 were included, although they had negative biologic tests and did not have a chest CT scan. Median time from the diagnosis of COVID-19 to the onset of RT was 5.5 days. Modification of RT course due to COVID-19 status was observed in 15 patients, including four for whom RT was definitively stopped. Six patients needed hospitalization for hypoxemic lung disease requiring intensive care. The majority of patients did not experience severe (> grade 2) acute toxicity. After a median follow-up of 6 months (IQR, 1-9 months), none of the patients had unusual clinical or radiological late toxicities.

CONCLUSION

The observed acute and late toxicities were ultimately similar to those observed in a population not infected with COVID-19. These results do not prompt modification of standard RT protocols for irradiation of COVID-19 patients.

[Cooperation protocol and advanced practice, an evolutionary perspective for the French radiation therapist]

For several years, the profession of radiographer has been unattractive and is in search of professional recognition. Increasingly complex therapeutic and diagnostic evolutions forces professionals to develop their skills to ensure quality and safe care for all patients. The primary role of the radiographer is to support patients and to accompany them during their examination or treatment, combining caregiver and technician's roles. Transversal missions and delegation of tasks are inherent to the profession but are not widely recognized. Cooperation between radiotherapy professionals is a response to offer the therapeutic radiographer/radiation therapist (RTT) opportunities in terms of attractiveness, career prospects, and increased skills. In radiotherapy, advanced practice activities already exist in some departments but require regulatory adjustments, in particular regarding the redistribution of the roles of RTT but also the status of these professionals. The formalization of these practices can be largely inspired by the many feedbacks around the world. This article aims to reflect the evolution's perspectives in the career of an RTT and on the valorisation of this profession in the current context.

Qualitative Study of Interprofessional Collaboration in Radiation Oncology Clinics: Is There a Need for Further Education?

PURPOSE

Interprofessional education (IPE) is gaining recognition as a means of improving health care delivery and patient outcomes. A primary goal of IPE is improved interprofessional collaboration (IPC). The multidisciplinary team in the radiation oncology clinic requires effective IPC for optimal delivery of radiation therapy. However, there are limited data on IPE and IPC in radiation oncology. This qualitative study aims to characterize IPC in radiation oncology.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Semistructured phone interviews were performed from June to August 2019 with radiation oncologists, nurses, dosimetrists, radiation therapists, medical physicists, and medical students across a single academic medical center and affiliated network sites. Interviews were recorded, de-identified, and transcribed verbatim. Resulting transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Seventeen interviews were performed with 4 radiation oncologists, 2 nurses, 2 dosimetrists, 4 radiation therapists, 2 medical physicists, and 3 medical students. Thematic analysis identified 4 themes: (1) management of the radiation oncology clinic, (2) potential impact of interprofessional training in radiation oncology, (3) current climate of interprofessional education in radiation oncology, and (4) creating an interprofessional training program in radiation oncology. Each theme elicited between 2 and 7 subthemes.

CONCLUSIONS

From the analytical themes that emerged, it is hypothesized that misunderstanding professionals' roles can lead to communication breakdown, which creates less efficient clinic management and disorganized patient care. Although other medical professionals shadow physicians during their training, physicians are not learning about other professions in the same way. Interviewees from each professional category recommend a formal shadowing program for radiation oncology trainees at the medical student or resident level. Having structured opportunities for IPE is important given competing demands of learners during medical student rotations and residency. This study suggests an unmet need for exposure of radiation oncology medical trainees to IPE with the ultimate goal of improving IPC in the radiation oncology clinic.

Are we missing the post-operative cavity in whole breast radiotherapy?

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Whole breast radiotherapy (RT) following breast-conserving surgery is a standard treatment option in early-stage breast cancer patients. The whole breast RT technique targets the entire breast, traditionally identified based on breast palpation and the lumpectomy scar. The aim of this study is to evaluate dosimetry of the tumour bed (cavity) and location of recurrence in women treated with breast radiotherapy without explicit cavity delineation.

MATERIALS/METHODS

50 consecutive women previously treated with whole breast RT were retrospectively contoured to define the post-operative cavity with a 1.0 cm expansion for planning target volume (cPTV). The cavity and cPTV dosimetric coverage [volume receiving 92%(V92%) and 95%(V95%) prescription] were calculated. Cavity and cPTV location were classified as inside, at edge or outside of previous treatment fields and recurrence rates were collected.

RESULTS

Forty-five (90%) women had cavities located inside the previous treatment fields (CAVin) and 5 women (10%) had cavities located outside(4) or at edge(1) of previous fields (CAVout/edge). CAVout/edge were located in extreme aspects of the breast: lateral(3); medial(1); or superior(1). Mean cavity_V92% was 91.6% vs 98.5% for CAVout/edge vs CAVin (p = 0.042). Mean cPTV_V92% was 78.7% vs 97.2% for cPTVout/edge vs cPTVin (p<0.001). At 5-year follow-up, 20% (1/5) of the CAVout/edge had 1 in-breast recurrence near the cavity (at previous field edge). Within the CAVin cohort, 11 patients were lost to follow-up and 6% (2/34) patients had in-breast recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients treated with whole breast RT without cavity delineation, 10% did not have ideal dosimetric coverage of the cavity. Cavity delineation in treatment planning provides optimal tumour bed coverage for patients undergoing whole breast RT, and is of particular importance for the coverage of cavities located in the extreme margins of the breast.

Navigating uncertainty: The implementation of Australian radiation therapy advanced practitioners

•

The implementation of advanced practice for radiation therapists in Australia is limited.

•

A constructivist grounded theory study identified the key processes influencing implementation.

•

‘Navigating uncertainty’ includes conceptual, practical, social and contextual features.

•

A national strategy is required to overcome uncertainty and inform systematic implementation.

Radiation therapy advanced practice has been implemented in several international jurisdictions; however, it is yet to be systematically integrated into Australian radiation oncology centres. This paper presents the outcomes of a doctoral research study to explore the factors that may be influencing the implementation of radiation therapy advanced practice in Australia. Using a constructivist grounded theory methodological approach to guide procedures, data collection occurred via 6 nationally facilitated online (video mediated) focus groups, and during interviews and observations at 5 purposively selected clinical case study locations. Data analysis led to the development of a grounded theory ‘navigating uncertainty’ to describe the process influencing the implementation of radiation therapy advanced practice in Australia. Navigating uncertainty is explained by three inter-related contextual processes of conceptualising radiation therapy advanced practice, integrating radiation therapy advanced practice, and becoming the radiation therapy advanced practitioner. The research suggests that the process of actively finding a way to accommodate uncertainty is necessary for advanced practice implementation objectives to be realised.

Diversity in radiation therapist/therapeutic radiographer (RTT) advanced practice (AP) roles delivering on the four domains

INTRODUCTION

Advanced practice roles are well documented, and continue to respond to the changing landscape in radiotherapy and oncology. In the UK the highest level of AP for the therapeutic radiographer/radiation therapist (RTT) is the consultant radiographer. These posts should meet the four domains of practice, as set out in national guidance. Here we aim to describe well established roles that meet this criteria, and provide subgroups of examples.

METHODOLOGY

Three AP post holders with over 10 years AP experience completed a questionnaire adapted from the consultant radiographer toolkit. These were completed in conjunction with guidance and framework documents. The examples were to demonstrate how they achieve a high level of practice in clinical and expert practice; professional leadership and consultancy; education, training and development; and practice and service development, research and evaluation. Participants then categorised results to add subgroups to each domain.

RESULTS

The questionnaire was completed by three RTTs specialising as a lung consultant radiographer (LCR), a neuro-oncology consultant radiographer (NCR) and a lead research radiographer (RR). Each post holder described how they meet the criteria by discussing the benefit they make to their profession, department and patients. All posts had examples for all criteria, achieving consultant practice. Clinical and expert practice was the dominant domain for the clinical specialist posts, and professional leadership and research evaluation was the strongest domains for the RR.

CONCLUSION

All three consultant RTTs have demonstrated expert practice with clear and transparent examples of their professional practice which evidence the four domains of consultant practice. Following two decades of AP practice for RTTs there is a need to be strategic in the development of future posts with a prospective view on succession planning that safeguards their longevity.

The emerging role of radiation therapists in the contouring of organs at risk in radiotherapy: analysis of inter-observer variability with radiation oncologists for the chest and upper abdomen

Aims

To compare the contouring of organs at risk (OAR) between a clinical specialist radiation therapist (CSRT) and radiation oncologists (ROs) with different levels of expertise (senior–SRO, junior–JRO, fellow–FRO).

Methods

On ten planning computed tomography (CT) image sets of patients undergoing breast radiotherapy (RT), the observers independently contoured the contralateral breast, heart, left anterior descending artery (LAD), oesophagus, kidney, liver, spinal cord, stomach and trachea. The CSRT was instructed by the JRO e SRO. The inter-observer variability of contoured volumes was measured using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) (threshold of ≥ 0.7 for good concordance) and the centre of mass distance (CMD). The analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed and a p-value < 0.01 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Good overlaps (DSC > 0.7) were obtained for all OARs, except for LAD (DSC = 0.34 ± 0.17, mean ± standard deviation) and oesophagus (DSC = 0.66 ± 0.06, mean ± SD). The mean CMD < 1 cm was achieved for all the OARs, but spinal cord (CMD = 1.22 cm). By pairing the observers, mean DSC > 0.7 and mean CMD < 1 cm were achieved in all cases. The best overlaps were seen for the pairs JRO-CSRT(DSC = 0.82; CMD = 0.49 cm) and SRO-JRO (DSC = 0.80; CMD = 0.51 cm).

Conclusions

Overall, good concordance was found for all the observers. Despite the short training in contouring, CSRT obtained good concordance with his tutor (JRO). Great variability was seen in contouring the LAD, due to its difficult visualization and identification of CT scans without contrast.

Comparing Breast Conservation Surgery Seromas Contoured by Radiation Therapists versus those Contoured by a Radiation Oncologist in Radiation Therapy Planning for Early-Stage Breast Cancer

INTRODUCTION

In the management of early-stage breast cancer using radiation therapy, computed tomography (CT) simulation is used to identify the breast conservation surgery (BCS) seroma as a proxy for the tumour bed. The delineation or contouring of the seroma is generally a task performed by a radiation oncologist (RO). With increasing patient numbers and other demands placed on ROs, the scope of practice for radiation therapists (RTs) is continually expanding, and the need for skills transfer from one profession to another has been investigated in recent years. This study aims to compare the BCS seroma volumes contoured by RTs with those contoured by ROs to add evidence in support of expanding the RTs' role in the treatment planning process in the management of early-stage breast cancer.

METHODS

A study was undertaken using the CT-simulation (CT-sim) data sets of patients with early-stage breast cancer treated in 2013. The CT-sim data sets had BCS seromas contoured by 1 of 5 ROs as part of routine clinical management. This study involved 4 RTs who each used the patient information to identify and contour breast seromas on 50 deidentified CT-sim data sets. Metrics used to compare RT versus RO contours included volume size, overlap between volumes, and geographical distance from the centre of volumes.

RESULTS

There were 50 CT-sim data sets with 1 RO contour and 4 RT contours analysed. The contour volumes of the 4 RTs and the ROs were assessed. Although there were 50 CT-sim data sets presented to each RT, analysis was carried out on 45, 43, 46, and 45 CT-sim data sets. There were no comparisons made where contours were not delineated. The contour volumes of the 4 RTs and the ROs were assessed with an interclass correlation coefficient, with a result of excellent reliability (0.975, 95% [0.963, 0.985]). The DICE similarity coefficient was used to compare the overlap of each RT contour with the RO contour; the results were favourable with mean (95% CI) DSCs 0.685, 0.640, 0.678, and 0.681, respectively. Comparing the RT and RO geographical centre of the seroma volumes, good to excellent reliability between the RTs and ROs was demonstrated (95% CI mean RO vs RT distances (mm): 3.75, 4.99, 7.71, and 3.39). There was no statistically significant difference between the distances (P = 0.65).

CONCLUSION

BCS seromas contoured by RTs compared well with those contoured by an RO. This research has provided further evidence to support RTs in assuming additional contouring responsibilities in radiation therapy planning for patients with early-stage breast cancer.

The Effect of Lumpectomy Cavity Changes on Planning Dose in Breast Radiotherapy Boost

INTRODUCTION

The addition of a postoperative tumour bed (cavity) boost after whole-breast radiotherapy (RT) is known to decrease the risk of local in-breast recurrence. The purpose of this retrospective study is to assess breast excision cavity changes and planned doses at the time of initial boost RT treatments after the completion of whole-breast RT.

METHODS

Over a 4-month period, women with highly visible cavity on computed tomography (CT) and treated with whole-breast RT followed by a conformal photon boost to the tumour bed were identified. The patient's day 1 boost online cone beam CT (CBCT) and corresponding setup corrections were overlaid with the planning CT image. The cavity and dose evaluation volumes (DEVs = 1 cm expansion of the cavity, excluding 5 mm of lung and skin) were assessed. Dosimetric evaluations were performed for maximum and minimum cavity doses, cavity volume receiving 90% (V90) and 95% (V95) of prescription dose, and DEV receiving 85% (V85), 95%, and 105% (V105) of the prescription dose. The two-tailed student t-test and Pearson's correlation test were performed for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Eighteen patients were included in the analysis. The CT cavity (CAV_CT) volume (mean: 28.8 cc, SD 27.9) was larger than the CBCT cavity (CAV_CBCT) volume (mean: 21.1 cc, SD: 22.4) (P value= .003). The CT DEV similarly decreased at the time of boost; DEV_CT (mean: 113.9 cc, SD: 63.2) versus DEV_CBCT (mean: 92.3 cc, SD: 50.8), (P = .002). A strong correlation was observed between the initial CT cavity volume and cavity shrinkage observed at time of boost (day 1 CBCT) (Pearson's r = 0.697; r²= 0.486, P = .001). Both time periods from surgery to CT (median: 92 days, range: 31-227) and from surgery to day 1 CBCT (median: 141 days, range: 56-265) were not associated with cavity volume change. However, an inverse correlation was observed between time from initial CT to day 1 boost CBCT (median: 33 days, range: 24-54) and % cavity volume change (Pearson's r = -0.642; r²= 0.4121, P = .004). Dosimetric evaluations of the cavity and DEV showed no significant differences in maximum, minimum, and target dose coverage between the CT and boost volumes.

CONCLUSION

In patients with breast cancer treated with a tumour bed boost after whole-breast RT, the postoperative cavity can shrink between the time of CT and day 1 boost. The extent of cavity reduction was greatest in patients with large postoperative cavities on initial CT. Despite the cavity size change, conformal boost fields provide adequate dose coverage to the cavity.

Contouring workload in adjuvant breast cancer radiotherapy

PURPOSE

To measure the impact of contouring on worktime in the adjuvant radiation treatment of breast cancer, and to identify factors that might affect the measurements.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The dates and times of contouring clinical target volumes and organs at risk were recorded by a senior and by two junior radiation oncologists. Outcome measurements were contour times and the time from start to approval. The factors evaluated were patient age, type of surgery, radiation targets and setup, operator, planning station, part of the day and day of the week on which the contouring started. The Welch test was used to comparatively assess the measurements.

RESULTS

Two hundred and three cases were included in the analysis. The mean contour time per patient was 34minutes for a mean of 4.72 structures, with a mean of 7.1minutes per structure. The clinical target volume and organs at risk times did not differ significantly. The mean time from start to approval per patient was 29.4hours. Factors significantly associated with longer contour times were breast-conserving surgery (P=0.026), prone setup (P=0.002), junior operator (P<0.0001), Pinnacle planning station (P=0.026), contouring start in the morning (P=0.001), and contouring start by the end of the week (P<0.0001). Factors significantly associated with time from start to approval were age (P=0.038), junior operator (P<0.0001), planning station (P=0.016), and contouring start by the end of the week (P=0.004).

CONCLUSION

Contouring is a time-consuming process. Each delineated structure influences worktime, and many factors may be targeted for optimization of the workflow. These preliminary data will serve as basis for future prospective studies to determine how to establish a cost-effective solution.