Balancing Equity and Advancement: The Role of Health Technology Assessment in Radiotherapy Resource Allocation

Radiation Therapy Physics Quality Assurance and Management Practices in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: An Initial Pilot Survey in Six Countries and Validation Through a Site Visit

Purpose

Our purpose was to assess physics quality assurance (QA) practices in less resourced radiation therapy (RT) centers to improve quality of care.

Methods and Materials

A preliminary study was conducted in 2020 of 13 select RT centers in 6 countries, and in 2021, our team conducted onsite visits to all the RT centers in Ghana, one of the countries from the initial survey. The RT centers included 1 private and 2 public institutions (denoted as Public-1 and Public-2). Follow-up surveys were sent to 17 medical physicists from the site visit. Questions centered on the topics of equipment, institutional practice, physics quality assurance, management, and safety practices. Qualitative and descriptive methods were used for data analysis. Questions regarding operational challenges (machine downtime, patient-related issues, power outages, and staffing) were asked on a 5-point Likert scale.

Results

The preliminary survey from 2020 had a 92% response rate. One key result showed that for RT centers in lower gross national income per capita countries there was a direct correlation between QA needs and the gross national income per capita of the country. The needs identified included film/array detectors, independent dose calculation software, calibration of ion chambers, diodes, thermoluminiscence diodes (TLDs), phantoms for verification, Treatment Planning System (TPS) test phantoms, imaging test phantoms and film dosimeters, education, and training. For the post survey after the site visit in 2021, we received a 100% response rate. The private and the Public-1 institutions each have computed tomography simulators located in their RT center. The average daily patient external beam workload for each clinic on a linear accelerator was: private = 25, Public-1 = 55, Public-2 = 40. The Co-60 workload was: Public-1 = 45, Public-2 = 25 (there was no Co-60 at the private hospital). Public-1 and -2 lacked the equipment necessary to conform to best practices in Task Group reports (TG) 142 and 198. Public-2 reported significant operational challenges. Notably, Public-1 and -2 have peer review chart rounds, which are attended by clinical oncologists, medical physicists, physicians, and physics trainees. All 17 physicists who responded to the post site visit survey indicated they had a system of documenting, tracking, and trending patient-related safety incidents, but only 1 physicist reported using International Atomic Energy Agency Safety in Radiation Oncology.

Conclusions

The preliminary study showed a direct correlation between QA needs and the development index of a country, and the follow-up survey examines operational and physics QA practices in the RT clinics in Ghana, one of the initial countries surveyed. This will form the basis of a planned continent-wide survey in Africa intended to spotlight QA practices in low- and middle-income countries, the challenges faced, and lessons learned to help understand the gaps and needs to support local physics QA and management programs. Audits during the site visit show education and training remain the most important needs in operating successful QA programs.

Ethical dilemmas in prioritizing patients for scarce radiotherapy resources

BACKGROUND

Radiotherapy is an essential component of cancer treatment, yet many countries do not have adequate capacity to serve all patients who would benefit from it. Allocation systems are needed to guide patient prioritization for radiotherapy in resource-limited contexts. These systems should be informed by allocation principles deemed relevant to stakeholders. This study explores the ethical dilemmas and views of decision-makers engaged in real-world prioritization of scarce radiotherapy resources at a cancer center in Rwanda in order to identify relevant principles.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 22 oncology clinicians, program leaders, and clinical advisors. Interviews explored the factors considered by decision-makers when prioritizing patients for radiotherapy. The framework method of thematic analysis was used to characterize these factors. Bioethical analysis was then applied to determine their underlying normative principles.

RESULTS

Participants considered both clinical and non-clinical factors relevant to patient prioritization for radiotherapy. They widely agreed that disease curability should be the primary overarching driver of prioritization, with the goal of saving the most lives. However, they described tension between curability and competing factors including age, palliative benefit, and waiting time. They were divided about the role that non-clinical factors such as social value should play, and agreed that poverty should not be a barrier.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple competing principles create tension with the agreed upon overarching goal of maximizing lives saved, including another utilitarian approach of maximizing life-years saved as well as non-utilitarian principles, such as egalitarianism, prioritarianism, and deontology. Clinical guidelines for patient prioritization for radiotherapy can combine multiple principles into a single allocation system to a significant extent. However, conflicting views about the role that social factors should play, and the dynamic nature of resource availability, highlight the need for ongoing work to evaluate and refine priority setting systems based on stakeholder views.

Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Radiation Oncology: A Bibliometric Analysis and Critical Review

The promotion of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) is being increasingly pursued in health care, both in general and within radiation oncology. Because bibliometrics is a powerful tool to reveal the scientific literature on a specific topic during a certain timespan, a systematic bibliometric analysis of the documents published on EDI in radiation oncology was performed, aiming at exploring common patterns in research and emerging trends, tracking collaborations and networks, and anticipating future directions in clinical research. Standard descriptive statistics and bibliometric techniques were used in the analysis. A collaboration network and thematic map were generated from the data. Four domains were represented: (1) motor themes, including themes well developed and important for the structuring of the research field; (2) niche themes, representing the isolated topics that do not share important external links with other themes; (3) emerging themes, referring to still weakly developed topics; and (4) basic themes, including the essential topics. EDI in the profession of radiation oncology is essential to ensure that the workforce delivering radiation oncology care both draws from the full talent pool of human capital and delivers the highest quality science and clinical care to all patients. The burgeoning literature on EDI in radiation oncology suggests that a large and growing cohort of scholars within radiation oncology are dedicated to addressing these important challenges.

Intra-Operative Electron Radiation Therapy: An Update of the Evidence Collected in 40 Years to Search for Models for Electron-FLASH Studies

Simple Summary

Four decades ago, intraoperative electron radiation therapy (IOeRT) was developed to improve precision in local cancer treatment by combining real-time surgical exploration and resection with high-energy electron irradiation. The technology of ultra-high dose rate electron and other radiation beams known as FLASH irradiation sharply increases its interests, as data from preclinical experiments have proven a marked favorable effect on the therapeutic index: similar cancer control with a clearly improved tolerance of many normal tissues to high doses of irradiation. The knowledge and tools regarding technology, physics, biology, and preclinical results in heterogeneous cancers opens great opportunities towards the path of developing the first clinical applications of the emerging FLASH technology via clinical trials based on state-of-the-art medical practice with IOeRT.

Abstract

Introduction: The clinical practice and outcome results of intraoperative electron radiation therapy (IOeRT) in cancer patients have been extensively reported over 4 decades. Electron beams can be delivered in the promising FLASH dose rate. Methods and Materials: Several cancer models were approached by two alternative radiobiological strategies to optimize local cancer control: boost versus exclusive IOeRT. Clinical outcomes are revisited via a bibliometric search performed for the elaboration of ESTRO/ACROP IORT guidelines. Results: In the period 1982 to 2020, a total of 19,148 patients were registered in 116 publications concerning soft tissue sarcomas (9% of patients), unresected and borderline-resected pancreatic cancer (22%), locally recurrent and locally advanced rectal cancer (22%), and breast cancer (45%). Clinical outcomes following IOeRT doses in the range of 10 to 25 Gy (with or without external beam fractionated radiation therapy) show a wide range of local control from 40 to 100% depending upon cancer site, histology, stage, and treatment intensity. Constraints for normal tissue tolerance are important to maintain tumor control combined with acceptable levels of side effects. Conclusions: IOeRT represents an evidence-based approach for several tumor types. A specific risk analysis for local recurrences supports the identification of cancer models that are candidates for FLASH studies.

Is Clinical Research Serving the Needs of the Global Cancer Burden? An Analysis of Contemporary Global Radiation Therapy Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the cornerstone of delivering sustained improvements in cancer outcome. To inform radiation therapy research policy and prioritization, we analyze the radiation therapy RCT landscape including comparison with trials of systemic therapies over the same period, with a specific focus on funding and disparities across income settings.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

This retrospective cohort study identified all phase 3 RCTs evaluating anticancer therapies published from 2014 to 2017. RCTs were classified according to anticancer modality and country of origin. Descriptive statistics were used to compare key characteristics of radiation therapy RCT studies according to study design characteristics, tumor types evaluated, types of intervention appraised, treatment intent and main funding sources.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 694 RCTs of which 64 were radiation therapy RCTs (9%) compared with 601 systemic therapy RCTs (87%). Among all radiation therapy RCTs, 47% of them focused on 2 areas of evaluation: (1) combining radiation therapy with systemic agents (25%) and (2) changes in dose fractionation (22%). The most common cancers studied were head and neck (22%), lung (22%), and breast (14%), with cervical cancer trials representing only 3% of the cohort. Among the radiation therapy RCTs, 33% of them met their primary endpoint, and 62% assessed interventions in the curative setting compared with 31% in systemic therapy RCTs. For their country locations, 77% of radiation therapy RCTs took place in high-income countries, 13% in low-and-middle-income countries, and 11% in both high-income and low-and-middle-income countries. For funding, 17% of radiation therapy RCTs received funding from industry compared with 79% of systemic therapy RCTs.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the need for greater investment in radiation therapy RCTs and the need to look at the disparities in conducting RCTs globally. The study emphases the urgent need for more capacity building for cancer clinical trials in low-and-middle-income countries and more sustainable funding sources.

Radiation Therapy Research: A Global Analysis 2001-2015

Radiation therapy is a core modality of cancer treatment; however, concerns have been expressed regarding its underutilization and its lack of prioritization as a research domain relative to other cancer treatment modalities, despite its rapid technical evolution. It is therefore important to understand, from a public policy perspective, the evolution of global radiation therapy research, to identify strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities. This study used a bibliometric approach to undertake a quantitative analysis of global radiation therapy research published between 2001 and 2015 and available in the Web of Science (Wos) database, with particular focus on the 25 leading research-active countries. A total of 62,550 radiation therapy research articles from 127 countries, published in 2531 international journals, were analyzed. The United States was responsible for 32.3% of these outputs, followed by Japan (8.0%) and Germany (7.7%). Nearly half of all publications related to preparation and delivery of radiation therapy, combined-modality regimens, and dose fractionation studies. Health services research, palliative care, and quality of life studies represented only 2%, 5%, and 4% of all research outputs, respectively. Countries varied significantly in their commitment to different research domains, and trial-related publications represented only 5.1% of total output. Research impact was analyzed according to 3 different citation scores, with research outputs from Denmark, The Netherlands, and the United States consistently the highest ranked. Globally, radiation therapy publication outputs continue to increase but lag behind other spheres of cancer management. The types of radiation therapy research undertaken appear to be regionally patterned, and there is a clear disconcordance between the volume of research output from individual countries and its citation impact. Greater support for radiation therapy research in low- and middle-income countries is required, including international collaboration. The study findings are expected to provide the requisite knowledge to guide future radiation therapy research programs.

Effect of patient choice and hospital competition on service configuration and technology adoption within cancer surgery: a national, population-based study

Background

There is a scarcity of evidence about the role of patient choice and hospital competition policies on surgical cancer services. Previous evidence has shown that patients are prepared to bypass their nearest cancer centre to receive surgery at more distant centres that better meet their needs. In this national, population-based study we investigated the effect of patient mobility and hospital competition on service configuration and technology adoption in the National Health Service (NHS) in England, using prostate cancer surgery as a model.

Methods

We mapped all patients in England who underwent radical prostatectomy between Jan 1, 2010, and Dec 31, 2014, according to place of residence and treatment location. For each radical prostatectomy centre we analysed the effect of hospital competition (measured by use of a spatial competition index [SCI], with a score of 0 indicating weakest competition and 1 indicating strongest competition) and the effect of being an established robotic radical prostatectomy centre at the start of 2010 on net gains or losses of patients (difference between number of patients treated in a centre and number expected based on their residence), and the likelihood of closing their radical prostatectomy service.

Findings

Between Jan 1, 2010, and Dec 31, 2014, 19 256 patients underwent radical prostatectomy at an NHS provider in England. Of the 65 radical prostatectomy centres open at the start of the study period, 23 (35%) had a statistically significant net gain of patients during 2010–14. Ten (40%) of these 23 were established robotic centres. 37 (57%) of the 65 centres had a significant net loss of patients, of which two (5%) were established robotic centres and ten (27%) closed their radical prostatectomy service during the study period. Radical prostatectomy centres that closed were more likely to be located in areas with stronger competition (highest SCI quartile [0·87–0·92]; p=0·0081) than in areas with weaker competition. No robotic surgery centre closed irrespective of the size of net losses of patients. The number of centres performing robotic surgery increased from 12 (18%) of the 65 centres at the beginning of 2010 to 39 (71%) of 55 centres open at the end of 2014.

Interpretation

Competitive factors, in addition to policies advocating centralisation and the requirement to do minimum numbers of surgical procedures, have contributed to large-scale investment in equipment for robotic surgery without evidence of superior outcomes and contributed to the closure of cancer surgery units. If quality performance and outcome indicators are not available to guide patient choice, these policies could threaten health services' ability to deliver equitable and affordable cancer care.

Funding

National Institute for Health Research.

Hospital Quality Factors Influencing the Mobility of Patients for Radical Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy: A National Population-Based Study

Purpose

To investigate whether patients requiring radiation treatment are prepared to travel to alternative more distant centers in response to hospital choice policies, and the factors that influence this mobility.

Methods and Materials

We present the results of a national cohort study using administrative hospital data for all 44,363 men who were diagnosed with prostate cancer and underwent radical radiation therapy in the English National Health Service between 2010 and 2014. Using geographic information systems, we investigated the extent to which men choose to travel beyond (“bypass”) their nearest radiation therapy center, and we used conditional logistic regression to estimate the effect of hospital and patient characteristics on this mobility.

Results

In all, 20.7% of men (n=9161) bypassed their nearest radiation therapy center. Travel time had a very strong impact on where patients moved to for their treatment, but its effect was smaller for men who were younger, more affluent, and from rural areas (P for interaction always <.001). Men were prepared to travel further to hospitals that offered hypofractionated prostate radiation therapy as their standard schedule (odds ratio 3.19, P<.001), to large-scale radiation therapy units (odds ratio 1.56, P<.001), and to hospitals that were early adopters of intensity modulated radiation therapy (odds ratio 1.37, P<.001).

Conclusions

Men with prostate cancer are prepared to bypass their nearest radiation therapy centers. They are more likely to travel to larger established centers and those that offer innovative technology and more convenient radiation therapy schedules. Indicators that accurately reflect the quality of radiation therapy delivered are needed to guide patients' choices for radiation therapy treatment. In their absence, patient mobility may negatively affect the efficiency and capacity of a regional or national radiation therapy service and offer perverse incentives for technology adoption.