Has the Pattern of Practice in the Prescription of Radiotherapy for the Palliation of Thoracic Symptoms Changed Between 1999 and 2006 at the Rapid Response Radiotherapy Program?

Evaluation of the palliative radiotherapy pathway in a single institute: Can an MR Linac improve efficiency?

BACKGROUND

Palliative radiotherapy (RT) is effectively used to relieve cancer related symptoms. The demand for these services is increasing worldwide. Rapid response clinics have been developed as a means to streamline the palliative RT radiotherapy process and increase efficiency and improve patient experiences. Key components to successful rapid response palliative RT are access to care, streamlined services and innovation. To successfully implement a rapid response RT programme, it is essential to identify gaps between currently provided care and ideal or enhanced care. The aims of this work are to audit the current palliative RT workflow at our institution both prior to and during the coronavirus pandemic. This work reports the impact of covid-19 on rate of palliative RT referrals and proposes a radiographer led, MR guided rapid response workflow to reduce wait times METHODS: A retrospective audit of palliative radiotherapy booking forms was completed over a two yearperiod (2019-2020) to assess the current pathway both prior to and during the covid-19 pandemic. This audit identified patients who had received urgent/emergency spinal RT in the specified timeframe. Further data on these patients was collected using departmental oncology information systems to form a detailed analysis of the pathway and wait times. Data was recorded and analysed using Microsoft Excel.

RESULTS

A total of 813 patients met the inclusion criteria for this audit. Data was reported for 2019 and 2020 separately to determine any significant impact caused by the covid-19 pandemic. In 2020 there was an 11.5% increase in referrals for palliative radiotherapy with an equal portion (81%) of total referrals in each year being for single fractions. Timelines from referral to treatment delivery were reported, with those patients receiving same day single fraction RT palliative radiotherapy undergoing further analysis to determine the amount of time spent in the department. Mean wait time for these patients was 5 hours and 20 minutes in 2019 but increased by 20.9% in 2020.

CONCLUSIONS

The increasing demand for palliative RT due to rising global cancer rates and extended life expectancy due to advanced systemic treatments may lead to increased wait times. An increase in both referrals and mean wait time was seen during the covid-19 pandemic. Improving efficiency and access to care is essential for this population. The MR Linac could play a role in streamlining palliative RT workflows due to its ability to employ a scan, plan and treat model in a single session. This work forms preliminary support for the development of a trial one stop palliative program on the MR Linac.

Radiotherapy in Italy for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Patterns of Care Survey

Aims and Background

Surveys in clinical practice are useful to find how current clinical approaches follow recommendations from evidence-based medicine, to stimulate discussion in a multidisciplinary team, and to hypothesize collaborative multi-centric trials. To assess management strategies for the use of radiotherapy in the treatment of lung cancer in Italy, in 2009, the Italian Society of Radiation Oncology Lung Cancer Study Group proposed the survey to all Italian radiation oncology institutions. Results were compared with literature data and international reports.

Study Design

Questionnaires on patterns of care of non-small cell lung cancer were sent to radiation oncology centers active at June 2009 and evaluated data recorded in 2008.

Results

A total of 65 of 143 Italian centers responded to the questionnaire. The responding centers reflect the distribution of radiotherapy centers throughout the country. Of the treated patients, 55.2% were stage III, and most cases had a good performance status. FDG-PET was routinely used by 51% of centers for diagnostic and contouring phases. Postoperative radiotherapy was prescribed to pN1 and pN2 patients in 42.2% and 98.5%, respectively. The possible use of neo-adjuvant concomitant chemoradiation was declared by 70% of responders. A sequential chemoradiation approach was actually used in 43.6% of cases, induction chemotherapy followed by concomitant radiochemotherapy in 42.4%, and upfront concomitant radiochemotherapy in only 14%. In 53% of the institutions, patients have a clinical examination by a radiation oncologist only after the beginning of chemotherapy and in 82.4% of cases they have already received 2–4 cycles of chemotherapy. Most of the institutions exclude elective nodal irradiation from routine application. Total dose and fractionation in adjuvant, neoadjuvant, curative and palliative settings confirm literature data. There were significant differences in treatment planning constraints applied for lung, esophageal and cardiac tissues. Of the responding centers, 41% had stereotactic therapy for primary inoperable lung cancer and for metastatic lesions.

Conclusions

In Italy, daily practice differs in some ways from the evidence supported by the results of meta-analyses/clinical trials as regards concurrent chemoradiation approaches. It could be postulated that there is an urgent need for groups that collaborate with the other societies involved in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer in order to offer the best therapy to our patients.

Radiation dose and survival of patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer undergoing concurrent chemotherapy and thoracic three-dimensional radiotherapy: reanalysis of the findings of a single-center prospective study

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to evaluate the radiation dose and response in terms of local-regional progression-free survival (LRPFS) and overall survival (OS) of patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) undergoing concurrent chemotherapy and thoracic three-dimensional radiotherapy.

METHODS

In all, we enrolled 201 patients with stage IV NSCLC in this study and analyzed OS in 159 patients and LRPFS in 120.

RESULTS

The 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-year OS rates were 46.2%, 19.5%, 11.7%, and 5.8%, respectively, the median survival time being 12 months. The median survival times in differential treatment response of primary tumors were 19 of complete response, 13 of partial response, 8 of stable disease, and 6 months of progressive disease, respectively (P = 0.000). The 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-year LRPFS rates of patients undergoing four to five cycles with doses ≥63 Gy and <63 Gy were 77.4% and 32.6%, 36.2% and 21.7%, 27.2% and 0, and 15.9% and 0, respectively (P = 0.002). According to multivariate analyses, four to five cycles of chemotherapy, gross tumor volume <175.00 cm3 and post-treatment Karnofsky Performance Status score stable or increased by at least 10 units were independent prognostic factors for better OS (P = 0.035, P = 0.008, and P = 0.000, respectively). Radiation dose to the primary tumor ≥63 Gy resulted in better OS (P = 0.057) and LRPFS (P = 0.051), both findings being of borderline significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of IV NSCLC with joint administration of four to five cycles of chemotherapy and three-dimensional radiotherapy may prolong survival, particularly in patients receiving ≥63 Gy radiotherapy, with gross tumor volume <175.00 cm3 and post-treatment Karnofsky Performance Status score not lower than pretreatment values.