Radiographer-led breast boost localisation – A service evaluation study

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.

Characterising the outcomes, impacts and implementation challenges of advanced clinical practice roles in the UK: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

In response to demographic and health system pressures, the development of non-medical advanced clinical practice (ACP) roles is a key component of National Health Service workforce transformation policy in the UK. This review was undertaken to establish a baseline of evidence on ACP roles and their outcomes, impacts and implementation challenges across the UK.

DESIGN

A scoping review was undertaken following JBI methodological guidance.

METHODS

13 online databases (Medline, CINAHL, ASSIA, Embase, HMIC, AMED, Amber, OT seeker, PsycINFO, PEDro, SportDiscus, Osteopathic Research and PenNutrition) and grey literature sources were searched from 2005 to 2020. Data extraction, charting and summary was guided by the PEPPA-Plus framework. The review was undertaken by a multi-professional team that included an expert lay representative.

RESULTS

191 papers met the inclusion criteria (any type of UK evidence, any sector/setting and any profession meeting the Health Education England definition of ACP). Most papers were small-scale descriptive studies, service evaluations or audits. The papers reported mainly on clinical aspects of the ACP role. Most papers related to nursing, pharmacy, physiotherapy and radiography roles and these were referred to by a plethora of different titles. ACP roles were reported to be achieving beneficial impacts across a range of clinical and health system outcomes. They were highly acceptable to patients and staff. No significant adverse events were reported. There was a lack of cost-effectiveness evidence. Implementation challenges included a lack of role clarity and an ambivalent role identity, lack of mentorship, lack of continuing professional development and an unclear career pathway.

CONCLUSION

This review suggests a need for educational and role standardisation and a supported career pathway for advanced clinical practitioners (ACPs) in the UK. Future research should: (i) adopt more robust study designs, (ii) investigate the full scope of the ACP role and (iii) include a wider range of professions and sectors.

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.

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

AIMS

Breast radiotherapy treatment is commonly managed by a multidisciplinary team to ensure optimal delivery of care. We sought a new model of care whereby a clinical specialist radiation therapist (CSRT) delineates the cavity target for whole breast radiotherapy treatment planning and the radiation oncologist validates the contour during final plan review. This study evaluated the radiation oncologist's acceptance of these contours and identified characteristics of cavities suitable for CSRT-directed contouring.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Following specialised breast oncology education and training by the radiation oncologist, the CSRT prospectively delineated cavities in 30 tangential breast radiotherapy cases and consulted the radiation oncologist in 'complex' cases but directed 'non-complex' cases for treatment planning. Changes to CSRT contours were evaluated using the conformity index. Breast density, time since surgery and cavity location, size and visualisation score [CVS: range 1 (no visible cavity) to 5 (homogenous cavity)] were captured.

RESULTS

Of the 30 CSRT delineated cavities contours, the CSRT directed 20 (66.7%) cases for planning without radiation oncology review; 19 were accepted (without changes) by the radiation oncologist upon final plan review and one was changed by the radiation oncologist (conformity index = 0.93) for boost treatment and did not affect the tangential treatment plan. Ten (33.3%) cases, all CVS ≤ 3, were reviewed with the radiation oncologist before planning (conformity index = 0.88 ± 0.12). CVS was inversely correlated with breast density and cavity size (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The CSRT delineated cavities appropriate for clinical radiotherapy treatment planning in women with well-visualised cavities, whereas 'complex' cases with dense breast parenchyma, CVS ≤ 3, and/or cases needing boost radiotherapy treatment required review with the radiation oncologist before planning.