1
|
Vandemaele M, Aznar M, Blanchard P, Borras JM, Leech M, Aggarwal A, Lievens Y. A systematic literature review of definitions and classification systems for radiotherapy innovation: A first step towards building a value-based assessment tool for radiation oncology. Radiother Oncol 2023; 183:109602. [PMID: 36889594 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109602] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/12/2023] [Revised: 02/24/2023] [Accepted: 02/26/2023] [Indexed: 03/08/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Timely access to radiotherapy innovations remains suboptimal, partly because there is no commonly agreed appraisal system suitable for the broad range of radiotherapy interventions. The Health Economics in Radiation Oncology (HERO) programme of ESTRO therefore engaged in building a radiotherapy-specific value-based framework. We report on a first step towards that aim, documenting the available definitions and classification systems for radiotherapy interventions. METHODS A systematic literature search was carried out in Pubmed and Embase, following PRISMA methodology and using search terms on 'innovation', 'radiotherapy', 'definition' and 'classification'. Data were extracted from articles that met prespecified inclusion criteria. RESULTS Out of 13,353 articles, 25 met the inclusion criteria, resulting in the identification of 7 definitions of innovation and 15 classification systems applicable to radiation oncology. Iterative appraisal divided the classification systems into two groups. A first group of 11 systems categorized innovations according to the perceived magnitude of innovation, typically 'minor' versus 'major'. The remaining 4 systems categorised innovations according to radiotherapy-specific characteristics, such as the type of radiation equipment or radiobiological properties. Here, commonly used terms as 'technique' or 'treatment' were found to be used in different meanings. DISCUSSION There is no widely accepted definition or classification system for radiotherapy innovations. The data however suggest that unique properties of radiotherapy interventions can be used to categorise innovations in radiation oncology. Still, there remains a need for clear terminology denoting radiotherapy-specific characteristics. CONCLUSION Building on this review, the ESTRO-HERO project will define what is required for a radiotherapy-specific value-based assessment tool.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Miet Vandemaele
- Radiation Oncology Department, Ghent University Hospital and Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
| | - Marianne Aznar
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, UK
| | - Pierre Blanchard
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Oncostat U1018 INSERM, Université Paris-Saclay, Gustave-Roussy, Villejuif, France
| | - Josep M Borras
- Department of Clinical Sciences, University of Barcelona and Bellvitge Biomedical Research Institute (IDIBELL), Barcelona, Spain
| | - Michelle Leech
- Applied Radiation Therapy Trinity, Discipline of Radiation Therapy, School of Medicine, Trinity St. James's Cancer Institute, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
| | - Ajay Aggarwal
- Institute of Cancer Policy, King's College London, London, UK; Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Yolande Lievens
- Radiation Oncology Department, Ghent University Hospital and Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Value-based radiotherapy: A new chapter of the ESTRO-HERO project. Radiother Oncol 2021; 160:236-239. [PMID: 33992629 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2021.05.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/03/2021] [Accepted: 05/09/2021] [Indexed: 01/19/2023]
Abstract
Radiotherapy interventions are rapidly evolving and improving, holding promise for better patient outcomes, yet at the possible detriment of higher societal costs. The ESTRO-HERO value-based radiotherapy project aims to develop a framework defining and assessing the value of radiotherapy innovations, to support clinical implementation and equitable access, within a sustainable healthcare system.
Collapse
|
3
|
Smith V, Warty R, Nair A, Krishnan S, Sursas JA, da Silva Costa F, Vollenhoven B, Wallace EM. Defining the clinician's role in early health technology assessment during medical device innovation - a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res 2019; 19:514. [PMID: 31337393 PMCID: PMC6651962 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-019-4305-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/15/2019] [Accepted: 06/27/2019] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Early Health Technology Assessment (EHTA) is an evolving field in health policy which aims to provide decision support and mitigate risk during early medical device innovation. The clinician is a key stakeholder in this process and their role has traditionally been confined to assessing device efficacy and safety alone. There is however, no data exploring their role in this process and how they can contribute towards it. This motivated us to carry out a systematic review to delineate the role of the clinician in EHTA as per the PRISMA guidelines. Methods A systematic search of peer reviewed literature was undertaken across PUBMED, OVID Medline and Web of science up till June 2018. Studies that were suitable for inclusion focused on clinician input in health technology assessment or early medical device innovation. A qualitative approach was utilised to generate themes on how clinicians could contribute in general and specific areas of EHTA. Data was manually extracted by the authors and themes were agreed in consensus using a grounded theory framework. The specific stages included: All stages of EHTA, Basic research on mechanisms, Targeting for specific product, Proof of principle and Prototype and product development. Bias was assessed utilising the NICE Qualitative checklist. Results A total of 33 articles met the inclusion criteria for the review. Areas identified in which the clinicians could contribute to EHTA included: i) needs driven problem solving, ii) conformity assessment of MDs, iii) economic evaluation of MDs and iv) addressing the conflicts in interest. For clinicians’ input across the various specific areas of EHTA, an innovation framework was generated based on the subthemes extracted. Conclusions The following review has identified the various segments in which clinicians can contribute to EHTA to inform stakeholders and has also proposed an innovation framework. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-4305-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vinayak Smith
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, 252 Clayton Road, Clayton, Victoria, 3168, Australia. .,Biorithm Pte Ltd, 81 Ayer Rajah Crescent 03-53, Singapore, 139967, Singapore.
| | - Ritesh Warty
- Biorithm Pte Ltd, 81 Ayer Rajah Crescent 03-53, Singapore, 139967, Singapore
| | - Amrish Nair
- Biorithm Pte Ltd, 81 Ayer Rajah Crescent 03-53, Singapore, 139967, Singapore
| | - Sathya Krishnan
- Department of Paediatrics, Rockhampton Base Hospital, Canning Street, Rockhampton City, Queensland, 4700, Australia
| | - Joel Arun Sursas
- Biorithm Pte Ltd, 81 Ayer Rajah Crescent 03-53, Singapore, 139967, Singapore
| | - Fabricio da Silva Costa
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, 252 Clayton Road, Clayton, Victoria, 3168, Australia.,Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil
| | - Beverley Vollenhoven
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, 252 Clayton Road, Clayton, Victoria, 3168, Australia
| | - Euan Morrison Wallace
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, 252 Clayton Road, Clayton, Victoria, 3168, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Towards an evidence-informed value scale for surgical and radiation oncology: a multi-stakeholder perspective. Lancet Oncol 2019; 20:e112-e123. [DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(18)30917-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/03/2018] [Revised: 11/29/2018] [Accepted: 12/03/2018] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
|
5
|
Aggarwal A, Lewison G, Rodin D, Zietman A, Sullivan R, Lievens Y. Radiation Therapy Research: A Global Analysis 2001-2015. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2018; 101:767-778. [PMID: 29976487 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.03.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 45] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/29/2017] [Revised: 02/26/2018] [Accepted: 03/09/2018] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ajay Aggarwal
- Institute of Cancer Policy, King's College London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Clinical Oncology, Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.
| | - Grant Lewison
- Institute of Cancer Policy, King's College London, London, United Kingdom; Evalumetrics Ltd, London, United Kingdom
| | - Danielle Rodin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Anthony Zietman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Richard Sullivan
- Institute of Cancer Policy, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Yolande Lievens
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Verkooijen HM, Kerkmeijer LGW, Fuller CD, Huddart R, Faivre-Finn C, Verheij M, Mook S, Sahgal A, Hall E, Schultz C. R-IDEAL: A Framework for Systematic Clinical Evaluation of Technical Innovations in Radiation Oncology. Front Oncol 2017; 7:59. [PMID: 28421162 PMCID: PMC5378068 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2017.00059] [Citation(s) in RCA: 82] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/04/2017] [Accepted: 03/16/2017] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
The pace of innovation in radiation oncology is high and the window of opportunity for evaluation narrow. Financial incentives, industry pressure, and patients' demand for high-tech treatments have led to widespread implementation of innovations before, or even without, robust evidence of improved outcomes has been generated. The standard phase I-IV framework for drug evaluation is not the most efficient and desirable framework for assessment of technological innovations. In order to provide a standard assessment methodology for clinical evaluation of innovations in radiotherapy, we adapted the surgical IDEAL framework to fit the radiation oncology setting. Like surgery, clinical evaluation of innovations in radiation oncology is complicated by continuous technical development, team and operator dependence, and differences in quality control. Contrary to surgery, radiotherapy innovations may be used in various ways, e.g., at different tumor sites and with different aims, such as radiation volume reduction and dose escalation. Also, the effect of radiation treatment can be modeled, allowing better prediction of potential benefits and improved patient selection. Key distinctive features of R-IDEAL include the important role of predicate and modeling studies (Stage 0), randomization at an early stage in the development of the technology, and long-term follow-up for late toxicity. We implemented R-IDEAL for clinical evaluation of a recent innovation in radiation oncology, the MRI-guided linear accelerator (MR-Linac). MR-Linac combines a radiotherapy linear accelerator with a 1.5-T MRI, aiming for improved targeting, dose escalation, and margin reduction, and is expected to increase the use of hypofractionation, improve tumor control, leading to higher cure rates and less toxicity. An international consortium, with participants from seven large cancer institutes from Europe and North America, has adopted the R-IDEAL framework to work toward coordinated, evidence-based introduction of the MR-Linac. R-IDEAL holds the promise for timely, evidence-based introduction of radiotherapy innovations with proven superior effectiveness, while preventing unnecessary exposure of patients to potentially harmful interventions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Clifton D. Fuller
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Robbert Huddart
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Royal Marsden Hospital, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Corinne Faivre-Finn
- The University of Manchester, Institute of Cancer Sciences, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Marcel Verheij
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Stella Mook
- Imaging Division, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Arjun Sahgal
- Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Emma Hall
- Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Chris Schultz
- Radiation Oncology, Froedtert and Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
van Vulpen M, Wang L, Orton CG. Within the next five years, adaptive hypofractionation will become the most common form of radiotherapy. Med Phys 2016; 43:3941. [DOI: 10.1118/1.4951735] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/04/2023] Open
|
8
|
Guo F, Zhang C, Wang HQ, Sheng X, Xiao L, Sun YH, Yang B. Application of a laser-guided docking system in robot-assisted urologic surgery. Int J Med Robot 2015; 12:524-7. [PMID: 26096912 DOI: 10.1002/rcs.1678] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/16/2014] [Revised: 05/10/2015] [Accepted: 05/16/2015] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This work explores the clinical significance of a laser-guided docking system for robot-assisted urologic surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS Between July 2013 and June 2014, 40 patients underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP), and 32 patients underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (RAPN) performed by a single surgeon. In the RALP and RAPN groups, the robot was docked in the traditional way in 20 and 16 cases, respectively. A laser guiding system was used in the other cases. The docking time and the time required to adjust the angles were recorded. RESULT The docking time was significantly shorter for the laser-guided process performed by inexperienced nurses. The time required to adjust the angles was also lower. There were no significant differences between the processes performed by experienced nurses. CONCLUSION A laser-guided docking system may simplify and standardize the docking process and shorten the learning curve. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fei Guo
- Department of Urology, Changhai Hospital, the Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, 200433, China
| | - Chao Zhang
- Department of Urology, Changhai Hospital, the Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, 200433, China
| | - Hui-Qing Wang
- Department of Urology, Changhai Hospital, the Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, 200433, China
| | - Xia Sheng
- Department of Urology, Changhai Hospital, the Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, 200433, China
| | - Liang Xiao
- Department of Urology, Changhai Hospital, the Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, 200433, China
| | - Ying-Hao Sun
- Department of Urology, Changhai Hospital, the Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, 200433, China
| | - Bo Yang
- Department of Urology, Changhai Hospital, the Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, 200433, China
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Dahele M, Hatton M, Slotman B, Guckenberger M. Stereotactic body radiotherapy: A survey of contemporary practice in six selected European countries. Acta Oncol 2015; 54:1237-41. [PMID: 25734229 DOI: 10.3109/0284186x.2014.1003961] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Max Dahele
- a Department of Radiation Oncology , VU University medical center , Amsterdam , The Netherlands
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
10
|
Duchesne GM, Grand M, Kron T, Haworth A, Corry J, Jackson M, Ng M, Besuijen D, Carter HE, Martin A, Schofield D, Gebski V, Torony J, Kovacev O, Amin R, Burmeister B. Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group: Development of the Assessment of New Radiation Oncology Technology and Treatments (ANROTAT) Framework. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2014; 59:363-70. [DOI: 10.1111/1754-9485.12255] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/01/2014] [Accepted: 09/16/2014] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Gillian M Duchesne
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre; Melbourne Victoria Australia
- University of Melbourne; Melbourne Victoria Australia
- Monash University; Melbourne Victoria Australia
| | - Mel Grand
- Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group; Newcastle New South Wales Australia
| | - Tomas Kron
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre; Melbourne Victoria Australia
- Monash University; Melbourne Victoria Australia
- RMIT University; Melbourne Victoria Australia
| | - Annette Haworth
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre; Melbourne Victoria Australia
- University of Melbourne; Melbourne Victoria Australia
| | - June Corry
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre; Melbourne Victoria Australia
- University of Melbourne; Melbourne Victoria Australia
| | - Michael Jackson
- University of New South Wales; Sydney New South Wales Australia
| | - Michael Ng
- Radiation Oncology Victoria; Melbourne Victoria Australia
| | - Deidre Besuijen
- Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group; Newcastle New South Wales Australia
| | - Hannah E Carter
- NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre; University of Sydney; Sydney New South Wales Australia
| | - Andrew Martin
- NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre; University of Sydney; Sydney New South Wales Australia
| | - Deborah Schofield
- NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre; University of Sydney; Sydney New South Wales Australia
- School of Public Health; University of Sydney; Sydney New South Wales Australia
| | - Val Gebski
- NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre; University of Sydney; Sydney New South Wales Australia
| | - Joan Torony
- Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group; Newcastle New South Wales Australia
| | - Olga Kovacev
- Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group; Newcastle New South Wales Australia
| | - Rowena Amin
- Health and Training Institute; Sydney New South Wales Australia
| | - Bryan Burmeister
- Princess Alexandra Hospital; University of Queensland; Brisbane Queensland Australia
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
SAGES guidelines for the introduction of new technology and techniques. Surg Endosc 2014; 28:2257-71. [PMID: 24939155 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-014-3587-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 33] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/25/2014] [Accepted: 04/26/2014] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
|
12
|
Amin N, Konski AA. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer is cost effective and improves therapeutic ratio. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2013; 12:447-50. [PMID: 22971031 DOI: 10.1586/erp.12.46] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
Radiation therapy is one of the standard treatment options for many prostate cancer patients. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) allows for more conformal dose distributions that can reduce normal tissue toxicity compared with older external beam techniques. There has been a rapid adoption of IMRT between 2001 and 2007 for prostate cancer patients regardless of the patients' race, socioeconomic status or disease risk classification. IMRT is more expensive than older radiation techniques and has an impact on healthcare spending for prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Neha Amin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Wayne State University School of Medicine/Barbara A Karmanos Cancer Center, Detroit, MI 48201, USA.
| | | |
Collapse
|
13
|
Seisen T, Drouin SJ, Phé V, Parra J, Mozer P, Bitker MO, Cussenot O, Rouprêt M. Current role of image-guided robotic radiosurgery (Cyberknife®) for prostate cancer treatment. BJU Int 2013; 111:761-6. [DOI: 10.1111/bju.12000] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
|
14
|
Iranmanesh P, Morel P, Buchs NC, Pugin F, Volonte F, Kreaden US, Hagen ME. Docking of the da Vinci Si Surgical System® with single-site technology. Int J Med Robot 2013; 9:12-6. [DOI: 10.1002/rcs.1481] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/25/2012] [Accepted: 12/06/2012] [Indexed: 01/01/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Pouya Iranmanesh
- Division of Digestive Surgery; University Hospitals Geneva; Switzerland
| | - Philippe Morel
- Division of Digestive Surgery; University Hospitals Geneva; Switzerland
| | - Nicolas C. Buchs
- Division of Digestive Surgery; University Hospitals Geneva; Switzerland
| | - François Pugin
- Division of Digestive Surgery; University Hospitals Geneva; Switzerland
| | - Francesco Volonte
- Division of Digestive Surgery; University Hospitals Geneva; Switzerland
| | | | - Monika E. Hagen
- Division of Digestive Surgery; University Hospitals Geneva; Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Albert JM, Das P. Quality indicators in radiation oncology. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 85:904-11. [PMID: 23040217 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.08.038] [Citation(s) in RCA: 40] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/09/2012] [Revised: 08/28/2012] [Accepted: 08/29/2012] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
Oncologic specialty societies and multidisciplinary collaborative groups have dedicated considerable effort to developing evidence-based quality indicators (QIs) to facilitate quality improvement, accreditation, benchmarking, reimbursement, maintenance of certification, and regulatory reporting. In particular, the field of radiation oncology has a long history of organized quality assessment efforts and continues to work toward developing consensus quality standards in the face of continually evolving technologies and standards of care. This report provides a comprehensive review of the current state of quality assessment in radiation oncology. Specifically, this report highlights implications of the healthcare quality movement for radiation oncology and reviews existing efforts to define and measure quality in the field, with focus on dimensions of quality specific to radiation oncology within the "big picture" of oncologic quality assessment efforts.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeffrey M Albert
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|