Patterns of palliative radiotherapy in Canada

The Role of Radiation Therapy in Palliative Care

Radiation therapy plays a significant role in the palliation of symptoms of patients with malignant disease. This article looks at the scientific and clinical rationales for its use and discusses some of the current controversies in palliative radiotherapy. The utility of radiation therapy is discussed and potential side effects are described. Radiation oncologists are important members of the multidisciplinary team providing palliative care. Their involvement in the care of patients with advanced or metastatic malignant disease allows patients to benefit from a modality of treatment which can be both effective and minimally inconvenient when used appropriately.

Palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases from lung cancer: Evidence-based medicine?

To review current recommendations for palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases secondary to lung cancer, and to analyze surveys to examine whether global practice is evidence-based, English language publications related to best practice palliative external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for bone metastases (BM) from lung cancer were sought via literature search (2003-2013). Additional clinical practice guidelines and consensus documents were obtained from the online Standards and Guidelines Evidence Directory. Eligible survey studies contained hypothetical case scenarios which required participants to declare whether or not they would administer palliative EBRT and if so, to specify what dose fractionation schedule they would use. There is no convincing evidence of differential outcomes based on histology or for spine vs non-spine uncomplicated BM. For uncomplicated BM, 8Gy/1 is widely recommended as current best practice; this schedule would be used by up to 39.6% of respondents to treat a painful spinal lesion. Either 8Gy/1 or 20Gy/5 could be considered standard palliative RT for BM-related neuropathic pain; 0%-13.2% would use the former and 5.8%-52.8% of respondents the latter (range 3Gy/1-45Gy/18). A multifraction schedule is the approach of choice for irradiation of impending pathologic fracture or spinal cord compression and 54% would use either 20Gy/5 or 30Gy/10. Survey results regarding management of complicated and uncomplicated BM secondary to lung cancer continue to show a large discrepancy between published literature and patterns of practice.

Review of international patterns of practice for the treatment of painful bone metastases with palliative radiotherapy from 1993 to 2013

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Numerous randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses have affirmed that single and multiple fractions of radiotherapy provide equally efficacious outcomes in the palliation of painful, uncomplicated bone metastases (UBM). We aim to determine geographic, temporal and ancillary factors that influence the global patterns of practice in this setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search was conducted on Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE. Studies were included if they disclosed prescription patterns of single fraction radiotherapy, either through hypothetical cases or actual patient data. Weighted analysis of variance was conducted for binary predictors while weighted linear regression analysis was performed for continuous parameters.

RESULTS

Nine hypothetical case studies and thirteen actual patterns of practice articles were included from 301 search results. Radiation oncologists prescribed dose fractionations ranging from 3Gy×1 to 2Gy×30, with a median of 3Gy×10, for the palliation of UBM. Actual data demonstrated a weak, non-significant, negative linear relationship between the use of single fraction radiotherapy and the year of treatment. Geographical location of treatment was a key predictor of prescription patterns.

CONCLUSION

In the last twenty years, there was an overall global reluctance to practice evidence-based medicine by employing single fractions for UBM.

A survey of patterns of practice on palliative radiation therapy for bone metastasis in Korea

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to understand the practice patterns of palliative radiation therapy for bone metastasis in Korea among Korean radiation oncologists by survey and to determine the decision factors affecting the prescription of radiation therapy fractionation schedules.

METHODS

An Internet-based survey was performed from October 5 to October 23, 2009, among 177 active full members of the Korean Society for Radiation and Oncology (KOSRO). The survey questionnaire included general information about the respondent, three types of clinical scenario, depending on the life expectancy of the patients, and the decision factors that affected the prescription of a radiation therapy schedule.

RESULTS

The most prescribed schedule was 30 Gy in 10 fractions regardless of the life expectancy of the patient. Also, it was found that a single fraction was seldom prescribed routinely in Korea. An increasing number prescribed fewer than 10 fractions as the life expectancy shortened; however, the prescription rate of a single fraction was still low. The general performance (and/or accompanying diseases) of patients and the life expectancy were the most considered factors in deciding the prescription of radiation therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the abundant evidence supporting the equivalence of single- and multi-fraction radiation therapy, still, most Korean radiation oncologists continue to prescribe multi-fraction schedules depending on the general performance and life expectancy of the patients. Thus, we confirmed that there was a gap between evidence and practice, and treatment prescriptions can be strongly affected by decision factors other than published literature results.

Has the practice of radiation oncology for locally advanced and metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer changed in Canada?

Aim

Previous surveys have revealed wide variations in the management by radiation oncologists of non-small-cell lung cancer (nsclc) in Canada. The aim of the present study was to determine the current patterns of practice for locally advanced and metastatic nsclc among Canadian radiation oncologists.

Materials and Methods

An online survey was distributed electronically to all members of the Canadian Association of Radiation Oncologists. Those who treat lung cancer were invited to participate. The survey consisted of three scenarios focusing on areas of nsclc treatment in which the radiotherapy (rt) regimen that provides the best therapeutic ratio is unclear.

Results

Replies from 41 respondents were analyzed. For an asymptomatic patient with stage iiib nsclc unsuitable for radical treatment, 22% recommended immediate rt, and 78% recommended rt only if the patient were to become symptomatic. Those who believed that immediate rt prolongs survival were more likely to recommend it (p = 0.028). For a patient with a bulky stage iiib tumour and good performance status, 39% recommended palliative treatment, and 61% recommended radical treatment (84% concurrent vs. 16% sequential chemoradiation at 60–66 Gy in 30–33 fractions). Those who believed that chemoradiation has a greater impact on survival were more likely to recommend it (p < 0.001). For a symptomatic patient with stage iv nsclc, 54% recommended external-beam rt (ebrt) alone, 41% recommended other modalities (brachytherapy, endobronchial therapy, or chemotherapy) with or without ebrt, and 5% recommended best supportive care. A majority (76%) prescribed 20 Gy in 5 fractions for ebrt.

Conclusions

Compared with previous surveys, more radiation oncologists now offer radical treatment for locally advanced nsclc. Management of nsclc in Canada may be evidence-based, but perception by radiation oncologists of the treatment’s impact on survival also influences treatment decisions.

International variations in radiotherapy fractionation for bone metastases: geographic borders define practice patterns?

Although it may be argued that single fraction (SF) radiotherapy (RT) should be regarded as the standard palliative treatment for pain due to uncomplicated bone metastases, its widespread clinical use is still underexploited. In this chapter, the authors discuss a number of surveys investigating doctors and patients' preferences for palliative RT schedules, discuss the possible reasons for this phenomenon, and suggest potential strategies to increase the use of SF.

International patterns of practice in palliative radiotherapy for painful bone metastases: evidence-based practice?

PURPOSE

Multiple randomized controlled trials have demonstrated the equivalence of multifraction and single-fraction (SF) radiotherapy for the palliation of painful bone metastases (BM). However, according to previous surveys, SF schedules remain underused. The objectives of this study were to determine the current patterns of practice internationally and to investigate the factors influencing this practice.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The members of three global radiation oncology professional organizations (American Society for Radiology Oncology [ASTRO], Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology [CARO], Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists) completed an Internet-based survey. The respondents described what radiotherapy dose fractionation they would recommend for 5 hypothetical cases describing patients with single or multiple painful BMs from breast, lung, or prostate cancer. Radiation oncologists rated the importance of patient, tumor, institution, and treatment factors, and descriptive statistics were compiled. The chi-square test was used for categorical variables and the Student t test for continuous variables. Logistic regression analysis identified predictors of the use of SF radiotherapy.

RESULTS

A total of 962 respondents, three-quarters ASTRO members, described 101 different dose schedules in common use (range, 3 Gy/1 fraction to 60 Gy/20 fractions). The median dose overall was 30 Gy/10 fractions. SF schedules were used the least often by ASTRO members practicing in the United States and most often by CARO members. Case, membership affiliation, country of training, location of practice, and practice type were independently predictive of the use of SF. The principal factors considered when prescribing were prognosis, risk of spinal cord compression, and performance status.

CONCLUSION

Despite abundant evidence, most radiation oncologists continue to prescribe multifraction schedules for patients who fit the eligibility criteria of previous randomized controlled trials. Our results have confirmed a delay in the incorporation of evidence into practice for palliative radiotherapy for painful bone metastases.

Did the pattern of practice in the prescription of palliative radiotherapy for the treatment of uncomplicated bone metastases change between 1999 and 2005 at the rapid response radiotherapy program?

AIMS

Since 1999, randomised clinical trials and meta-analyses have reported equal efficacy of pain relief from single- and multiple-fraction radiotherapy for bone metastases. A number of factors, including limited radiotherapy resources, waiting times, and patient convenience, suggest single fraction to be the treatment of choice for patients. However, international patterns of practice indicate that multiple fractions are still commonly used. This study examined whether dose-fractionation schemes used for the treatment of bone metastases at the Rapid Response Radiotherapy Program (RRRP) at the Odette Cancer Centre have changed since 1999.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of the prospective RRRP database and hospital records were conducted for all patients treated with palliative radiotherapy for uncomplicated bone metastases at the RRRP in 1999 (or baseline), 2001, 2004 and from 1 January to 31 July 2005. Data were collected on patient demographics and clinical characteristics.

RESULTS

Of the 693 patients, 65 and 35% were prescribed single fraction (predominantly single 8 Gy) and multiple fractions (predominantly 20 Gy/five fractions), respectively. The administration of single treatments generally increased over time, from 51% in 1999 to 66% in 2005 (P=0.0001). On the basis of multiple logistic regression analyses, patients were more likely to be prescribed single-fraction radiotherapy if they had prostate cancer, had a poorer performance status, were treated to the limbs, hips, shoulders, pelvis, ribs, scapula, sternum, or clavicle (compared with the spine), were treated by a radiation oncologist who had been trained in earlier years, and who were treated after 1999.

CONCLUSIONS

Between 1999 and 2005, the use of single-fraction radiotherapy increased, corresponding to publications showing equal efficacy of pain relief between single and multiple fractions in the management of uncomplicated bone metastases. However, about a third of patients still received multiple fractions.

A population-based study of the fractionation of palliative radiotherapy for bone metastasis in Ontario

PURPOSE

To describe the use of palliative radiotherapy (PRT) for bone metastases in Ontario between 1984 and 2001 and identify factors associated with the choice of fractionation.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Electronic RT records from the nine provincial RT centers in Ontario were linked to the Ontario Cancer Registry to identify all courses of PRT for bone metastases.

RESULTS

Between 1984 and 2001, 44,884 patients received 74,432 courses of PRT for bone metastases in Ontario. The mean number of courses per patient was 1.7, and 65% of patients received only a single course of PRT for bone metastasis. The mean number of fractions per course was 3.9. The proportion of patients treated with a single fraction increased from 27.2% in 1984-1986 to 40.3% in 1987-1992 and decreased thereafter. Single fractions were used more frequently in patients with a shorter life expectancy, in older patients, and in patients who lived further from an RT center. Single fractions were used more frequently when the prevailing waiting time for RT was longer. There were wide variations in the use of single fractions among the different RT centers (intercenter range, 11.8-62.3%). Intercenter variations persisted throughout the study period and were not explained by differences in case mix.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite increasing evidence of the effectiveness of single-fraction PRT for bone metastases, most patients continued to receive fractionated PRT throughout the two decades of this study. Single fractions were used more frequently when waiting times were longer. There was persistent, unexplained variation in the fractionation of PRT among different centers.

Palliative radiotherapy trials for bone metastases: a systematic review

PURPOSE

The objective is to update previous meta-analyses with a systematic review of randomized palliative radiotherapy (RT) trials comparing single fractions (SFs) versus multiple fractions (MFs).

METHODS

The analysis includes all published reports from randomized trials comparing SF or MF schedules for the treatment of painful bone metastases with localized RT. A systematic review was performed using the random-effects model with Review Manager version 4.1 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK). The odds ratio and 95% CI were calculated for each trial and presented in a forest plot.

RESULTS

A total of 16 randomized trials from 1986 onward were identified. For intention-to-treat patients, the overall response (OR) rates for pain were similar for SF at 1,468 (58%) of 2,513 patients and MF RT at 1,466 (59%) of 2,487 patients. The complete response (CR) rates for pain were 23% (545 of 2,375 patients) for SF and 24% (558 of 2,351 patients) for MF RT. No significant differences were found in response rates. Trends showing an increased risk for SF RT arm patients in terms of pathological fractures and spinal cord compressions were observed, but neither were statistically significant (P = .75 and P = .13, respectively). The likelihood of re-treatment was 2.5-fold higher (95% CI, 1.76 to 3.56) in SF RT arm patients (P < .00001). Repeated analysis of these end points, excluding dropout patients, did not alter the conclusions. Generally, no significant differences with respect to acute toxicities were observed between the arms.

CONCLUSION

No significant differences in the arms were observed for overall and CR rates in both intention-to-treat and assessable patients. However, a significantly higher re-treatment rate with SFs was evident.

Review of patterns of practice and patients’ preferences in the treatment of bone metastases with palliative radiotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Since the 1980s, randomized clinical trials showed that single fraction radiotherapy (RT) provided equal pain relief as multiple fractions of RT in the treatment of bone metastases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using Medline, a literature search was conducted on patterns of practice among radiation oncologists and patients' preferences of dose fractionations for the treatment of bone metastases.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Fifteen studies on international patterns of practice published between 1966 and May 2006 were identified. Surveys of Canadian radiation oncologists indicated approximately 85% preferred multiple fractions, most often as 20 Gray in five fractions (20 Gy/5). Surveys in the United States indicated that 30 Gy/10 was most commonly used, and 90-100% of these oncologists preferred multiple over single fraction RT. Multiple fractions were most commonly used in the United Kingdom, Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand, and India; however, more radiation oncologists in these countries would prescribe a single fraction than in North America. Three studies investigated patients' preferences of dose fractionations. In the Australian study, most patients favored single fraction RT as long as long-term outcomes were not compromised. Durability of pain relief was considered more important than short-term convenience factors. In the Singapore study, 85% of patients would choose extended courses of RT (24 Gy/6) compared to a single 8 Gy. In the Canadian study, most patients (76%) would choose a single 8 Gy over 20 Gy/5 of palliative RT due to greater convenience.

CONCLUSION

Despite strong evidence supporting the use of single fraction RT, current practices and preferences favor multiple fractions for the treatment of bone metastases. This has significant implications for the overall quality of life, RT department workload, costs to healthcare systems, and patient convenience.

Radiotherapy fractionation for the palliation of uncomplicated painful bone metastases - an evidence-based practice guideline

BACKGROUND

This practice guideline was developed to provide recommendations to clinicians in Ontario on the preferred standard radiotherapy fractionation schedule for the treatment of painful bone metastases.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed and published elsewhere. The Supportive Care Guidelines Group, a multidisciplinary guideline development panel, formulated clinical recommendations based on their interpretation of the evidence. In addition to evidence from clinical trials, the panel also considered patient convenience and ease of administration of palliative radiotherapy. External review of the draft report by Ontario practitioners was obtained through a mailed survey, and final approval was obtained from the Practice Guidelines Coordinating Committee.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis did not detect a significant difference in complete or overall pain relief between single treatment and multifraction palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases. Fifty-nine Ontario practitioners responded to the mailed survey (return rate 62%). Forty-two percent also returned written comments. Eighty-three percent of respondents agreed with the interpretation of the evidence and 75% agreed that the report should be approved as a practice guideline. Minor revisions were made based on feedback from the external reviewers and the Practice Guidelines Coordinating Committee. The Practice Guidelines Coordinating Committee approved the final practice guideline report.

CONCLUSION

For adult patients with single or multiple radiographically confirmed bone metastases of any histology corresponding to painful areas in previously non-irradiated areas without pathologic fractures or spinal cord/cauda equine compression, we conclude that: Where the treatment objective is pain relief, a single 8 Gy treatment, prescribed to the appropriate target volume, is recommended as the standard dose-fractionation schedule for the treatment of symptomatic and uncomplicated bone metastases. Several factors frequently considered in clinical practice when applying this evidence such as the effect of primary histology, anatomical site of treatment, risk of pathological fracture, soft tissue disease and cord compression, use of antiemetics, and the role of retreatment are discussed as qualifying statements.Our systematic review and meta-analysis provided high quality evidence for the key recommendation in this clinical practice guideline. Qualifying statements addressing factors that should be considered when applying this recommendation in clinical practice facilitate its clinical application. The rigorous development and approval process result in a final document that is strongly endorsed by practitioners as a practice guideline.

Palliation of metastatic bone pain: single fraction versus multifraction radiotherapy--a systematic review of randomised trials

Recent randomised studies have reported that single fraction radiotherapy is as effective as multifraction radiotherapy in relieving pain caused by bone metastasis. However, there are concerns about the higher re-treatment rates and the efficacy of preventing future complications, such as pathological fracture and spinal cord compression, by single fraction radiotherapy. A systematic review of randomised studies, examining the effectiveness of single fraction radiotherapy versus multiple fraction radiotherapy for metastatic bone pain relief and prevention of bone complications, was conducted to help answer this controversy. Randomised studies comparing single fraction radiotherapy with multifraction radiotherapy on metastatic bone pain were identified. The analyses were performed using intention-to-treat principle. The results were pooled using meta-analysis to estimate the effect of treatment on pain response, re-treatment rate, pathological fracture rate and spinal cord compression rate. Twelve trials involving 3621 sites were included in the meta-analysis. The overall pain-response rates for single fraction radiotherapy and multifraction radiotherapy were 60% (1080/1814) and 59% (1060/1807), respectively, giving an odds ratio (OR) of 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90-1.19), indicating no difference between the two radiotherapy schedules. There was also no difference in complete pain response rates for single fraction radiotherapy (34% [508/1476]) and multifraction radiotherapy (32% [475/1473]), with an OR of 1.10 (950% CI 0.94-1.30). Patients treated by single fraction radiotherapy had a higher re-treatment rate, with 21.5% (267/1240) requiring re-treatment compared with 7.4% (91/1236) of patients in the multifraction radiotherapy arm (OR 3.44 [95% CI 2.67-4.43]). The pathological fracture rate was also higher in single fraction radiotherapy arm patients. Three per cent (37/1240) of patients treated by single fraction radiotherapy developed pathological fracture compared with 1.6% (20/1236) for those treated by multifraction radiotherapy (OR 1.82 [95% CI 1.06-3.11]). The spinal cord compression rates were similar for both arms (OR 1.41 [95% CI 0.72-2.75]). Single fraction radiotherapy was as effective as multifraction radiotherapy in relieving metastatic bone pain. However, the re-treatment rate and pathological fracture rate were higher after single fraction radiotherapy. Studies with quality of life and health economic end points are warranted to find out the optimal treatment option.

Palliation of metastatic bone pain: single fraction versus multifraction radiotherapy - a systematic review of the randomised trials

BACKGROUND

Recent randomised studies reported that single fraction radiotherapy was as effective as multifraction radiotherapy in relieving pain due to bone metastasis. However, there are concerns about the higher re-treatment rates and the efficacy of preventing future complications such as pathological fracture and spinal cord compression by single fraction radiotherapy.

OBJECTIVES

To undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis of single fraction radiotherapy versus multifraction radiotherapy for metastatic bone pain relief and prevention of bone complications.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Trials were identified through MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cancerlit, reference lists of relevant articles and conference proceedings. Relevant data was extracted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised studies comparing single fraction radiotherapy with multifraction radiotherapy on metastatic bone pain

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The analyses were performed using intention-to-treat principle. The results were pooled using meta-analysis to estimate the effect of treatment on pain response, re-treatment rate, pathological fracture rate and spinal cord compression rate.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven trials that involved 3435 patients were identified. Of 3435 patients, 52 patients were randomised more than once for different painful bone metastasis sites. Altogether, 3487 painful sites were randomised. The trials included patients with painful bone metastases of any primary sites, but were mainly prostate, breast and lung. The overall pain response rates for single fraction radiotherapy and multifraction radiotherapy were 60% (1059/1779) and 59% (1038/1769) respectively, giving an odds ratio of 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89 - 1.19) indicating no difference between the two radiotherapy schedules. There was also no difference in complete pain response rates for single fraction radiotherapy (34% [497/1441]) and multifraction radiotherapy (32% [463/1435]) with an odds ratio of 1.11 (95%CI 0.94-1.30). Patients treated by single fraction radiotherapy had a higher re-treatment rate with 21.5% (267/1240) requiring re-treatment compared to 7.4% (91/1236) of patients in the multifraction radiotherapy arm (odds ratio 3.44 [95%CI 2.67-4.43]). The pathological fracture rate was also higher in single fraction radiotherapy arm patients. Three percent (37/1240) of patients treated by single fraction radiotherapy developed pathological fracture compared to 1.6% (20/1236) for those treated by multifraction radiotherapy (odds ratio 1.82 [95%CI 1.06-3.11]). The spinal cord compression rates were similar for both arms (odds ratio 1.41 [95%CI 0.72-2.75]). Repeated analyses excluding dropout patients gave similar results.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

Single fraction radiotherapy was as effective as multifraction radiotherapy in relieving metastatic bone pain. However, the re-treatment rate and pathological fracture rates were higher after single fraction radiotherapy. Studies with quality of life and health economic end points are warranted to find out the optimal treatment option.

Primary treatment endpoint following palliative radiotherapy for painful bone metastases: need for a consensus definition?

OBJECTIVES

To compare and contrast the definitions of primary treatment endpoints in randomized studies of dose-fractionation schedules for treating bone metastases and to identify basic characteristics of treatment endpoint that may require consensus among investigators.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of various dose-fractionation schedules for painful bone metastases, published between 1980 and 1999, and on-going trials whose protocols were available, were systematically reviewed based on the following features of the primary treatment endpoint: (i) degree of pain relief; (ii) timing of the pain response assessment; (iii) effect of co-interventions on pain relief; (iv) the reduction of analgesic as a treatment response; and (v) quantification of response duration.

RESULTS

Ten published RCTs (each sampled over 100 patients), plus two current trial protocols were reviewed. Five of the 12 studies defined any reduction in pain score as the primary endpoint. Three trials defined response at pre-determined time points, whereas eight studies attributed pain improvement at any time during follow-up to the effect of radiotherapy. No trial incorporated effect of systemic treatments on response. Only two trials incorporated analgesic scores into the primary endpoint criteria, although several trials reported results of combined pain and analgesic relief. Eight trials reported duration of response. Three provided some estimation of duration with respect to survival: two of them employing actuarial time to pain progression, and one calculated the ratio of pain response to median survival duration (percent net relief). Quality of life was measured in four of 12 studies, as secondary endpoint.

CONCLUSION

Although available data suggest similarity in pain relief among various dose-fractionation schedules, accurate and consistent description of the degree of benefit from radiotherapy is lacking. While pain relief is a consistent primary treatment goal among randomized trials, a consensus on several important features of treatment endpoint is needed in order to establish common grounds for future trials in palliative radiotherapy.

Prospective patient-based assessment of effectiveness of palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases

PURPOSE

The primary objective of this report is to prospectively evaluate pain control provided by palliative radiotherapy for all irradiated patients with bone metastases by using their own assessments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective database was set up for all patients referred for palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases. Patients were asked to rate their pain intensity using an 11 categorical point scale (0=lack of pain, 10=worst pain imaginable). Analgesic consumption during the preceding 24 h was recorded and converted into equivalent total daily dose of oral morphine. For those who received radiotherapy, follow-up was conducted via telephone interviews at week 1, 2, 4, 8 and 12 post treatment using the same pain scale and analgesic diary. Radiotherapy outcome was initially assessed by pain score alone. Complete response (CR) was defined as a pain score of 0. Partial response (PR) was defined as a reduction of score > or =2 or a> or =50% reduction of the pre-treatment pain score. We further analyzed outcomes using integrated pain and analgesic scores. Response was defined as either a reduction of pain score > or =2 with at least no increase in analgesics or at least stable pain score with a > or =50% reduction in analgesic intake.

RESULTS

One hundred and five patients were treated with palliative radiotherapy. When response evaluation was by pain score alone, the PR rates at 2, 4, 8 and 12 weeks were 44, 42, 30 and 38%, respectively; while the CR rates were 24, 32, 31 and 29%, respectively. The overall response rate at 12 weeks was 67%. When assessed by the integrated pain and analgesic scores, the response rates were 50, 46, 43 and 43%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The response rate in our patient population is comparable with those reported in clinical trials. This is important when counselling our patients on the expected effectiveness of radiotherapy outside of clinical trials. Our observations confirm the generalizability of the trials conducted to date. While randomized trials still remain the gold standard of research, observational studies can serve as useful adjuncts to randomized trials to confirm the efficacy and guide the design of new controlled trials.

Variation in delivery of palliative radiotherapy to persons dying of cancer in nova scotia, 1994 to 1998

PURPOSE

To examine sociodemographic and clinical variables associated with provision of palliative radiotherapy (RT) to persons dying of cancer.

METHODS

The Nova Scotia Cancer Registry was used to identify 9,978 adults who were dying of cancer between 1994 and 1998 in the Canadian province of Nova Scotia. RT records from between April 1992 and December 1998 were obtained from the provincial treatment database. Multivariate analysis identified factors associated with two sequential decisions determining provision of palliative RT in the last 9 months of life: likelihood of receiving an RT consultation with a radiation oncologist and, given a consultation, likelihood of being treated with palliative RT.

RESULTS

The likelihood of having a consultation decreased with age (20 to 59 years v. 80+ years: odds ratio [OR], 4.43 [95% confidence interval, 3.80 to 5.15]), increased with community median household income (> $50,000 v. < $20,000: OR, 1.31 [1.02 to 1.70]), was higher for residents closer to the cancer center (< 25 km v 200+ km: OR, 2.47 [2.16 to 2.83]), increased between 1994 and 1998 (OR, 1.34 [1.16 to 1.56]), varied by cause of death (relative to thoracic cancers, head and neck: OR, 1.75 [1.31 to 2.33]; gynecologic: OR, 0.35 [0.27 to 0.44]), and was greater for those who had prior RT (OR, 2.20 [1.89 to 2.56]). Similar associations were observed when outcome was the provision of palliative RT given a consult, with one notable exception: prior RT was associated with a lower likelihood of receiving palliative RT (OR, 0.48 [0.40 to 0.58]).

CONCLUSION

Variations observed in delivery of palliative RT should prompt further investigation into equity of access to clinically appropriate, palliative radiation consultation and treatment.

Palliation of bone metastases: a survey of patterns of practice among Canadian radiation oncologists

BACKGROUND

Palliative radiotherapy constitutes nearly 50% of the workload in radiotherapy. Surveys on the patterns of practice in radiotherapy have been published from North America and Europe. Our objective was to determine the current pattern of practice of radiation oncologists in Canada for the palliation of bone metastases.

METHOD

A survey was sent to 300 practicing radiation oncologists in Canada. Five case scenarios were presented. The first three were patients with a single symptomatic site: breast cancer patient with pelvic metastasis, lung cancer male with metastasis to L3 and L1, respectively. The last two were breast and prostate cancer patients with multiple symptomatic bone metastases.

RESULTS

A total of 172 questionnaires were returned (57%) for a total of 860 responses. For the three cases with a single painful bone metastasis, over 98% would prescribe radiotherapy. The doses ranged from a single 8 to 30 Gy in ten fractions. Of the 172 respondents, 117 (68%) would use the same dose fractionation for all three cases, suggesting that they had a standard dose fractionation for palliative radiotherapy. The most common dose fractionation was 20 Gy in five fractions used by 84/117 (72%), and 8 Gy in one fraction by 19/117 (16%). In all five case scenarios, 81% would use a short course of radiotherapy (single 8 Gy, 17%; 20 Gy in five fractions, 64%), while 10% would prescribe 30 Gy in ten fractions. For the two cases with diffuse symptomatic bone metastases, half body irradiation (HBI) and radionuclides were recommended more frequently in prostate cancer than in breast cancer (46/172 vs. 4/172, P<0. 0001; and 93/172 vs. 10/172, P<0.0001, respectively). Strontium was the most commonly recommended radionuclide (98/103=95%). Since systemic radionuclides are not readily available in our health care system, 41/98 (42%) of radiation oncologists who would recommend strontium were not familiar with the dose. Bisphosphonates were recommended more frequently in breast cancer than in prostate cancer 13/172 (8%) vs. 1/172 (0.6%), P=0.001.

CONCLUSION

Local field external radiotherapy remains the mainstay of therapy, and the most common fractionation for bone metastases in Canada is 20 Gy in five fractions compared with 30 Gy in ten fractions in the US. Despite randomized trials showing similar results for single compared with fractionated radiotherapy, the majority of us still advocate five fractions. The frequency of employing a single fractionation has not changed since the last national survey in 1992. Nearly 70% use a standard dose fractionation to palliate localized painful metastasis by radiotherapy, independent of the site of involvement or tumor type. The pattern of practice of palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases in Canada is different to that reported previously from the US. The reasons why the results of randomized studies on bone metastases have no impact on the patterns of practice are worth exploring.

Continuing reluctance to use single fractions of radiotherapy for metastatic bone pain: an Australian and New Zealand practice survey and literature review

PURPOSE

To survey Australian and New Zealand (ANZ) radiation oncologists on their preferred fractionation regimens for pain due to bone metastases in the context of similar overseas surveys and the large body of evidence from randomized trials.

METHODS

Delegates to the October 1998 Royal ANZ College of Radiologists Annual Scientific Meeting were asked to state their fractionation for four hypothetical cases viz. local bone pain from metastatic breast, prostate and lung cancer and neuropathic (radicular) pain from metastatic lung cancer. In addition to demographic data, respondents were asked to select reasons for their choices and indicate what factors would influence a change in their recommended fractionation.

RESULTS

Twelve of 32 trainees and 41 of 82 specialists completed the survey, giving an overall response rate of 46%. There was decreasing use of shorter fractionation schedules from lung through prostate to breast cancer with, in particular, single fractions recommended by, respectively, 42, 28 and 15% of respondents for local bone pain (P=0.013). However, the presence of neuropathic pain from metastatic lung cancer led to lower use of single fractions (15%, P=0.0046). There were no statistically significant differences in preferred fractionation with respect to other variables assessed in this survey. The commonest reasons cited for fractionating were desire to minimize recurrent pain and the influence of training, with desire to minimize the risk of neurological progression and optimize tumour regression also important for neuropathic pain. By contrast, use of single fractions was most commonly based upon literature results and patient convenience. Changing from multiple to single fractions was most influenced by poor performance status, while the presence of neurological signs/symptoms had the reverse effect.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings from this ANZ survey largely reflect the results from other surveys performed in the UK, Europe, Canada and USA. Although debate continues in the literature, the continuing preference of radiation oncologists to fractionate for local bone pain is contrary to the 16 randomized trials published to date which give little support for a dose-response relationship above a single 6-8 Gy in this setting. This practice has significant implications for departmental workload, costs to the healthcare system and patient convenience. There is no objective evidence on the influence of fractionation for neuropathic bone pain in the literature at present, although an ANZ randomized trial addressing this problem is under way (TROG 96.05).

Skeletal metastases

This synthesis of the literature on radiotherapy for skeletal metastases is based on 171 scientific articles, including 13 randomized studies, 24 prospective studies, and 79 retrospective studies. These studies involve 13054 patients. Radiotherapy has been well documented as a method for alleviating pain, but the mechanisms underlying this effect are largely unknown. When used for pain palliation, radiotherapy achieves freedom from pain, or substantial alleviation of pain in nearly all cases, with few side effects. Half-body irradiation is effective in treating multiple metastatic sites and should be considered for use more frequently. However, this increases the requirements on equipment, dosimetry, and hospital beds. Systemic radiotherapy with radionuclides may be indicated for generalized skeletal pain. The role of radiotherapy in preventing or healing fractures is not fully evaluated. Optimum dose levels and fractionation schedules have not been established. Early radiotherapy for spinal cord compression may prevent symptoms from worsening, but the effects on existing paralysis are modest.

Diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to lung cancer in Canada and their costs

Escalating health care costs have made it imperative to evaluate the resources required to diagnose and treat major illnesses in Canadians. For Canadian men, lung cancer is not only the most common malignancy, but also the major cancer killer. As of 1994, lung cancer is expected to overtake breast cancer as the leading cause of cancer deaths in women. This paper presents a detailed description of the methodology used to determine the direct health care costs associated with 'standard' diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for lung cancer in Canada in 1988. Clinical algorithms were developed for each stage of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). The algorithms were designed to take the form of decision trees for each clinical stage of lung cancer. The proportion of patients assigned to each branch was based upon questionnaire responses obtained from thoracic surgeons and radiation oncologists when presented with clinical scenarios, and information from provincial cancer registries. Direct care costs were derived primarily from one provincial fee schedule (Ontario), and costing information obtained during the conduct of several Canadian clinical trials in lung cancer. Direct costs for diagnosis and initial treatment of NSCLC (excluding relapse and terminal care costs) ranged from $17,889 for the surgery/post-operative radiotherapy arm of stages I and II to $6,333 for the supportive care arm (stage IV). The cost of determining relapse for NSCLC was estimated to be $1,528, and terminal care costs, which included palliative radiotherapy and hospitalisation, were $10,331. Direct costs for diagnosis and initial treatment of SCLC ranged from $18,691 for limited stage disease to $4,739 for the supportive care arm of extensive disease. The cost of diagnosing relapse for SCLC was estimated to be $1,590, and terminal care costs averaged $9,966. This report provides an estimate of the Canadian costs of managing lung cancer by stage and treatment modality. Because the actual costs of all components of care are not available from any combination of sources, these cost estimates must be viewed as an idealised estimate of the cost of lung cancer management. However, we believe that the lung cancer costing model that we have developed provides a level of sophistication which gives a reasonable estimate of the cost per case of treating NSCLC and SCLC.

Patterns of fractionation for palliation of bone metastases

The patterns of fractionation used to treat bone metastases in a single centre in two time periods were determined. Clinical audit was carried out, for two periods of 6 months each, in 1988 and 1993. Data recorded included patient, tumour and treatment variables. Palliation of bone metastases represented 40% and 44% of palliative treatment courses, and 20% and 21% of total treatment courses, respectively, in both time periods. Shorter treatment schedules were used in 1993 compared to 1988, with mean fraction numbers of 6.4 versus 8.5, respectively (P < 0.001). This reduction in fraction numbers occurred for the common primary tumour sites. In 1993, the mean numbers of fractions used were related to the primary tumour site (7.8 fractions for breast, 5.0 for lung, 6.7 for melanoma, 6.4 for other primary sites, P = 0.05), the treatment site (7.3 fractions for weight-bearing bones, 4.0 for non-weight-bearing bones, P < 0.001) and patient address (6.0 fractions for city postcode vs 7.8 for country postcode, P = 0.02). Treating radiation oncologist (5.7-7.8 mean fractions, P = 0.06) and patient age (P = 0.56) were not significant factors for the number of fractions used. It is likely that there were multiple causes for a reduction in the number of fractions used to treat bone metastases, including the results of clinical trials and increasing pressure to optimize the use of scarce resources. However, patients who may have a better prognosis (breast primary) and those with metastases in weight-bearing bones continued to receive longer treatment schedules.