How do waiting times affect radiation dose fractionation schedules?

Is There a Detrimental Effect of Waiting for Radiotherapy for Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer?

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate a possible deleterious effect of waiting time to radiotherapy on the biochemical relapse (BR) of patients with localized prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients included in this retrospective study had localized prostate adenocarcinoma treated with external-beam irradiation alone. Waiting time was defined as the interval between the first consultation and the first radiation treatment. BR was defined as 3 consecutive rises of prostatic specific antigen (PSA). Patients were split into 3 groups of waiting time: group A were treated within 40 days; group B waited 41 to 80 days; group C waited >80 days to receive radiotherapy. The effect of waiting on BR was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards modeling was adjusted for known prognostic factors.

RESULTS

There were 289 patients who participated in the analysis. Median follow-up time was 6.1 year. Overall BR rate was 44% at 5 years. The median waiting time increased over the study period from 26 days in 1992 to 123 days in 2000. In adjusted multivariate analysis there was a nonsignificant higher risk of BR with waiting for 41 to 80 days (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.8; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.3-1.6) and for >80 days (HR = 0.6; 95% CI = 0.2-1.5) when compared with patients treated within 40 days after consultation.

CONCLUSION

Delaying the start of radiotherapy showed little effect on the rate of BR in the group of 288 prostate cancer patients analyzed in this study.

Prioritization of radiotherapy in Australia and New Zealand

The purpose of this study was to document how radiation oncology departments in Australia and New Zealand manage extended waiting lists by prioritizing patients for radiotherapy and how these centres define the "waiting time". A literature search on strategies for management of waiting lists in radiotherapy, both locally and internationally, was performed. A collaborative survey of all the radiotherapy departments in Australia and New Zealand was then undertaken. Of the 32 centres surveyed around Australia and New Zealand, 25 (77%) responded. There was considerable variation in the definitions used for "waiting times". Eleven of the 25 centres had formally documented protocols. New Zealand has a national policy for prioritization of patients for radiotherapy. Six centres had verbal protocols. Four centres had no significant waiting times and did not require a protocol for prioritization. One centre prioritized according to clinician discretion, two centres used a first-come, first-served basis. One centre replied but their protocol was missing. The variation in the definition of waiting time reduces its usefulness as an indirect measure of resources and as a method of comparing centres. There is also wide variation in the management of waiting lists, particularly in the prioritization schedules used by different centres. The major factor contributing to waiting lists at present is a shortage of radiation oncology staff, particularly radiation therapists. The implementation of standardized protocols for prioritizing patients may be useful in helping to manage scarce resources not withstanding the need to increase the resource base. However, the existence of such protocols should not give legitimacy to undue delays in commencing radiation treatment.

Managing waiting time for radiotherapy: A single machine unit experience

Waiting time (WT) for radiotherapy (RT) is a significant clinical problem. This paper examines various strategies for managing WT for patients treated with radical and palliative intent in the new setting of a rural single machine unit in Australia. Cohorts of patients undergoing both radical and palliative RT in Bendigo had their WT prospectively recorded. Matched cohorts from the hub centre (Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne) treated with palliative intent were also collated. Strategies implemented included a devoted priority meeting, palliative points system, and reallocation of appointment times. The audit was to continue until best practice guidelines were bettered. Three cohorts of patients were compared. There is a significant trend for increasing numbers of patients treated per month since the centre opened (P < 0.0001). The ratio of palliative to radical intent patients remained stable between 46 and 52%. Mean WT for palliative RT reduced from 25 days in the first cohort to 7 days in the final cohort (P < 0.0005). Waiting time for palliative RT was initially longer at Bendigo than the hub centre (P < 0.0005), but by the final cohort there was a non-significant difference favouring the Bendigo cohort (P = 0.26). Waiting time for radical treatment also improved throughout the three cohorts in Bendigo (P < 0.0005). A number of new strategies have successfully resulted in the abolition of lengthy WT for RT in Bendigo despite the increasing demand for the RT service.

Clinical Prioritisation for Curative Radiotherapy: A Local Waiting List Initiative

AIMS

Waiting time for radiotherapy is a major problem in radiation oncology practice. The aim of this paper is to present the experience of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in trialling a number of strategies to reduce patient waiting times.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients starting megavoltage radiotherapy with curative intent in three separate 1-week blocks had their waiting times recorded. The cohorts were each 8 weeks apart and were before (September), during (November) and after (January) the introduction of a priority points system.

RESULTS

Median waiting time was 35 days in September, 42 days in November and 31 days in January. The number of extremely long waits (>90 days) decreased to 1 by January. Significantly more patients were pre-booked for treatment in January (27/51) compared with September (17/65; P = 0.003) and November (12/65; P < 0.001). Pre-booked patients had shorter waiting times compared with patients who was not pre-booked (P < 0.0001). Difficulties at one particular treating location contributed to the longer median waiting times in November. Although there had no significant difference in waiting time in non-breast unit patients between the three cohorts, there was a decrease in waiting times in breast unit patients, especially between November and January (P = 0.0008). There was no significant increase in delay to starting treatment in other treating units, resulting in more equitable access across all units.

CONCLUSIONS

A combination of encouraging pre-booking and the introduction of a priority points system has led to a decrease in waiting times, especially among breast unit patients.

Waiting for radiation therapy: does it matter?

The aim of this study was to determine the direct and indirect effects of prolonged waiting times for radiation therapy. We used the Medline, CancerNet and EMBASE databases to search the international research using the keywords radiotherapy, waiting times and delay. The negative effects of prolonged waiting times for radiation therapy can be broken down into direct and indirect effects. Direct effects include tumour control factors and patient factors. Indirect effects include changes in referral patterns and change in management of tumours. The precise effects of prolonged waiting times for radiation therapy are difficult to define. Evidence exists for some tumour sites, such as postoperative head and neck, small-cell lung cancer and high-grade cerebral gliomas, that tumour control might be adversely affected. The effect on other tumour sites is less established. Patient factors are likely to be consistent across all tumour types and indirect effects are hard to quantify.