Choosing Wisely in radiation therapy for breast cancer: Time lag in adoption of hypofractionated radiation therapy in Victoria

The Choosing Wisely Oncology Canada Cancer List: An Update

BACKGROUND

Choosing Wisely (CW) Canada is a national campaign to identify unnecessary or harmful services that are frequently used in Canada. The original CW Oncology Canada Cancer list was developed in 2014. A CW Oncology Canada working group was established to review new evidence and guidelines and to update the current CW Oncology Canada Cancer List.

METHODS

Between January and March 2022, we conducted a survey of members of the Canadian Association of Medical Oncology (CAMO), Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology (CARO) and the Canadian Society of Surgical Oncology (CSSO). We took the feedback from the survey, including potential new recommendations as well as those that were thought to be no longer relevant and up to date, and conducted a literature review with the assistance of the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health (CADTH). The final updated list of recommendations was made by the CW Oncology Canada working group based on a consensus process.

RESULTS

We reviewed two potential recommendations to add and two potential recommendations to remove from the existing CW Oncology Canada Cancer List. The recommendation "Do not prescribe whole brain radiation over stereotactic radiosurgery for patient with limited brain metastases (≤4 lesions)" was supported by several evidence-based guidelines with the strength of recommendations ranging from strong to moderate and the quality of evidence ranging from level 1 to level 3. After reviewing the evidence, the working group felt that the other potential recommendation to add and the two potential recommendations to remove did not have sufficient strength and quality of evidence at this time to be added or removed from the list.

CONCLUSION

The updated Choosing Wisely Oncology Canada Cancer List consists of 11 items that oncologists should question in the treatment of patients with cancer. This list can be used to design specific interventions to reduce low value care.

Driving quality improvement through better data: The story of New Zealand's radiation oncology collection

Aotearoa/New Zealand is one of the first nations in the world to develop a comprehensive, high-quality collection of radiation therapy data (the Radiation Oncology Collection, ROC) that is able to report on treatment delivery by health region, patient demographics and service provider. This has been guided by radiation therapy leaders, who have been instrumental in overseeing the establishment of clear and robust data definitions, a centralised database and outputs delivered via an online tool. In this paper, we detail the development of the ROC, provide examples of variation in practice identified from the ROC and how these changed over time, then consider the ramifications of the ROC in the wider context of cancer care quality improvement. In addition to a review of relevant literature, primary data were sourced from the ROC on radiation therapy provided nationally in New Zealand between 2017 and 2020. The total intervention rate, number of fractions and doses are reported for select cancers by way of examples of national variation in practice. Results from the ROC have highlighted areas of treatment variation and have prompted increased uptake of hypofractionation for curative prostate and breast cancer treatment and for palliation of bone metastases. Future development of the ROC will increase its use for quality improvement and ultimately link to a real time cancer services database.

Radiotherapy-specific quality indicators at national level: How to make it happen

PURPOSE /OBJECTIVE

To promote best practice and quality of care, the Belgian College of Physicians for Radiotherapy Centers established a set of radiotherapy specific quality indicators for benchmarking on a national level. This paper describes the development, the collected QIs, the observed trends and the departments' evaluation of this initiative.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The Donabedian approach was used, focussing on structural, process and outcome QIs. The criteria for QI selection were availability, required for low-threshold regular collection, and applicability to guidelines and good practice. The QIs were collected yearly and individualized reports were sent out to all RT departments. In 2021, a national survey was held to evaluate the ease of data collection and submission, and the perceived importance and validity of the collected QIs.

RESULTS

18 structural QI and 37 process and outcome parameters (n = 25 patients/pathology/department) were collected. The participation rate amounted to 95 % overall. The analysis gave a national overview of RT activity, resources, clinical practice and reported acute toxicities. The individualized reports allowed departments to benchmark their performance. The 2021 survey indicated that the QIs were overall easy to collect, relevant and reliable. The collection of acute recorded toxicities was deemed a weak point due to inter-observer variabilities and lack of follow-up time.

CONCLUSION

QI collection on a national level is a valuable process in steering quality improvement initiatives. The feasibility and relevance was demonstrated with a high level of participation. The national initiative will continue to evolve as a quality monitoring and improvement tool.

Unwarranted variation in radiation therapy fractionation

The adoption of hypofractionation across multiple tumour sites has been slow despite robust evidence. There is considerable unwarranted variation in practice, both within and between jurisdictions. This has been attributed to inconsistencies in guidelines, physician preference, lack of technology and differing financial incentives. Unwarranted variation in the use of hypofractionation has a tremendous effect on cost to both patients and the healthcare system. This places an unnecessary burden on patients and poorly utilises scarce healthcare resources. A collaborative effort from clinicians, patients, healthcare providers and policymakers is needed to reduce unwarranted variation in practice. This will improve quality of care both for patients and at broader healthcare system level.

Increasing use of post-mastectomy hypofractionated radiation therapy for breast cancer in Victoria

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of post-mastectomy hypofractionationed radiation therapy (HFRT) for breast cancer in Victoria, Australia.

METHODS

This is a population-based cohort of women with breast cancer who received post-mastectomy RT to the chest wall with or without nodal irradiation between 2012 and 2017. HFRT was defined as <25 fractions of RT. Data were captured in the Victorian Radiotherapy Minimum Dataset (VRMDS). The changing pattern of HFRT use was evaluated using the Cochran-Armitage test. Patient-, treatment- and institutional-related factors associated with HFRT use were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Two thousand and twenty-one women were included in this study, of which 238 (12%) received HFRT. This increased from 8% in 2012 to 18% in 2017 (P-trend < 0.001). Older women were more likely to have HFRT (26% in women above 70 years vs 6% in women under 50 years; P < 0.001). Women who did not have nodal irradiation were more likely to have HFRT than those who did (18% vs 9% respectively; P < 0.001). In multivariate analyses, the progressive increase in HFRT use over time remained statistically significant - women treated in 2017 were four times more likely to receive HFRT than those treated in 2012 (95% CI = 2.1-7.7; P < 0.001). Other factors independently associated with increased likelihood of HFRT use included increasing age at RT, and lack of nodal irradiation.

CONCLUSION

In this first Australian study evaluating the use of post-mastectomy HFRT, we observed increasing HFRT use in Victoria over time. We anticipate this rising trend will continue in the coming years.