Palliative Radiotherapy During the Last Month of Life: Have COVID-19 Recommendations Led to Reduced Utilization?

Audit of 30-day mortality following palliative radiotherapy: are we able to improve patient care at the end of life?

Background

Several measurements defining the expected 30-day mortality (30-DM) to use in audit of radiation oncology departments have been proposed. However, its external validity is limited because of the lack of data from non-English speaking countries. This study assessed 30-DM in patients treated with palliative radiotherapy (PRT) in a Chilean-reference radiotherapy centre and explored if there had been tailored treatment at the end of life.

Materials and methods

Retrospective data collection was carried out for all patients treated at our institution between 1st January 2018 and 31st December 2021. Individual factors were modelled first to check for univariate association with 30-DM, those variables with a significance level of < 0.05 were considered for the final multivariable model.

Results

3,357 patients were included. The most common primary malignancies were breast (22%) and lung (16.1%). The most common treatment sites were bone (47.7%) and brain (12.2%). Overall, 30-DM was 14.7%, this rate was higher in patients treated for brain metastases (25.7%) and thoracic palliation (22.1%). 30-DM was associated with poor performance status (p < 0.01), lung and esophageal-gastric cancer (p = 0.04 and p = 0.02, respectively), metastases other than bone (p < 0.01), brain metastases (p < 0.01) and private health insurance (p <0.01).

Conclusions

In patients treated for brain metastasis and thoracic palliation 30-DM was higher than suggested benchmarks. Moreover, in these groups long courses of PRT were often performed. Audit data should be useful for planning interventions that improve selection of patients and prompting review of policies for indication and fractionation schedules of PRT.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Treatment at a Japanese Hospital

Background/Aim

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced medical institutions to scale back their practice. Changes in patient behavior seemed to be having an impact. We conducted a survey with the aim of reviewing lung cancer treatment during the pandemic period and identifying problems.

Patients and Methods

We examined the medical records of all patients pathologically diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in our hospital from 2017 to 2022. NSCLC patients were divided into two groups: those diagnosed between 2017 and 2019 (first period) and those diagnosed between 2020 and 2022 (second period).

Results

Within the study period, 267 NSCLC patients (first period: 147 patients, second period: 121 patients) were diagnosed in our hospital. The patients in the two study periods did not differ significantly in age (p=0.613), ECOG performance status (p=0.125), and clinical stage (p=0.354). Tumor size was significantly larger in the second period with a mean of 5.88 cm ± 3.02, compared to 4.24 cm ± 1.76 in the first period (p<0.001). In the standard treatment group, the median survival time was 457 days in the first period and 313 days in the second period (p=0.063). In the best supportive care group, median survival time was 122 days in the first period and 57 days in the second period (p=0.004).

Conclusion

Patients themselves refrained from seeking consultation for lung cancer treatment during the pandemic period. It is inconclusive how to reduce the delay due to the suppression of consultations, but this is an important issue for the future.

Thirty-day Mortality in Palliative Radiotherapy: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis in a Single Center

Background/Aim

Palliative radiotherapy is a critical component of cancer care aimed at symptom management and enhancing the quality of life of patients with advanced cancer. Balancing symptom relief and potential risks is pivotal in clinical decision-making. This study explored the 30-day mortality (30-DM) rate after palliative radiotherapy in a single-center setting to shed light on potential prognostic factors and safety considerations.

Patients and Methods

This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent palliative radiotherapy for various indications between March 2020 and February 2023. Data were retrieved from electronic medical records and analyzed according to ethical guidelines. The primary outcome measure was 30-DM rate, and multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify the independent predictors of 30-DM.

Results

A total of 931 palliative radiotherapy sessions were administered to 601 patients, with a median of one session per patient. The cohort had a median age of 70 years, predominantly men (58%), and featured diverse primary cancer types, with lung cancer being the most prevalent (15.8%). The 30-DM rate was 12.9%. Multivariate analysis identified Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) as the sole independent prognostic factor significantly associated with 30-DM.

Conclusion

This study provides valuable insights into 30-DM rates following palliative radiotherapy. Future research should focus on prospective multicenter investigations with larger cohorts and comprehensive data collection, ultimately leading to improved risk prediction models for personalized treatment decisions in palliative radiotherapy.

Palliative care for cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: A narrative synthesis from 36 studies of 16 countries

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 epidemic, palliative care has become even more indispensable for cancer patients.

AIM

To identify the changes in palliative care for cancer patients and improvements in palliative care quality during the COVID-19 pandemic.

DESIGN

A systematic review and narrative synthesis was conducted in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science. An evaluation tool using mixed methods was used to assess the quality of the study. The main relevant themes identified were used to group qualitative and quantitative findings.

RESULTS

A total of 36 studies were identified, primarily from different countries, with a total of 14,427 patients, 238 caregivers and 354 health care providers. Cancer palliative care has been experiencing several difficulties following the COVID-19 pandemic, including increased mortality and infection rates as well as delays in patient treatment that have resulted in poorer prognoses. Treatment providers are seeking solutions such as electronic management of patients and integration of resources to care for the mental health of patients and staff. Telemedicine plays an important role in many ways but cannot completely replace traditional treatment. Clinicians strive to meet patients' palliative care needs during special times and improve their quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

Palliative care faces unique challenges during the COVID-19 epidemic. With adequate support to alleviate care-related challenges, patients in the home versus hospital setting will be able to receive better palliative care. In addition, this review highlights the importance of multiparty collaboration to achieve personal and societal benefits of palliative care.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No Patient or Public Contribution.

What did COVID-19 pandemics teach us about single-fraction radiotherapy for painful bone metastases-State of the art or undertreatment?

BACKGROUND

Choosing the optimal treatment approach for patients with painful bone metastases during the COVID-19 pandemic became challenging. A simple technique, single fraction radiotherapy was recommended for these patients usually referring to bone metastases as a single entity, although it is a very heterogeneous group of patients.

AIM

This study aimed to analyze the response to palliative single fraction radiotherapy in relation to age, performance status, primary tumor, histopathology, and bone localization in the group of patients with painful bone metastases.

METHODS

A clinical, prospective, non-randomized study was conducted at the Institute for Oncology and Radiology of Serbia, which included 64 patients with noncomplicated, painful bone metastases who underwent palliative, pain-relieving radiation therapy with a single tumor dose of 8Gy in a single hospital visit. Response to treatment was patient reported via telephone interview using visual analog scale. The response assessment was based on the international consensus panel of radiation oncologists.

RESULTS

In the entire group of patients, 83% responded to radiotherapy. No statistically significant difference was observed in response to therapy, time to reach the maximum response, degree of pain reduction, nor in response duration depending on the patient's age, performance status, the primary origin of the tumor, histopathology, or location of the metastasis (bone) that was irradiated.

CONCLUSION

Regardless of clinical parameters, palliative radiotherapy with a single dose of 8Gy can be considered very effective in quick pain relief in patients with noncomplicated painful bone metastases. Single fraction radiotherapy in a single hospital visit, as well as patient-reported outcome for these patients may be considered favorable beyond Covid pandemics.

Prognostic Score in Radiotherapy Practice for Palliative Treatments (PROPHET) Study for Bone Metastases: An Investigation Into the Clinical Effect on Treatment Prescription

Purpose

Bone metastases frequently occur during malignant disease. Palliative radiation therapy (PRT) is a crucial part of palliative care because it can relieve pain and improve patients' quality of life. Often, a clinician's survival estimation is too optimistic. Prognostic scores (PSs) can help clinicians tailor PRT indications to avoid over- or undertreatment. Although the PS is supposed to aid radiation oncologists (ROs) in palliative-care scenarios, it is unclear what type of support, and to what extent, could impact daily clinical practice.

Methods and Materials

A national-based investigation of the prescriptive decisions on simulated clinical cases was performed in Italy. Nine clinical cases from real-world clinical practice were selected for this study. Each case description contained complete information regarding the parameters defining the prognosis class according to the PS (in particular, the Mizumoto Prognostic Score, a validated PS available in literature and already applied in some clinical trials). Each case description contained complete information regarding the parameters defining the prognosis class according to the PS. ROs were interviewed through questionnaires, each comprising the same 3 questions per clinical case, asking (1) the prescription after detailing the clinical case features but not the PS prognostic class definition; (2) whether the RO wanted to change the prescription once the PS prognostic class definition was revealed; and (3) in case of a change of the prescription, a new prescriptive option. Three RO categories were defined: dedicated to PRT (RO-d), nondedicated to PRT (RO-nd), and resident in training (IT). Interviewed ROs were distributed among different regions of the country.

Results

Conversion rates, agreements, and prescription trends were investigated. The PS determined a statistically significant 11.12% of prescription conversion among ROs. The conversion was higher for the residents and significantly higher for worse prognostic scenario subgroups, respectively. The PS improved prescriptive agreement among ROs (particularly for worse-prognostic-scenario subgroups). Moreover, PS significantly increased standard prescriptive approaches (particularly for worse-clinical-case presentations).

Conclusions

To the best of our knowledge, the PROPHET study is the first to directly evaluate the potential clinical consequences of the regular application of any PS. According to the Prophet study, a prognostic score should be integrated into the clinical practice of palliative radiation therapy for bone metastasis and training programs in radiation oncology.

Covid-19 and radiotherapy: a systematic review after 2 years of pandemic

Introduction

Following the Covid-19 pandemic spread, changes in clinical practice were necessary to limit the pandemic diffusion. Also, oncological practice has undergone changes with radiotherapy (RT) treatments playing a key role.Although several experiences have been published, the aim of this review is to summarize the current evidence after 2 years of pandemic to provide useful conclusions for clinicians.

Methods

A Pubmed/MEDLINE and Embase systematic review was conducted. The search strategy was "Covid AND Radiotherapy" and only original articles in the English language were considered.

Results

A total of 2.733 papers were obtained using the mentioned search strategy. After the complete selection process, a total of 281 papers were considered eligible for the analysis of the results.

Discussion

RT has played a key role in Covid-19 pandemic as it has proved more resilient than surgery and chemotherapy. The impact of the accelerated use of hypofractionated RT and telemedicine will make these strategies central also in the post-pandemic period.

Changes in the quality of cancer care as assessed through performance indicators during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Cancer comprises a high burden on health systems. Performance indicators monitoring cancer outcomes are routinely used in OECD countries. However, the development of process and cancer-pathway based information is essential to guide health care delivery, allowing for better monitoring of changes in the quality of care provided. Assessing the changes in the quality of cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic requires a structured approach considering the high volume of publications. This study aims to summarize performance indicators used in the literature to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer care (January-June 2020) in OECD countries and to assess changes in the quality of care as reported via selected indicators.

METHODS

Search conducted in MEDLINE and Embase databases. Performance indicators and their trends were collated according to the cancer care pathway.

RESULTS

This study included 135 articles, from which 1013 indicators were retrieved. Indicators assessing the diagnostic process showed a decreasing trend: from 33 indicators reporting on screening, 30 (91%) signalled a decrease during the pandemic (n = 30 indicators, 91%). A reduction was also observed in the number of diagnostic procedures (n = 64, 58%) and diagnoses (n = 130, 89%). The proportion of diagnoses in the emergency setting and waiting times showed increasing trends (n = 8, 89% and n = 14, 56%, respectively). A decreasing trend in the proportion of earliest stage cancers was reported by 63% of indicators (n = 9), and 70% (n = 43) of indicators showed an increasing trend in the proportion of advanced-stage cancers. Indicators reflecting the treatment process signalled a reduction in the number of procedures: 79%(n = 82) of indicators concerning surgeries, 72%(n = 41) of indicators assessing radiotherapy, and 93%(n = 40) of indicators related to systemic therapies. Modifications in cancer treatment were frequently reported: 64%(n = 195) of indicators revealed changes in treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides a summary of performance indicators used in the literature to assess the cancer care pathway from January 2020 to June 2020 in OECD countries, and the changes in the quality of care signalled by these indicators. The trends reported inform on potential bottlenecks of the cancer care pathway. Monitoring this information closely could contribute to identifying moments for intervention during crises.

Shortened Palliative Radiotherapy Results in a Lower Rate of Treatment During the Last Month of Life

Introduction

Palliative radiotherapy (PRT) during the last month of life (PRT30) should be avoided because relevant clinical benefits are unlikely to occur. While traditional short-course fractionation regimens are suitable for most patients, a minority may derive gains from higher doses of PRT. Compared to older regimens such as 13 fractions of 3 Gy, more hypofractionated, non-ablative concepts with reduced overall treatment time are not well studied.

Methods

Retrospective analysis (2017-2020) of 107 patients treated to metastatic lesions (one or two target volumes per patient) with traditional >2 weeks regimens or newer ≤2 weeks regimens, e.g. seven fractions of 5 Gy or five fractions of 6 Gy.

Results

Failure to complete radiotherapy was registered in 8% of patients (traditional fractionation) and 1%, respectively (p=0.12). Moderate rates of PRT30 were observed (11% and 6%, respectively, p=0.44). PRT30 was more likely in patients irradiated for brain or lymph node metastases. Utilization of newer ≤2 weeks regimens was highest in 2020, presumably as a result of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

Conclusion

The implementation of newer fractionation regimens for selected patients has resulted in acceptable rates of non-completion and PRT30. Optimal selection criteria remain to be determined. Established, guideline-endorsed short-course regimens such as five fractions of 4 Gy and 8-Gy single fractions continue to represent important PRT approaches.

Dual Use of the METSSS Model Predicting Survival After Palliative Radiotherapy: An Exploratory Analysis

Introduction: The recently published METSSS model, which was developed for prediction of survival after palliative radiotherapy, includes age, sex, cancer type, localization of distant metastases, Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score and radiotherapy site. Its ability to predict other relevant endpoints has not been studied yet. Therefore, this exploratory study analyzed the endpoints “unplanned termination of radiotherapy” and “treatment in the last 30 days of life” in the METSSS-defined risk groups (low/medium/high).

Methods: The risk group was assigned in the METSSS online calculator for our patient cohort with non-hematological malignancies treated between 2009 and 2014 during the first course of treatment (resembling details of the original METSSS study). All patients were treated with classical palliative dose/fractionation regimes such as five fractions of 4 Gy, 10 fractions of 3 Gy or 13 fractions of 3 Gy. No stereotactic high-dose radiation was utilized. Given that single-fraction radiotherapy cannot be discontinued, patients treated with 8 Gy x1 for uncomplicated painful bone metastases were excluded. Both completed and discontinued multi-fraction radiotherapy courses (at least two fractions intended) were included.

Results: The study included 290 patients, 19 of whom failed to complete their prescribed course of palliative radiotherapy (7%). Thirty-nine (13%) were irradiated in the last 30 days of life. Only one patient was classified as low-risk according to the METSSS model (medium: 15, high: 274). Only Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) was significantly associated with incomplete treatment. All 16 patients with low/medium METSSS risk scores completed their prescribed course of radiotherapy, compared to the 93% completion rate in the high-risk group, p=0.41. With regard to treatment in the last 30 days of life, ECOG PS, metastases to brain, liver and lung, and the number of prescribed fractions were statistically significant. One patient with a low/medium METSSS risk score was treated in the last 30 days of life (6%), compared to 14% in the high-risk group, p=0.49.

Conclusion: Unexpected imbalances in the METSSS risk group size resulted in lower statistical power than anticipated. Patients with low/medium METSSS risk scores performed numerically better. However, other predictive factors, especially ECOG PS, which is not part of the METSSS model, maybe more relevant. Further efforts towards the application of the model beyond its original objective cannot be recommended.