Penetration of recommended procedures for lung cancer staging and management in the United States over 10 years: a quality research in radiation oncology survey.

PURPOSE: To document the penetration of clinical trial results, practice guidelines, and appropriateness criteria into national practice, we compared the use of components of staging and treatment for lung cancer among patients treated in 2006-2007 with those used in patients treated in 1998-1999. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patient, staging work-up, and treatment characteristics were extracted from the process survey database of the Quality Research in Radiation Oncology (QRRO), consisting of records of 340 patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) at 44 institutions and of 144 patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC) at 39 institutions. Data were compared for patients treated in 2006-2007 versus those for patients treated in 1998-1999. RESULTS: Use of all recommended procedures for staging and treatment was more common in 2006-2007. Specifically, disease was staged with brain imaging (magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography) and whole-body imaging (positron emission tomography or bone scanning) in 66% of patients with LA-NSCLC in 2006-2007 (vs 42% in 1998-1999, P=.0001) and in 84% of patients with LS-SCLC in 2006-2007 (vs 58.3% in 1998-1999, P=.0011). Concurrent chemoradiation was used for 77% of LA-NSCLC patients (vs 45% in 1998-1999, P<.0001) and for 90% of LS-SCLC patients (vs 62.5% in 1998-1999, P<.0001). Use of the recommended radiation dose (59-74 Gy for NSCLC and 60-70 Gy as once-daily therapy for SCLC) did not change appreciably, being 88% for NSCLC in both periods and 51% (2006-2007) versus 43% (1998-1999) for SCLC. Twice-daily radiation for SCLC was used for 21% of patients in 2006-2007 versus 8% in 1998-1999. Finally, 49% of patients with LS-SCLC received prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) in 2006-2007 (vs 21% in 1998-1999). CONCLUSIONS: Although adherence to all quality indicators improved over time, brain imaging and recommended radiation doses for stage III NSCLC were used in <90% of cases. Use of full thoracic doses and PCI for LS-SCLC also requires improvement.

Results from the Quality Research in Radiation Oncology (QRRO) survey: Evaluation of dosimetric outcomes for low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: We report on quality of dose delivery to target and normal tissues from low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy using postimplantation dosimetric evaluations from a random sample of U.S. patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Nonmetastatic prostate cancer patients treated with external beam radiotherapy or brachytherapy in 2007 were randomly sampled from radiation oncology facilities nationwide. Of 414 prostate cancer cases from 45 institutions, 86 received low-dose-rate brachytherapy. We collected the 30-day postimplantation CT images of these patients and 10 test cases from two other institutions. Scans were downloaded into a treatment planning system and prostate/rectal contours were redrawn. Dosimetric outcomes were reanalyzed and compared with calculated outcomes from treating institutions. RESULTS: Median prostate volume was 33.4cm(3). Reevaluated median V(100), D(90), and V(150) were 91.1% (range, 45.5-99.8%), 101.7% (range, 59.6-145.9%), and 53.9% (range, 15.7-88.4%), respectively. Low gland coverage included 27 patients (39%) with a D(90) lower than 100% of the prescription dose (PD), 12 of whom (17% of the entire group) had a D(90) lower than 80% of PD. There was no correlation between D(90) coverage and prostate volume, number of seeds, or implanted activity. The median V(100) for the rectum was 0.3cm(3) (range, 0-4.3cm(3)). No outcome differences were observed according to the institutional strata. Concordance between reported and reevaluated D(90) values (defined as within ±10%) was observed in 44 of 69 cases. CONCLUSIONS: Central review of postimplantation CT scans to assess the quality of prostate brachytherapy is feasible. Most patients achieved excellent dosimetric outcomes, yet 17% had less than optimal target coverage by the PD. There was concordance between submitted target-coverage parameters and central dosimetric review in 64% of implants. These findings will require further validation in a larger cohort of patients.