Rapid Access Palliative Radiation Therapy Clinics: The Evidence Is There, but Where Are the Clinics? An Australian and New Zealand Perspective.

PURPOSE: First developed in Canada in the 1990s, Rapid Access Palliative Radiation Therapy (RAPRT) clinics have subsequently spread internationally to expedite treatment for near end-of-life patients, sparing them the need for multiple visits to the department. A "classical" RAPRT clinic is herein defined as "a dedicated clinic specifically established to enable (ideally) same day consultation, planning for, and delivery of palliative radiation treatment." The aim of this work was to determine the current status of these clinics in Australia and New Zealand (ANZ). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A phone survey of all 100 Australian and 10 NZ radiation therapy centers was conducted in March and April 2021. The Chief Medical Officers of the 2 large private practices (GenesisCare and Icon) also approved the survey and answered on behalf of their 57 centers. A single page questionnaire was used, seeking information on the logistics and clinical details of past and present RAPRT clinics, and reasons why other centers do not have one. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 100%. There are only 3 current RAPRT clinics (2.7%). The dominant treatment indication is bone metastases (85%-90%), with most patients receiving single fractions (60%-90%), but commencement on the same day is variable (35%-90%). Five other clinics (4.5%) closed after 4 months to 7 years, but the clinical features were similar. By far, the most common reason (95%) given by the 107 centers without a current RAPRT clinic was that these patients are accommodated using existing resources. CONCLUSIONS: Classical RAPRT clinics have not been widely embraced in ANZ. There are alternative strategies such as the Advanced Practice Radiation Therapist model and techniques to avoid the conventional computed tomography-simulation step, which may also expedite treatment for palliative patients.

Novel 3D conformal technique for treatment of choroidal melanoma with external beam photon radiotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: To report a 3D conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) technique that utilises a specific eye immobilisation and treatment set-up method as an alternative to stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT), for treatment of juxtapapillary choroidal melanoma (CM) and report early treatment outcomes of this technique. METHODS: A contact lens and rod system was designed to provide eye immobilisation and a treatment reference point for 3D-CRT. The technique is described in detail in the body of the paper. A retrospective chart review was conducted to report freedom from local progression (FFLP) and radiation toxicity in a cohort of patients treated with a dose of 50 Gy in five fractions. RESULTS: Eleven eligible patients with juxtapapillary CM were treated between 2003 and 2009. The median follow-up was 3.2 years (range 1.2-5.3). The FFLP was 100% (95% confidence interval 71.5-100). The reproducibility of the set-up and eye immobilisation for fractionation was excellent. The mean dose to the planning target volume was 51.4 Gy (interquartilic range 51.0-51.9). Normal tissue dose constraints were achieved; however, the quality of the 3D-CRT plan was variable. The highest acute radiation toxicity score was Common Toxicity Criteria version 3 grade 1. Vision outcomes were poor. CONCLUSION: In this small series, a novel non-stereotactic technique was found to be an accurate method for the treatment of CM with a high rate of freedom from tumour progression, in keeping with the SRT series. The quality of the conformal plan was variable. Investigation of the optimal dose-fractionation schedule to minimise late radiation toxicity without compromise of tumour control is the focus of ongoing clinical research at our centre.

Dosimetric and clinical impact of 3D vs. 2D planning in palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases.

PURPOSE: The incorporation of three-dimensional (3D) planning for the treatment of bone metastases has been embraced in many North American practices with assumed superior tumor targeting, sparing of normal structures, and improvement in patient outcomes. The goal of our project was to evaluate the dosimetric and clinical impact of 3D vs. two-dimensional (2D) planning for patients who require simple palliative radiotherapy techniques (≤ 2 beams) for bone metastases. METHODS: Patients undergoing palliative radiation therapy for bone metastases were eligible. The study oncologists first documented the intended treatment target, defined the treatment target/field using digital radiographs (2D), followed by using full 3D planning computerized tomography volumetric datasets. Treatment plans were compared dosimetrically, and patient-reported outcomes (pain, fatigue, anorexia, and nausea) were compared against a historical cohort treated with 2D plans. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients were enrolled in the study group. Review of the 3D datasets led to changes in the target area of interest in 44/85 (52 %) of cases, of which 21/85 (25 %) were clinically significant. 3D plans resulted in superior target coverage and normal tissue sparing. There was no significant difference in patient-reported outcomes however. CONCLUSION: 3D radiotherapy planning resulted in superior treatment plans but we were unable to demonstrate a significant benefit in clinical outcomes. Prospective study designs are needed to describe the contemporary expectation of palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases in the modern era of 3D planning.