The Royal College of Radiologists National Vulvar Cancer Audit.

AIMS: This audit examined UK vulvar cancer practice from March 2018 to January 2019 and compared it to standards from national and international recommendations. Follow-up data collection in 2020 examined patient outcomes and toxicity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Audit standards were based on Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) guidance and published literature. A web-based questionnaire was sent to the audit leads at all cancer centres in the UK. Prospective data collection included patient demographics, tumour characteristics, radiotherapy indications, dosimetry, timelines, and follow-up data. The audit targets were 95% compliance with the RCR dose/fractionation schemes in definitive and adjuvant patients, 40% use of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), 100% of radical patients treated as category 1, and 95% use of gap compensation for category 1 patients. RESULTS: 34/54 UK radiotherapy centres (63%) completed data entry for 152 patients. 23 out of 34 (68%) centres submitted follow-up data for 94 patients. One indicator exceeded the audit target: 98% of radical patients received IMRT. The indicators of RCR dose/fractionation compliance for adjuvant/definitive radiotherapy were achieved by 80%/43% for the primary, 80%/86% for elective lymph nodes, and 21%/21% for pathological lymph nodes. The use of concomitant chemotherapy with radical radiotherapy in suitable patients was achieved by 71%. Other indicators demonstrated that 78% were treated as category 1 and 27% used gap compensation. Acute toxicity was mostly related to skin, gastrointestinal, and genitourinary sites. Grade 3 and Grade 4 toxicities were seen at acceptable rates within the radical and adjuvant groups. Late toxicity was mostly grade 0. CONCLUSION: This audit provides a comprehensive picture of UK practice. IMRT is widely used in the UK, and treatment-related toxicity is moderate. The dose fractionation was very heterogeneous. The designation of vulvar cancer as category 1 was not regularly followed for radical/adjuvant patients, and there was minimal gap compensation during treatment.

Service Improvements and Workload Increases: Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) Re-Audit of Curative Intent Radiotherapy for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC).

AIMS: The Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) audit of radical radiotherapy (RR) for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in 2013 concluded that there was under-treatment compared to international comparators and marked variability between cancer networks. Elderly patients were less likely to receive guideline recommended treatments. Access to technological developments was low. Various national and local interventions have since taken place. This study aims to re-assess national practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Radiotherapy departments completed one questionnaire for each patient started on RR for 4 weeks in January 2023. RESULTS: Ninety-three percent of centres returned data on 295 patients. RR has increased 70% since 2013 but patients on average wait 20% longer to start treatment (p = 0.02). Staging investigations were often outside a desirable timeframe (79% of PET/CT scans). Advanced planning techniques are used more frequently: 4-dimensional planning increased from 33% to 90% (P < 0.001), cone beam imaging from 67% to 97% (p < 0.001) and colleague led peer review increased from 41% to 73% (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: There have been significant improvements in care. There has been a considerable increase in clinical oncology workload with evidence of stress on the system that requires additional resourcing.

National Survey of Current Follow-up Protocols for Patients Treated for Endometrial Cancer in the UK.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to establish a baseline of national practice for follow-up after treatment for endometrial cancer in the UK. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online cross-sectional survey was developed and distributed through the Royal College of Radiologists via an email link to the audit leads of radiotherapy centres in the UK. The survey was conducted from November 2021 to 5 January 2022. The main themes assessed in the survey were the form, frequency and duration of follow-up practices. RESULTS: There were a total of 43/61 (70%) complete responses. 93% of centres had a standard follow-up protocol and 7% who did not have a follow-up protocol discharged patients after the post-operative review. Five centres (13%) used molecular profiling to inform follow-up practices. Patient-initiated follow-up was mainly used in the cohort of patients who had surgery alone with no adjuvant treatment (68%, (19/28)). In the cohort who had face-to-face follow-up, the majority had pelvic examinations as part of their review and total follow-up for five years. 93% of respondents are interested in a national follow-up protocol. CONCLUSION: Our data shows that there is national variation in practise with regard to follow-up of women treated for endometrial cancer. Many of the follow-up practises are based on conventional follow-up regimens and these may fail to address the more holistic needs of cancer survivors. Recent publication of updated guidance from the British Gynaecological Cancer Society may help standardise practise and provide a more relevant approach to follow-up for women treated for endometrial cancer.

Assessment of the Implementation of Lung Cancer Consensus Statements From the Royal College of Radiologists in 2021; Progress and Barriers.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer outcomes in the UK are worse than those in many similar countries. The RCR developed a series of 43 consensus statements (CS) to facilitate improvements in care for patients treated with radiotherapy. METHODS: We asked all 61 UK radiotherapy centres to self-assess the implementation of the CS and to describe their departmental key strengths and weaknesses in September 2021. RESULTS: 87% of centres returned their assessments. Whilst developmental activity was seen in most areas for most centres, 24 of the statements were felt to be difficult to implement within the next 2 years by at least one centre. The most frequently reported strengths were in the implementation of SABR (stereotactic body radiotherapy), concurrent chemoradiation for non-small cell lung cancer and technological aspects of treatment planning. The most frequently described departmental weaknesses were in pre-habilitation, timeliness of PET/CT scans and prophylaxis for Pneumocystis jiroveci Pneumonia (PJP). Barriers to implementation were often due to insufficient resource, a requirement for organisations to work together, and a perceived lack of evidence base. Strengths were often attributed to good team working, a local champion and being an early adopter. CONCLUSIONS: This work confirms the commitment of lung cancer radiotherapy teams across the UK to improve outcomes for their patients. Most of the statements have been implemented at least partially. Themes have been identified to aid further progress, one of which is a requirement for significant investment.

Imaging in myeloma: a Royal College of Radiologists national survey of current imaging practice.

AIMS: To evaluate current national imaging practice in myeloma with reference to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines (NG35, 2016) and compare results with an initial survey conducted in 2017 (61 participating sites). MATERIALS AND METHODS: All UK radiology departments treating myeloma patients and with a Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) Audit Lead were invited to participate. Data were collected using an online questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were performed. RESULTS: One hundred and fourteen hospitals supplied data (54% return rate). Skeletal survey (SS) remains the most-commonly performed first-line imaging test for suspected/confirmed myeloma or plasmacytoma (39%, 45/114 hospitals), followed by whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WBMRI) (27%, 31/114) and whole-body computed tomography (WBCT) (19%, 22/114). Integrated positron-emission tomography/CT (PET/CT) was first-line in 14% (16/114). The NICE recommended initial investigation, WBMRI, is currently offered in 27% of surveyed hospitals (<10% in 2017). Ongoing challenges to implementing WBMRI include scanner availability, financial constraints, reporting time, and radiologist training. CONCLUSION: Despite NICE recommendations regarding WBMRI in diagnosis/follow-up of myeloma, SS (poor sensitivity and specificity) remains the most commonly performed first-line test. Radiologists, haematologists, and patients should continue to emphasise the superiority and benefit of modern and more accurate imaging, such that they are prioritised in clinical service planning.

Implementation of Royal College of Radiologists Consensus Statements and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Guidance: Breast Radiotherapy Practice in the UK.

AIMS: Breast radiotherapy practice, driven by large randomised controls trials, is increasingly being risk adapted to the biology and stage of the cancer. The aim of this audit was to measure current breast radiotherapy practice in the UK against quality standards from the 2016 Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) consensus statements and the 2018 updated National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines. These guidelines include new recommendations for partial breast irradiation for women at lower risk of recurrence and internal mammary chain radiotherapy for those at higher risk. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Radiotherapy departments completed a questionnaire for all patients starting adjuvant radiotherapy for early breast cancer in a 2-week period mid-2019. RESULTS: Eighty-one per cent of centres returned data on 958 patients, including 18 bilateral cancers. Of 976 breast cancers, 23.9% were treated with mastectomy. The dose fractionation schedule for adjuvant radiotherapy was 40 Gy in 15 fractions in 95.7% of cases. Of the 743 cases treated with breast conservation, 29.9% received an additional tumour bed boost. The boost was given sequentially in 91.9% of cases and with eight different dose fractionation schedules. Of 494 left-sided breast cancer cases, 54% (n = 267) received radiotherapy in deep inspiratory breath hold. All centres except one had a deep inspiratory breath hold technique available. Only 12% of patients who met the RCR criteria for partial breast irradiation received it. Overall, 14.7% and 9.9% of patients meeting the RCR and NICE criteria for internal mammary chain radiotherapy, respectively, received it. CONCLUSIONS: Despite established consensus statements and NICE guidelines there persists variation in breast radiotherapy practice in the UK. The results of practice-changing trials showing the benefit of cardiac-sparing radiotherapy techniques, partial breast radiotherapy and internal mammary nodal radiotherapy have not been fully implemented. This audit highlights areas for targeted quality improvement and future consensus statements.

A national UK audit for diagnostic accuracy of preoperative CT chest in emergency and elective surgery during COVID-19 pandemic.

AIM: To report on a snap audit of all departments in the UK as to the value of preoperative thoracic imaging, preferably computed tomography (CT), of patients undergoing any surgery to assess for changes consistent with COVID-19 preoperatively. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All Imaging departments in the UK were contacted and asked to record the number of preoperative CT examinations performed in patients being considered for both emergency and elective surgical intervention over a 5-day period in May 2020. RESULTS: Forty-seven percent of departments replied with data provided on >820 patients. Nineteen percent of additional preoperative CT was in patients undergoing elective intervention and 81% in patients presenting with surgical abdominal pain. There was a high rate of false positives in patients who tested negative for COVID-19, producing a sensitivity for thoracic CT of 68.4%. CONCLUSION: This UK-wide audit demonstrates that a large number of additional thoracic imaging examinations over a 5-day period were performed with a low sensitivity for the identification of COVID-19 in this preoperative group of patients. Given these findings, it is difficult to justify this additional examination in this group of patients.

A national audit of radiology practice in cancer multidisciplinary team meetings.

AIM: A national audit reviewing compliance of imaging departments with the Royal College of Radiologist (RCR) standards for cancer multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The audit consisted of a generic and subspecialty component completed for breast, colorectal, and lung cancer MDTMs. RESULTS: The study achieved the highest response from a RCR national audit with 145/191 (76%) hospitals responding. Compliance with the RCR standards was suboptimal, particularly relating to MDTM attendance, documentation, and reviewing MDTM imaging. Comprehensive radiology MDTM attendance occurred in 52-65%, a supplementary report denoting staging/treatment plans happened in 15-26%, and late additions were discussed frequently without prior review of imaging (44-77%). Contributing factors maybe 13% of radiologists had no programmed activity for MDTMs in their job plan and a perceived negative impact of increasing MDTM referrals (51%). Adjuncts to improve MDTM workload, such as treatment pathways/algorithms (breast/colorectal 54%) and pro-forma (43-50%), were poorly implemented. Discrepancies with the original imaging report highlighted at MDTMs were well documented (92-94%) and frequently presented at discrepancy meetings (70-81%). Learning from involvement in MDTM was well communicated with 76-84% providing peer feedback. CONCLUSIONS: Radiologists are unable to comprehensively attain the RCR MDTM standards on providing and documenting a specialist opinion on the imaging. Increasing referrals to the MDTM appears the predominant factor and differentiating complex cases that benefit from MDTM discussion from those that can be managed via treatment pathways is required. Improved utilisation of pre-MDTMs/pro-forma and information technology in MDTMs may further aid radiologists to provide consistent high-quality contribution towards MDTMs.

UK national cohort of anal cancer treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy: One-year oncological and patient-reported outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is the standard treatment for anal cancer. Following national UK implementation of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), this prospective, national cohort evaluates the one-year oncological outcomes and patient-reported toxicity outcomes (PRO) after treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A national cohort of UK cancer centers implementing IMRT was carried out between February to July 2015. Cancer centers provided data on oncological outcomes, including survival, and disease and colostomy status at one-year. EORTC-QLQ core (C30) and colorectal (CR29) questionnaires were completed at baseline and one-year followup. The PRO scores at baseline and one year were compared. RESULTS: 40 UK Cancer Centers returned data with a total of 187 patients included in the analysis. 92% received mitomycin with 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine. One-year overall survival was 94%; 84% were disease-free and 86% colostomy-free at one-year followup. At one year, PRO results found significant improvements in buttock pain, blood and mucus in stools, pain, constipation, appetite loss, and health anxiety compared to baseline. No significant deteriorations were reported in diarrhea, bowel frequency, and flatulence. Urinary symptom scores were low at one year. Moderate impotence symptoms at baseline remained at one year, and a moderate deterioration in dyspareunia reported. CONCLUSIONS: With national anal cancer IMRT implementation, at this early pre-defined time point, one-year oncological outcomes were reassuring and resulted in good disease-related symptom control. one-year symptomatic complications following CRT for anal cancer using IMRT techniques appear to be relatively mild. These PRO results provide a basis to benchmark future studies.

Radiotherapy Management of Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer: Evaluation of a National Cohort.

AIMS: With the failure to improve outcomes of patients with bladder cancer over the last 30 years, this study was developed to benchmark contemporary UK radiotherapy practice for the management of muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) against published national guidance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All UK radiotherapy centres were invited to complete a questionnaire for each patient with MIBC starting bladder radiotherapy over a 16-week period from December 2016. RESULTS: Sixty-nine per cent (41/59) of UK radiotherapy centres completed a detailed questionnaire for 508 patients. The median age was 78 years and 64% (n = 323 patients) had stage II or III disease. Treatment intent was radical in 54% (n = 275). From transurethral resection of the bladder tumour, patients waited 57 days before starting neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) (interquartile range 46-72 days). Patients who had radical radiotherapy as their first definitive treatment waited a median of 82 days (interquartile range 62-105 days). NAC was considered in 66% (n = 182) of all radical cases and given in 43% (n = 119). Concurrent radiosensitisation (CRT) was considered for 53% (n = 146) and delivered in 40% (n = 109) of patients. The most common fractionation was 55 Gy/20 fractions/4 weeks in 49% (n = 134) for radical patients and 36 Gy/6 fractions/6 weeks in 25% (n = 57) for palliative patients. CONCLUSION: This is the largest multicentre prospective study to define contemporary management of MIBC in patients receiving radiotherapy within the UK. The population studied is the oldest described to date. Timelines to starting definitive treatment confirm an urgent need to streamline the pathway. An increasing use of NAC is described, although the penetrance of CRT is disappointingly low. Areas for improvement with regards to the delivery and quality of radiotherapy have been identified. The detail within this study can be used to inform practice and future trial design, ultimately with the aim of improving outcomes for patients with MIBC.

RCR audit of compliance with UK guidelines for the prevention and detection of acute kidney injury in adult patients undergoing iodinated contrast media injections for CT.

AIM: To determine radiology departmental compliance with current UK guidance on contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CI-AKI) and to provide data on the incidence of clinically significant post-contrast AKI (PC-AKI) in computed tomography (CT) practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to all UK acute National Health Service (NHS) providers (NHS boards in Scotland, local health boards in Wales, NHS trusts in England and health and social care trusts in Northern Ireland) to assess compliance of provider protocols with current UK guidelines for the prevention, recognition, and management of CI-AKI. Audit data were collected for 40 consecutive fit outpatients and 40 consecutive acutely unwell patients/inpatients from hospitals within each participating provider to assess clinical compliance. RESULTS: Eighty-nine of 172 (52%) health service providers responded, and data on 7,159 contrast-enhanced CT examinations were provided. Compliance with guidelines was poor with wide variation in clinical practice. The observed incidence of clinically significant (requiring treatment or resulting in death) PC-AKI was zero in 3,590 outpatients, although two patients developed AKI due to other causes (sepsis and progressive malignancy). Fourteen out of 3,569 (0.4%) patients in the inpatient group developed clinically significant PC-AKI, and a further 17 patients were identified who met the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) definition of AKI (Electronic Supplementary Material Appendix S1), but did not require active treatment, giving an overall incidence of AKI of 0.9%. In patients at high risk due to impaired renal function prior to the scan, there was no difference in the median serum creatinine (SCr) before and after contrast medium administration in either group. CONCLUSION: Health service provider protocols and clinical practice demonstrate poor compliance with current UK guidance on CI-AKI. A very low incidence of PC- AKI was demonstrated.

The effect of routine radiological reporting of thyroid incidentalomas on rates of thyroid needle biopsy, thyroid surgery and detection of thyroid malignancy.

OBJECTIVE: This study looked at the effect of a changing radiology reporting policy to routinely review the thyroid gland where visible and report on any thyroid lesion, recommending further investigation as appropriate. CONTEXT: Incidentaloma is a term used to describe a lesion found on imaging unrelated to the clinical issue under investigation. There is variability in the radiological reporting of thyroid incidentalomas and conflicting recommendations as to how these lesions should be managed. DESIGN: Data were collected retrospectively during a two-year period, including 12 months before and 12 months after the change in reporting policy and categorized according to whether the lesion under investigation was a thyroid incidentaloma or a symptomatic thyroid lesion. PATIENTS: All patients undergoing ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology or core biopsy were included. MEASUREMENTS: The effects of the change in policy were analysed including rates of needle biopsy, rates of malignancy and subsequent surgical intervention. RESULTS: There was a 122% increase in thyroid incidentalomas undergoing needle biopsy, the majority of these were detected on computed tomography. The number of malignancies increased from 1 to 4 from year 1 to year 2. All patients were >35 years old. One patient had a positron emission tomography (PET)-detected cancer, two of four of the non-PET-detected malignancies were <1.5 cm. CONCLUSION: This study posits that routine radiological reporting of thyroid incidentalomas, with further investigation when clinically appropriate, is warranted. The results suggest that lesion size and CT characteristics are not reliable criteria to triage patients for investigation/biopsy.

The Elderly are Less Likely to Receive Recommended Radical Radiotherapy for Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.

AIMS: The National Institute for Healthcare Excellence recommends continuous hyperfractionated, accelerated radiotherapy (CHART), concurrent chemoradiation (cCRT) and stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) for appropriate patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but these are not universally available in all UK radiotherapy centres. Reduced access to these treatments may be contributing to reduced survival, with the concern that elderly patients are less likely to receive guideline-recommended therapy (GRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We report a prospective, UK national study of patients treated with curative-intent radiotherapy for NSCLC over a 2 month period. Clinical oncologists in all UK radiotherapy centres were contacted and asked to complete a proforma on all patients treated with curative-intent radiotherapy. RESULTS: Three hundred and seventeen records were returned from 82% of centres. Only 49% (95% confidence interval 43-55%) of patients received the GRT for their tumour type. Patients aged 70 years or over were less likely to access GRT than those under 70 years (40% compared with 60%, P = 0.001), both as a result of clinicians offering therapy less frequently (52% compared with 65%, P = 0.03) and a higher refusal of therapy (22% versus 8%, P = 0.02). A reluctance to travel to a different centre was a key component of these decisions. SABR was delivered to only 52% of suitable patients, mainly because it was not available in the local centre. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of UK curative-intent radiotherapy practice, a lack of local access seems to limit uptake of advanced radiotherapy techniques such as SABR, especially for patients aged over 70 years.

Initial Results from the Royal College of Radiologists' UK National Audit of Anal Cancer Radiotherapy 2015.

AIMS: UK guidance was recently developed for the treatment of anal cancer using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). We audited the current use of radiotherapy in UK cancer centres for the treatment of anal cancer against such guidance. We describe the acute toxicity of IMRT in comparison with patient population in the audit treated with two-phase conformal radiotherapy and the previous published data from two-phase conformal radiotherapy, in the UK ACT2 trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Royal College of Radiologists' prospective national audit of patients treated with radiotherapy in UK cancer centres was carried out over a 6 month period between February and July 2015. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty-two cases were received from 40/56 cancer centres (71%). In total, 231 (95%) underwent full dose radiotherapy with prophylactic nodal irradiation. Of these, 180 (78%) received IMRT or equivalent, 52 (22%) two-phase conformal (ACT2) technique. The number of interruptions in radiotherapy treatment in the ACT2 trial was 15%. Interruptions were noted in 7% (95% confidence interval 0-14%) of courses receiving two-phase conformal and 4% (95% confidence interval 1-7%) of those receiving IMRT. The percentage of patients completing the planned radiotherapy dose, irrelevant of gaps, was 90% (95% confidence interval 82-98%) and 96% (95% confidence interval 93-99%), in two-phase conformal and IMRT respectively. The toxicity reported in the ACT2 trial, in patients receiving two-phase conformal in the audit and in patients receiving IMRT in the audit was: any toxic effect 71%, 54%, 48%, non-haematological 62%, 49%, 40% and haematological 26%, 13%, 18%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: IMRT implementation for anal cancer is well underway in the UK with most patients receiving IMRT delivery, although its usage is not yet universal. This audit confirms that IMRT results in reduced acute toxicity and minimised treatment interruptions in comparison with previous two-phase conformal techniques.

The Quality of Curative-intent Radiotherapy for Non-small Cell Lung Cancer in the UK.

AIMS: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the UK. The quality of curative-intent radiotherapy is associated with better outcomes. National quality standards from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) on patient work-up and treatment selection were used, with guidance from the Royal College of Radiologists on the technical delivery of radiotherapy, to assess the quality of curative-intent non-small cell lung cancer radiotherapy and to describe current UK practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Radiotherapy departments completed one questionnaire for each patient started on curative-intent radiotherapy for 8 weeks in 2013. RESULTS: Eighty-two per cent of centres returned a total of 317 proformas. Patient selection with positron emission tomography/computed tomography, performance status and Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 second (FEV1) was usually undertaken. Fifty-six per cent had pathological confirmation of mediastinal lymph nodes and 22% staging brain scans; 20% were treated with concurrent chemoradiation, 12% with Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy (SABR) and 8% with Continuous Hyperfractionated Accelerated Radiotherapy (CHART). Sixty-three per cent of patients received 55 Gy/20 fractions. Although respiratory compensation was routinely undertaken, only 33% used four-dimensional computed tomography. Seventy per cent of patients were verified with cone beam computed tomography. There was consistency of practice in dosimetric constraints for organs at risk and follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: This audit has described current UK practice. The latest recommendations for patient selection with pathological confirmation of mediastinal lymph nodes, brain staging and respiratory function testing are not universally followed. Although there is evidence of increasing use of newer techniques such as four-dimensional computed tomography and cone beam image-guided radiotherapy, there is still variability in access. Efforts should be made to improve access to modern technologies and quality assurance of radiotherapy plans.

The Royal College of Radiologists' audit of prostate brachytherapy in the year 2012.

AIMS: This audit provides a comprehensive overview of UK prostate brachytherapy practice in the year 2012, measured against existing standards, immediately before the introduction of new Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) guidelines. This audit allows comparison with European and North American brachytherapy practice and for the impact of the RCR 2012 guidelines to be assessed in the future. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A web-based data collection tool was developed by the RCR Clinical Audit Committee and sent to audit leads at all cancer centres in the UK. Standards were developed based on available guidelines in use at the start of 2012 covering case mix and dosimetry. Further questions were included to reflect areas of anticipated change with the implementation of the 2012 guidelines. Audit findings were compared with similar audits of practice in Europe, the USA and Latin America. RESULTS: Forty-nine of 59 cancer centres submitted data. Twenty-nine centres reported carrying out prostate brachytherapy; of these, 25 (86%) provided data regarding the number of implants, staffing, dosimetry, medication and anaesthesia and follow-up. Audit standards achieved excellent compliance in most areas, although were low in post-implant dosimetry and in post-implant scanning at 30 days. CONCLUSION: This audit provides a comprehensive picture of prostate brachytherapy in the UK in 2012. Patterns of care of prostate brachytherapy are similar to practice in the USA and Europe. The number of prostate brachytherapy implants carried out in the UK has grown significantly since a previous RCR audit in 2005 and it is important that centres maintain minimum numbers of cases to ensure that experience can be maintained and compliance to guidelines achieved.

National audit of appropriate imaging.

AIMS: To audit the availability of imaging referral guidelines; vetting by radiologists of GP-initiated CT and MRI requests; and the achievement of appropriate imaging using retrospective assessment as a surrogate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A web-based questionnaire was distributed to imaging departments in the UK seeking awareness of guideline availability; the percentage of consecutive general practitioner (GP)-requested computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) investigations that showed evidence of vetting; and the percentage of procedures where retrospective assessment showed the investigation to be appropriate according to imaging referral guidelines. RESULTS: Replies were received from 88 departments covering 1700 of 2700 (63%) consultant radiologists practising in the UK. Regarding the availability of guidelines, approximately a third of respondents were not aware of guidelines being available to all radiologists and radiographers. The 68% level of availability (58/88 departments) is well below the standard of 100%. In keeping with the target of 95%, vetting of CT requests was shown in 1815/1890 (96%) and MRI in 1181/1250 (95%). Appropriateness of CT examinations was shown in 1746/1870 (93%) and MRI in 1154/1215 (95%), well above the target of 90%. The most common reason for an inappropriate investigation for both MRI and CT was the inability to affect patient management. CONCLUSIONS: Although awareness of referral guidelines availability was limited at 68%, well below the 100% standard, the meticulous vetting of requests (shown in 95-96%) with the amendment or return of inappropriate requests (9-12%) enables a high level of appropriate imaging (93-95%) for GP-requested CT and MRI, thus making the best use of clinical radiology.