A Randomized Trial Comparing Quality of Life After Low-Dose Rate or High-Dose Rate Prostate Brachytherapy Boost With Pelvic External Beam Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: To compare health-related quality of life (QoL) in urinary, bowel, and sexual domains after combined external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and either low-dose rate (LDR) or high-dose rate (HDR) prostate brachytherapy (BT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eligible men with intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer treated with combined pelvic EBRT and BT were randomly assigned to either HDR (15 Gy) or LDR (110 Gy) boost. International Prostate Symptom Score, Index of Erectile Function, and Expanded Prostate Cancer Composite were collected at baseline, 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, every 6 months to 3 years and then annually along with prostate-specific antigen/testosterone. Fisher's exact test compared categorical variables and the Mann-Whitney U test Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) domain scores. RESULTS: From January 2014 to December 2019, a random number generator assigned 195 men: 108 to HDR and 87 to LDR. Median age was 71 years. Risk group was high in 57% and unfavorable intermediate in 43%. Androgen deprivation (used in 74%) began with 3 months neoadjuvant and continued for median 12 months. Baseline EPIC scores were similar for the LDR/HDR cohorts: 89 and 88 respectively for Genito-urinary; 92 and 93 for Gastro-intestinal. EPIC urinary scores decreased at 1 month for HDR but recovered promptly to a steady state by 6 months. LDR scores reached a nadir at 3 months with slow recovery to 18 months, after which urinary QoL was similar for HDR and LDR. Bowel QOL scores fell in both cohorts reaching respective nadirs at 12 months. HDR patients recovered close to baseline and maintained higher scores than LDR patients to 5 years. The decline for LDR patients remained more than the minimum clinically important difference out to 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: The patient experience for combined EBRT and prostate BT is improved with HDR BT. Urinary QoL improves over time to be equivalent between the 2 modalities after 18 months, but LDR patients report lasting bowel symptoms.

Is Ultrahypofractionated Whole Pelvis Radiation Therapy (WPRT) as Well Tolerated as Conventionally Fractionated WPRT in Patients With Prostate Cancer? Early Results From the HOPE Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this work was to evaluate the acute toxicity and quality-of-life (QOL) impact of ultrahypofractionated whole pelvis radiation therapy (WPRT) compared with conventional WPRT fractionation after high-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy (HDR-BT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: The HOPE trial is a phase 2, multi-institutional randomized controlled trial of men with prostate-confined disease and National Comprehensive Cancer Network unfavorable intermediate-, high-, or very-high-risk prostate cancer. Patients were randomly assigned to receive conventionally fractionated WPRT (standard arm) or ultrahypofractionated WPRT (experimental arm) in a 1:1 ratio. All patients underwent radiation therapy with 15 Gy HDR-BT boost in a single fraction followed by WPRT delivered with conventional fractionation (45 Gy in 25 daily fractions or 46 Gy in 23 fractions) or ultrahypofractionation (25 Gy in 5 fractions delivered on alternate days). Acute toxicities measured during radiation therapy and at 6 weeks posttreatment were assessed using the clinician-reported Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0, and QOL was measured using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-50) and International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS). RESULTS: A total of 80 patients were enrolled and treated across 3 Canadian institutions, of whom 39 and 41 patients received external radiation therapy with conventionally fractionated and ultrahypofractionated WPRT, respectively. All patients received androgen deprivation therapy except for 2 patients treated in the ultrahypofractionated arm. The baseline clinical characteristics of the 2 arms were similar, with 51 (63.8%) patients having high or very-high-risk prostate cancer disease. Treatment was well tolerated with no significant differences in the rate of acute adverse events between arms. No grade 4 adverse events or treatment-related deaths were reported. Ultrahypofractionated WPRT had a less detrimental impact on the EPIC-50 bowel total, function, and bother domain scores compared with conventional WPRT in the acute setting. By contrast, more patients treated with ultrahypofractionated WPRT reached the minimum clinical important difference on the EPIC-50 urinary domains. No significant QOL differences between arms were noted in the sexual and hormonal domains. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrahypofractionated WPRT after HDR-BT is a well-tolerated treatment strategy in the acute setting that has less detrimental impact on bowel QOL domains compared with conventional WPRT.

Supply and Demand for Radiation Oncologists in Canada: Workforce Planning Projections From 2020 to 2040.

PURPOSE: The number of Canadians diagnosed with cancer, and subsequent demand for radiation therapy, are expected to increase over time. This study aimed to update our needs-based workforce planning model to ensure appropriate staffing levels in the future. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The supply of radiation oncologists, by age group, sex, and full-time equivalent status, was projected from 2020 to 2040 using a recursive-aging, input-output model developed with seeding parameters derived from national sources. The demand for radiation oncologists until 2040 was estimated using referral patterns for radiation therapy and consultation workload metrics applied to projected annual cancer incident cases to calculate required full-time equivalent positions. Baseline model parameters were also applied to the 2005-2019 workforce and incident case data to evaluate preprojection supply and demand trends. RESULTS: Preprojection trends for 2005 to 2019 revealed accelerated staffing growth that transitioned from a workforce shortage to a surplus state in 2014 followed by substantial growth slowdown in 2016. The model predicts a transient surplus of radiation oncologists until 2026 followed by a projected deficit in subsequent years. Sensitivity analyses using the plausible range for each parameter continued to favor an undersupply, suggesting a trainee shortage unable to meet workforce expansion needs. Considering possible future declining trends in radiotherapy utilization and workload, calculations to inform corrective efforts in resident numbers resulted in 25 entry positions per year, up from 21 per year currently. Geographic distribution of trainees, relative to workforce and cancer incidence distributions, could be improved with more residency positions in Canadian regions outside Ontario. CONCLUSIONS: Demand for radiation therapy and radiation oncologists in Canada are expected to grow more quickly than future expansion in staffing levels. Our workforce planning model provides evidence for more trainee requirements to inform stakeholders of possible corrective actions to training programs and recruitment. Further research is needed to explore additional strategies to expand capacity and high-quality delivery of radiation therapy to meet the foreseeable increase in Canadian patients with cancer.

An Updated Analysis of the Survival Endpoints of ASCENDE-RT.

PURPOSE: Using the primary endpoint of time to biochemical progression (TTP), Androgen Suppression Combined with Elective Nodal and Dose Escalated Radiation Therapy (ASCENDE-RT) randomized National Comprehensive Cancer Network patients with intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer to low-dose-rate brachytherapy boost (LDR-PB) or dose-escalated external beam boost (DE-EBRT). Randomization to the LDR-PB arm resulted in a 2-fold reduction in biochemical progression compared with the DE-EBRT group at a median follow-up of 6.5 years (P < .001). Herein, the primary endpoint and secondary survival endpoints of the ASCENDE-RT trial are updated at a 10-year median follow-up. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to either the LDR-PB or the DE-EBRT arm (1:1). All patients received 1 year of androgen deprivation therapy and 46 Gy in 23 fractions of pelvic RT. Patients in the DE-EBRT arm received an additional 32 Gy in 16 fractions, and those in the LDR-PB arm received an 125I implant prescribed to a minimum peripheral dose of 115 Gy. Two hundred patients were randomized to the DE-EBRT arm and 198 to the LDR-PB arm. RESULTS: The 10-year Kaplan-Meier TTP estimate was 85% ± 5% for LDR-PB compared with 67% ± 7% for DE-EBRT (log rank P < .001). Ten-year time to distant metastasis (DM) was 88% ± 5% for the LDR-PB arm and 86% ± 6% for the DE-EBRT arm (P = .56). There were 117 (29%) deaths. Ten-year overall survival (OS) estimates were 80% ± 6% for the LDR-PB arm and 75% ± 7% for the DE-EBRT arm (P = .51). There were 30 (8%) patients who died of prostate cancer: 12 (6%) in the LDR-PB arm, including 2 treatment-related deaths, and 18 (9%) in the DE-EBRT arm. CONCLUSIONS: Men randomized to the LDR-PB boost arm of the ASCENDE-RT trial continue to experience a large advantage in TTP compared with those randomized to the DE-EBRT arm. ASCENDE-RT was not powered to detect differences in its secondary survival endpoints (OS, DM, and time to prostate cancer-specific death) and none are apparent.

Cancer Patients' Experiences with Telehealth before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic in British Columbia.

BACKGROUND: Patients have had their cancer care either postponed or changed to telehealth visits to reduce exposure to COVID-19. However, it is unclear how these changes may have affected their experiences. We aim to identify patient characteristics that affect telehealth experiences and evaluate their preferences for using telehealth in the future. METHODS: Patients who completed the Outpatient Cancer Care (OCC) Patient Experience Survey were invited to participate. They comepleted the modified OCC Survey, which focused on telehealth during the pandemic. Linear and logistic regression analyses were used to identify patient characteristics that influenced telehealth experiences and preferences for future telehealth use. RESULTS: Perceived ease of participation in telehealth is a significant predictor of the change in patients' ratings of their telehealth experience. We found that cancer patients had lower preferences for using telehealth in the future if they were older, female, or non-white; resided in an urban area; had no previous telehealth experience; had lower education; and had poorer mental health. CONCLUSIONS: To optimize cancer care and improve equitable access to high-quality telehealth care during the pandemic and beyond, clinicians and policymakers will need to consider patients' self-reported experiences and their personal characteristics.

After ASCENDE-RT: Biochemical and survival outcomes following combined external beam radiotherapy and low-dose-rate brachytherapy for high-risk and unfavourable intermediate-risk prostate cancer, a population-based analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the outcomes of unfavorable intermediate-risk (UIR) and high-risk (HR) prostate cancer patients treated with combined external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy (LDR-PB). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A population-based cohort of 568 prostate cancer patients treated with combined EBRT and LDR-PB from 2010 to 2016 was analyzed. All patients received EBRT followed by LDR-PB boost. Outcomes were compared with the results for the brachytherapy arm of the ASCENDE-RT trial. RESULTS: The median followup was 4.5 years. Sixty-nine percent (N = 391) had HR disease. Ninety-four percent of the HR and 57% of UIR were treated with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with a median duration of 12 months. The 5-year K-M biochemical progression-free survival (b-PFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), and overall survival (OS) were 84 ± 2%, 90 ± 2%, and 88 ± 2%, similar to 89 ± 5%, 94 ± 4%, and 92 ± 4% for the ASCENDE-RT LDR-PB arm. The likelihood of achieving a PSA ≤0.2 ng/mL at 4 years was 88%, similar to 86% in the ASCENDE-RT LDR-PB arm. Thirty-three men (5.8%) would have been ineligible for ASCENDE-RT due to high-risk features. The 5-year K-M b-PFS, MFS and OS estimates were 86 ± 2%, 92 ± 1% and 89 ± 2% for the ASCENDE-RT eligible versus 56 ± 10% (p < 0.001), 73 ± 8% (p < 0.001), and 77 ± 9% (p = 0.098) for the ineligible patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based cohort, combining LDR-PB with pelvic EBRT (+/- ADT) achieves very favorable b-PFS that compares to the LDR-PB arm of the ASCENDE-RT, supporting the generalizability of those results. Men ineligible for ASCENDE-RT, based on prognostic features, have a much higher risk of biochemical recurrence and metastatic relapse.

Employment Outcomes for Canadian Radiation Oncology Graduates: 2020 Assessment and Longitudinal Trends.

Purpose: Canadian radiation oncology (RO) trainees have experienced employment challenges after residency training. The present study was conducted to evaluate current employment trends and perform comparisons to prior reported assessments. Methods and Materials: A survey was administered to all 13 Canadian RO program directors requesting the employment status and location of their graduates during the past 3 years, and their perceptions on graduates' employment challenges. Visa trainees were excluded. Findings were compared with surveys performed in 2014, 2016, and 2018. Results: The response rate from RO program directors was 100%. There were 77 graduates identified who completed their residency training between 2017 and 2020. All had known employment status and location. Two (17%) 2020 graduates, 16 (84%) 2019 graduates, 17 (81%) 2018 graduates, and 24 (100%) 2017 graduates had staff employment. Of the 59 graduates with staff positions, 86% were in Canada. Some graduates (28%) obtained staff or locum employment in a province other than their training program. The proportion of graduates obtaining staff positions 1 year after residency increased to 84% from 46%-48% in prior assessments. Most program directors (62%) did not perceive any difficulties with their graduates finding staff employment or trainees transferring to training programs in other disciplines owing to perceived workforce challenges. Conclusions: Compared with 3 prior employment outcome assessments, this study observed a higher proportion of graduates with staff positions in Canada, fewer total graduates, fewer graduates seeking staff employment or in fellowship positions, and a trend for fewer graduates seeking employment or fellowships abroad. These findings support the view that the Canadian RO job market continues to improve. Although employment challenges for newly certified, Canadian-trained radiation oncologists still exist, national corrective measures to regulate resident intake in 2011 appear to have had a positive effect on the employment outcomes of recent Canadian RO graduates.

Patient Engagement: an Assessment of Canadian Radiotherapy Programs' Current Practices, Perceived Barriers, and Facilitators.

Patient engagement and education have been mandated across Canadian radiation oncology programs (ROP). Guidance documents include the 2014 Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology (CARO) Radiation Therapy Patient Charter, the 2016 Canadian Partnership for Quality Radiotherapy (CPQR) Patient Engagement Guidelines (PEG) for Canadian Radiation Treatment Programs, and Accreditation Canada's 2017 refresh of Cancer Care Standards. Since little is known regarding uptake of these guidance statements, Canadian ROP were surveyed to assess current patient engagement and education practices. An e-survey was sent to Canadian ROP (n = 44). The survey focused on awareness and uptake of the CARO Patient Charter, CPQR PEG, and patient education practices. Survey development was guided by these documents and expert consensus, including CARO's Quality and Standards Patient Education/Engagement working group. Many (71%) responding ROP were familiar with the CARO Patient Charter, while 24% reported use. More than half (53%) of ROP were aware of the CPQR PEG, but approximately third (37%) had previously completed a self-audit. Most (88%) ROP view a pan-Canadian, evidence-based approach to educational materials beneficial and feasible (80%), with the majority (89%) willing to share their best practices across the radiotherapy community. Patient engagement and education are nationally mandated and supported by guidance documents. However, gaps have been identified across ROP for awareness and use of available tools, as well as uptake of their processes critical to quality of care. Understanding current practices will inform CPQR/CARO-supported pan-Canadian initiatives to optimize uptake, including development of CPQR Patient Education Guidance for Canadian Radiation Treatment Programs.

Mapping the Current State of Canadian Medical School Oncology Interest Groups.

Cancer is the leading cause of mortality in Canada. Undergraduate medical education therefore must ensure adequate oncology education for all physicians and inspire some to make oncology their career specialty, in an effort to ensure public care needs are met in the future. Medical student-led oncology interest groups (OIGs) are a subset of specialty interest groups that supplement formal didactic and clinical learning to increase exposure to oncology and access to mentors. We conducted a survey of OIG leaders to ascertain their goals, activities, barriers, future directions, and perceptions about employment prospects. OIG leaders from 12/17 Canadian medical schools responded. Medical oncology was the most represented specialty in OIGs. Half of OIGs had faculty mentors. Self-reported goals were to increase exposure to oncology disciplines (n = 12), assist students with career selection (n = 11) and finding mentors (n = 7), and enhance oncology education (n = 10). OIGs held on average 5 events per year (range 1-12). Reported barriers were finding time to plan events, declining student interest over academic year, and limited funding. Many OIGs showed interest in more standardized resources about oncology disciplines (n = 9), access to presentations (n = 10), more funding (n = 7), and collaboration (n = 7). Employment in many oncology specialties was perceived poorly, and the most important career selection considerations were ease of employment, practice location, and partner/family preference. Our survey highlights common goals, barriers, and perceptions in OIG medical student leaders across Canada and provides guidance for future interventions.

National Trends and Dynamic Responses in the Canadian Radiation Oncology Workforce From 1990 to 2018.

PURPOSE: To report radiation oncology (RO) workforce and cancer incidence trends in Canada and explore the relationship between the two. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Canadian radiation oncologist, trainee, and cancer incidence data from 1990 to 2018 were collected from the following publicly accessible administrative and health information databases: Canadian Post-MD Education Registry (1990-2018), Canadian Medical Association Physician Data Centre (1994-2018), Canadian Institute for Health Information/Scott's Medical Database (1990-2017), Canadian Cancer Registry (1990-2017), and Statistics Canada (1990-2017). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. RESULTS: The Canadian RO workforce grew from 240 radiation oncologists in 1990 to 567 in 2018, with the largest growth period from 2005 to 2015 adding 207 radiation oncologists. Regional analyses revealed steady or stepwise growth in all Canadian regions, except in Québec, where the number of radiation oncologists decreased from 86 in 1990 to 57 in 2003 before rising to 139 by 2018. Trainee totals were between 54 and 173 per year with 2 periods of growth (1990-1996 and 2001-2008) and regression (1996-2001 and 2008-2018), signifying trainee supply variability. Female proportions of the workforce and trainees, respectively, rose steadily from 18% to 38% and 28% to 50%, while the workforce proportion with non-Canadian medical degrees decreased from 40% to 26%. Radiation oncologists younger than 40 years increased from 70 to 171, whereas those age 60 years and older decreased from 85 in 1990 to 31 in 2002 and then increased to 108 in 2017. Annual cancer incidence rose steadily from 103,780 to 206,290 cases/year. The annual cancer incidence-to-provider ratio fluctuated (364-475:1) and trended lower with time, and proportional cancer incidence-to-provider ratios varied between 0.7:1 and 1.6:1 in Canada's regions before approaching 1:1. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates the challenges and successes of managing the Canadian radiation oncologist workforce. These data will inform policy makers and other stakeholders to ensure that the profession meets the current and future needs of Canadian cancer patients.

Taking Stock: The Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology 2017 Radiation Oncologist Workforce Study.

PURPOSE: To identify and report radiation oncologist (RO) workforce demographics, clinical workload trends, and equipment inventory in Canada. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology (CARO) distributed an online survey to RO administrative leaders at 47 Canadian cancer centers providing radiation therapy services from June to December 2017. The survey queried RO staff demographics, clinical workload, and equipment inventory from 2014 to 2016. RESULTS: The response rate was 98% and represented 46 of 47 centers for analysis. In 2016, 510 ROs were in practice, with 98 ROs (19.2%) having <1.0 full-time equivalent (FTE) clinical work activities because of administration, research, or part-time employment. Most ROs worked full-time (92.0%), were affiliated with a university (77.5%), and worked in communities with a population >200,000 (84.9%). Approximately half (52.3%) were ≥46 years old. The male-to female ratio was 1.5:1 or higher in all regions of Canada except for Quebec, where there was no gender gap. Part-time employment was more common among female ROs (P < .01). Although FTE staff levels rose steadily between 2014 (456.3) and 2016 (475.8), an increase in patient workload resulted in a rise in the average annual consults per FTE-RO (from 257 to 267). Over a 2-year period, there were 63.5 FTE-recruitments and 44.0 FTE-departures (18.3 FTE-retirements; 25.7 FTE-migration) for a net gain of 19.5 RO-FTEs. An 8.4% increase in FTE staffing to 516 RO-FTEs in 2019 is anticipated, with 22 ROs expected to retire by 2019. There were 251 megavoltage linear accelerators across Canada, with most (39.8%) located in Ontario. Approximately one-fifth (20.7%) of these were older than 10 years and operating beyond the equipment's recommended life span. CONCLUSIONS: The Canadian RO workforce demonstrated incremental growth, but rising annual caseloads suggest that radiation therapy demand outpaced RO supply gains. Government funding is required to replace aging equipment in Canada.

Programmatic Comparison and Dissemination of an Audit of Single-fraction Radiation Therapy Prescribing Practices for Bone Metastases is Associated with a Meaningful and Lasting Change in Practice on a Population Level.

PURPOSE: There is ample evidence that single-fraction radiation therapy (SFRT) is as efficacious as more costly and morbid multifraction regimens. We previously demonstrated that an audit-based intervention increased the use of SFRT in all regional cancer centers the following year. However, other investigators have demonstrated that interventions were only associated with a transient 1-year change in prescribing practices. We sought to determine whether our intervention resulted in a more lasting impact. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In 2012, we performed an audit of the prescribing practices of individual physicians, which was then presented to leaders and oncologists as an intervention to increase SFRT. We compared the use of SFRT between 2007 to 2011 (preintervention) and 2013 to 2016 (postintervention) in all 31,192 patients treated in our provincial program. RESULTS: The use of SFRT increased from 49.2% to 58.9% postintervention (P < .001). Rates from 2007 to 2011 were 51%, 51%, 48%, 49%, and 48%, respectively, whereas the postintervention rates from 2013 to 2016 were 60%, 62%, 59%, and 56%, respectively. Postintervention, half of the centers prescribed SFRT in a relatively narrow range (55%-58%). However, across all centers, there was still a broad range, with the lowest and highest users at 35% and 81%, respectively, although the lowest-using center still showed a significant increase (26% to 35%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Our audit and education-based intervention resulted in a lasting and meaningful 10% change in practice. Our provincial rate is similar to that of a previously recommended benchmark rate of 60%, but we continue to see significant variation by center, suggesting further room for improvement in provincial standardization. With emerging evidence in support of ablative radiation therapy for select populations of patients with bone metastases, future benchmark rates of SFRT should be readdressed. However, our data suggest that programmatic comparison and dissemination of SFRT prescribing practices can achieve a population-based SFRT utilization rate near 60%.

Provincial development of a patient-reported outcome initiative to guide patient care, quality improvement, and research.

The BC Cancer Agency Radiotherapy (RT) program started the Prospective Outcomes and Support Initiative (POSI) at all six centres to utilize patient-reported outcomes for immediate clinical care, quality improvement, and research. Patient-reported outcomes were collected at time of computed tomography simulation via tablet and 2 to 4 weeks post-RT via either tablet or over the phone by a registered nurse. From 2013 to 2016, patients were approached on 20,150 attempts by POSI for patients treated with RT for bone metastases (52%), brain metastases (11%), lung cancer (17%), gynecological cancer (16%), head and neck cancer (2%), and other pilots (2%). The accrual rate for all encounters was 85% (n = 17,101), with the accrual rate varying between the lowest and the highest accruing centre from 78% to 89% ( P < .001) and varying by tumour site ( P < .001). Using the POSI database, we have performed research and quality improvement initiatives that have changed practice.

ASCENDE-RT: An Analysis of Treatment-Related Morbidity for a Randomized Trial Comparing a Low-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy Boost with a Dose-Escalated External Beam Boost for High- and Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: To report the genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) morbidity and erectile dysfunction in a randomized trial comparing 2 methods of dose escalation for high- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: ASCENDE-RT (Androgen Suppression Combined with Elective Nodal and Dose Escalated Radiation Therapy) enrolled 398 men, median age 68 years, who were then randomized to either a standard arm that included 12 months of androgen deprivation therapy and pelvic irradiation to 46 Gy followed by a dose-escalated external beam radiation therapy (DE-EBRT) boost to 78 Gy, or an experimental arm that substituted a low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy (LDR-PB) boost. At clinic visits, investigators recorded GU and GI morbidity and information on urinary continence, catheter use, and erectile function. Exclusion of 15 who received nonprotocol treatment and correction of 14 crossover events left 195 men who actually received a DE-EBRT boost and 188, an LDR-PB boost. Median follow-up was 6.5 years. RESULTS: The LDR-PB boost increased the risk of needing temporary catheterization and/or requiring incontinence pads. At 5 years the cumulative incidence of grade 3 GU events was 18.4% for LDR-PB, versus 5.2% for DE-EBRT (P<.001). Compared with the cumulative incidence, the 5-year prevalence of grade 3 GU morbidity was substantially lower for both arms (8.6% vs 2.2%, P=.058). The 5-year cumulative incidence of grade 3 GI events was 8.1% for LDR-PB, versus 3.2% for DE-EBRT (P=.124). The 5-year prevalence of grade 3 GI toxicity was lower than the cumulative incidence for both arms (1.0% vs 2.2%, respectively). Among men reporting adequate baseline erections, 45% of LDR-PB patients reported similar erectile function at 5 years, versus 37% after DE-EBRT (P=.30). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of acute and late GU morbidity was higher after LDR-PB boost, and there was a nonsignificant trend for worse GI morbidity. No differences in the frequency of erectile dysfunction were observed.

Androgen Suppression Combined with Elective Nodal and Dose Escalated Radiation Therapy (the ASCENDE-RT Trial): An Analysis of Survival Endpoints for a Randomized Trial Comparing a Low-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy Boost to a Dose-Escalated External Beam Boost for High- and Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: To report the primary endpoint of biochemical progression-free survival (b-PFS) and secondary survival endpoints from ASCENDE-RT, a randomized trial comparing 2 methods of dose escalation for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: ASCENDE-RT enrolled 398 men, with a median age of 68 years; 69% (n=276) had high-risk disease. After stratification by risk group, the subjects were randomized to a standard arm with 12 months of androgen deprivation therapy, pelvic irradiation to 46 Gy, followed by a dose-escalated external beam radiation therapy (DE-EBRT) boost to 78 Gy, or an experimental arm that substituted a low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy (LDR-PB) boost. Of the 398 trial subjects, 200 were assigned to DE-EBRT boost and 198 to LDR-PB boost. The median follow-up was 6.5 years. RESULTS: In an intent-to-treat analysis, men randomized to DE-EBRT were twice as likely to experience biochemical failure (multivariable analysis [MVA] hazard ratio [HR] 2.04; P=.004). The 5-, 7-, and 9-year Kaplan-Meier b-PFS estimates were 89%, 86%, and 83% for the LDR-PB boost versus 84%, 75%, and 62% for the DE-EBRT boost (log-rank P<.001). The LDR-PB boost benefited both intermediate- and high-risk patients. Because the b-PFS curves for the treatment arms diverge sharply after 4 years, the relative advantage of the LDR-PB should increase with longer follow-up. On MVA, the only variables correlated with reduced overall survival were age (MVA HR 1.06/y; P=.004) and biochemical failure (MVA HR 6.30; P<.001). Although biochemical failure was associated with increased mortality and randomization to DE-EBRT doubled the rate of biochemical failure, no significant overall survival difference was observed between the treatment arms (MVA HR 1.13; P=.62). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with 78 Gy EBRT, men randomized to the LDR-PB boost were twice as likely to be free of biochemical failure at a median follow-up of 6.5 years.

Comparison of patient-reported outcomes with single versus multiple fraction palliative radiotherapy for bone metastasis in a population-based cohort.

BACKGROUND: Despite randomized control trials showing equivalent efficacy between single-fraction (SF) and multiple-fraction (MF) radiation therapy (RT) for bone metastases (BoM), considerable variation in fractionation exists. We compared patient-reported outcomes (PROs) following SF versus MF RT in a population-based cohort. METHODS: PROs were chosen to assess patients' perception of pain, function, and symptom frustration. Total score was the sum of the 3 questions. RESULTS: 968 patients completed pre and post-RT PROs, 35% (335) had complicated BoM. Overall, there were no differences in total score improvement (79% vs. 83%; p=0.13), nor for complicated BoM (77% vs. 84%; p=0.12), SFRT and MFRT respectively. On multivariate analysis no differences in improvement in total score were observed between SFRT and MFRT overall (OR=0.71; 95% CI 0.49-1.02; p=0.06), nor for complicated BoM (OR=0.74; 95% CI 0.39-1.39; p=0.35). In the complicated BoM subset, pain complete response (CR) (19% vs. 33%; p=0.01) and functional improvement occurred more commonly in the MFRT group (69% vs. 81%; p=0.04). CONCLUSION: Improvements in PROs for pain, function and symptom frustration were similar between SFRT and MFRT supporting the use of hypofractionated regimens. Using a simple, 3-question, telephone-based questionnaire to assess response to palliative RT is a feasible strategy to collect PROs.

Impact of Using Audit Data to Improve the Evidence-Based Use of Single-Fraction Radiation Therapy for Bone Metastases in British Columbia.

PURPOSE: To assess the impact of a population-based intervention to increase the consistency and use of single-fraction radiation therapy (SFRT) for bone metastases. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In 2012, an audit of radiation therapy prescriptions for bone metastases in British Columbia identified significant interphysician and -center (26%-73%) variation in the use of SFRT. Anonymous physician-level and identifiable regional cancer center SFRT use data were presented to all radiation oncologists, together with published guidelines, meta-analyses, and recommendations from practice leaders. The use of SFRT for bone metastases from 2007 through 2011 was compared with use of SFRT in 2013, to assess the impact of the audit and educational intervention. Multilevel logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between the usage of SFRT and the timing of the radiation while controlling for potentially confounding variables. Physician and center were included as group effects to account for the clustered structure of the data. RESULTS: A total of 16,898 courses of RT were delivered from 2007 through 2011, and 3200 courses were delivered in 2013. The rates of SFRT use in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2013 were 50.5%, 50.9%, 48.3%, 48.5%, 48.0%, and 59.7%, respectively (P<.001). Use of SFRT increased in each of 5 regional centers: A: 26% to 32%; B: 36% to 56%; C: 39% to 57%; D: 49% to 56%; and E: 73% to 85.0%. Use of SFRT was more consistent; 3 of 5 centers used SFRT for 56% to 57% of bone metastases RT courses. The regression analysis showed strong evidence that the usage of SFRT increased after the 2012 intervention (odds ratio 2.27, 95% confidence interval 2.06-2.50, P<.0001). CONCLUSION: Assessed on a population basis, an audit-based intervention increased utilization of SFRT for bone metastases. The intervention reversed a trend to decreasing SFRT use, reduced costs, and improved patient convenience. This suggests that dissemination of programmatic quality indicators in oncology can lead to increased utilization of evidence-based practice.

Wait Times Experienced by Lung Cancer Patients in the BC Southern Interior to Obtain Oncologic Care: Exploration of the Intervals from First Abnormal Imaging to Oncologic Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is associated with rapid disease progression, which can significantly progress over a duration of four to eight weeks. This study examines the time interval lung cancer patients from the interior of British Columbia (BC) experience while undergoing diagnostic evaluation, biopsy, staging, and preparation for treatment. METHODS: A chart review of lung cancer patients (n=231) referred to the BC Cancer Agency Centre for the Southern Interior between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2011 was performed. Time zero was defined as the date of the first abnormal chest imaging. Time intervals, expressed as median averages, to specialist consult, biopsy, oncologic referral, initial oncology consultation, and commencement of oncologic treatment were obtained. RESULTS: The median time interval from first abnormal chest imaging to a specialist consultation was 18 days (interquartile range, IQR, 7-36). An additional nine days elapsed prior to biopsy in the form of bronchoscopy, CT-guided biopsy, or sputum cytology (median; IQR, 3-21); if lobectomy was required, 18 days elapsed (median; IQR, 9-28). Eight days were required for pathologic diagnosis and subsequent referral to the cancer centre (median; IQR, 3-16.5). Once referral was received, 10 days elapsed prior to consultation with either a medical or radiation oncologist (median, IQR 5-18). Finally, eight days was required for initiation of radiation and/or chemotherapy (median; IQR, 1-15). The median wait time from detection of lung cancer on imaging to oncologic treatment in the form of radiation and/or chemotherapy was 65.5 days (IQR, 41.5-104.3).  INTERPRETATION: Patients in the BC Southern Interior experience considerable delays in accessing lung cancer care. During this time, the disease has the potential to significantly progress and it is possible that a subset of patients may lose their opportunity for curative intent treatment.