Palliation or Prolongation? The Impact of a Peer-Review Intervention on Shortening Radiotherapy Schedules for Bone Metastases.

PURPOSE: Shorter fractionation radiation regimens for palliation of bone metastases result in lower financial and social costs for patients and their caregivers and have similar efficacy as longer fractionation schedules, although practice patterns in the United States show poor adoption. We investigated whether prospective peer review can increase use of shorter fractionation schedules. METHODS: In June 2016, our practice mandated peer review of total dose and fractionation for all patients receiving palliative treatment during our weekly chart rounds. We used descriptive statistics and Fisher's exact test to compare lengths of treatment of uncomplicated bone metastases before and after implementation of the peer review process. RESULTS: Between July 2015 and December 2016, a total of 242 palliative treatment courses were delivered, including 105 courses before the peer review intervention and 137 after the intervention. We observed greater adoption of shorter fractionation regimens after the intervention. The use of 8 Gy in one fraction increased from 2.8% to 13.9% of cases postadoption. Likewise, the use of 20 Gy in five fractions increased from 25.7% to 32.8%. The use of 30 Gy in 10 fractions decreased from 55.2% to 47.4% ( P = .002), and the use of ≥ 11 fractions decreased from 16.2% before the intervention to 5.8% after ( P = .006). CONCLUSION: Prospective peer review of palliative regimens for bone metastases can lead to greater adoption of shorter palliative fractionation schedules in daily practice, in accordance with national guidelines. This simple intervention may therefore benefit patients and their caregivers as well as provide value to the health care system.

Provider variability in intensity modulated radiation therapy utilization among Medicare beneficiaries in the United States.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we sought to examine the variation in intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) use among radiation oncology providers. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The Medicare Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File was queried for radiation oncologists practicing during 2014. Healthcare Common Procedural Coding System code 77301 was designated as IMRT planning with metrics including number of total IMRT plans, rate of IMRT utilization, and number of IMRT plans per distinct beneficiary. RESULTS: Of 2759 radiation oncologists, the median number of total IMRT plans was 26 (mean, 33.4; standard deviation, 26.2; range, 11-321) with a median IMRT utilization rate of 36% (mean, 43%; standard deviation, 25%; range, 4% to 100%) and a median number of IMRT plans per beneficiary of 1.02 (mean, 1.07; range, 1.00-3.73). On multivariable analysis, increased IMRT utilization was associated with male sex, academic practice, technical fee billing, freestanding practice, practice in a county with 21 or more radiation oncologists, and practice in the southern United States (P < .05). The top 1% of users (28 providers) billed a mean 181 IMRT plans with an IMRT utilization rate of 66% and 1.52 IMRT plans per beneficiary. Of these 28 providers, 24 had billed technical fees, 25 practiced in freestanding clinics, and 20 practiced in the South. CONCLUSIONS: Technical fee billing, freestanding practice, male sex, and location in the South were associated with increased IMRT use. A small group of outliers shared several common demographic and practice-based characteristics.

Skin surface brachytherapy: A survey of contemporary practice patterns.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to define current patterns of care among radiation oncologists who use skin surface brachytherapy for the treatment of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) and basal cell carcinoma (BCC) in academic and community settings. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A 30-question electronic survey was administered to clinician members of the American Brachytherapy Society. The respondents were asked to provide details regarding their clinical practice and their approach to skin surface brachytherapy. RESULTS: A total of 16 surveys were returned. Among the respondents, aggregate experience varied from 8 to 1800 cases. Most preferred brachytherapy over external beam radiation because of shorter treatment course, conformality of treatment for irregular or curved targets, and shallow dose deposition. Of the total, 60% of respondents routinely estimated lesion depth via ultrasound before initiating treatment. Treatment margin on gross disease varied widely (range, 3-15 mm; median, 5 mm). Hypofractionation was the preferred dose schedule. Prescribed doses ranged from 30 Gy in five fractions to 64 Gy in 32 fractions (EQD2, 40 Gy-65 Gy). There was a tendency to increase the number of fractions for larger targets, although some used the same fractionation regardless of anatomic location or lesion size. There was no consensus on dosimetric constraints, and some respondents reported cases of severe toxicity, particularly when treating the pretibial skin. CONCLUSIONS: This pattern of care study suggests that skin brachytherapy can be a convenient and safe tool for treatment of BCC and cSCC. Prospective trials and the development of expert consensus guidelines would be beneficial for optimizing skin surface brachytherapy and reducing practice variation.