A pilot evaluation of the expanded prostate cancer index composite for clinical practice (EPIC-CP) tool in Ontario.

PURPOSE: To introduce the EPIC-CP symptom screening tool in routine ambulatory cancer care, and to evaluate its acceptability and perceived usefulness from the perspective of patients and clinicians. METHODS: Eligible prostate cancer patients from four cancer centres were recruited (November 2014-June 2015) from radiation or surgical oncology clinics. A physician and/or health care professional reviewed the EPIC-CP results as part of the clinical encounter. Patient experience with the tool was evaluated using a nine-item Patient Exit Survey (PES). Clinician experience was evaluated through semi-structured qualitative interviews. Patient and clinician results were compared to identify common themes. RESULTS: A total of 333 patients were enrolled, of whom, 287 completed the PES. Most patients had one clinical encounter, although the number of EPIC-CP assessments ranged from 1 to 11 per patient, for a total of 937 EPIC-CP questionnaires completed. Item completion rates were high (91-100%), with items addressing sexual health among the lowest (91-92%). On the PES, most patients (70%) agreed with the item: "Completing this questionnaire helped me tell the clinicians about how I have been feeling". Thematic analysis from clinician interviews revealed that the EPIC-CP captures essential prostate-specific effects that facilitated person-centred communication and customization of interventions. Targeted clinical education and patient resources were seen as necessary for uptake. CONCLUSIONS: EPIC-CP was generally endorsed by clinicians and patients. The implementation of a disease-specific measure in place of a generic symptom screening tool has the potential to improve the quality of the clinical encounter and provide outcome measures for further health services research. Provincial implementation of this tool as a standard of care is recommended.

Significance of baseline and change in quality of life scores in predicting clinical outcomes in an international phase III trial of advanced pancreatic cancer: NCIC CTG PA.3.

BACKGROUND: There is insufficient information regarding the prognostic significance of baseline and change in quality of life (QoL) scores on overall survival (OS) in advanced pancreatic cancer. METHODS: QoL was assessed prospectively using the EORTC QLQ-C30 as part of the PA.3 trial of gemcitabine + erlotinib (G + E) vs. gemcitabine + placebo (G + P). Relevant variables and QoL scores at baseline and change at 8 weeks were analyzed by Cox stepwise regression to determine predictors of OS. RESULTS: 222 of 285 patients (pts) treated with G + E and 220 of 284 pts treated with G + P completed baseline QoL assessments. In a multivariable Cox analysis combining all pts, better QoL physical functioning (PF) score independently predicted longer OS (HR 0.86; CI: 0.80-0.93), as did non-white race (HR 0.64; CI: 0.44-0.95), PS 0-1 (HR 0.65; CI: 0.50-0.85), locally advanced disease (HR 0.55; CI: 0.43-0.71) and G + E (HR 0.78; CI: 0.64-0.96). Improvement in physical function at week 8 also predicted for improved survival (HR 0.89; CI: 0.81-0.97 for 10 point increase in score, p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: In addition to clinical variables, patient reported QoL scores at baseline and change from baseline to week 8 added incremental predictive information regarding survival for advanced pancreatic cancer patients.

Medical Oncology Workload in Europe: One Continent, Several Worlds.

AIMS: The workload pressure on medical oncologists will increase in the near future. There are no comprehensive data available about the current workload of medical oncologists in Europe. Here we report the European results of a global survey of the workload of medical oncologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online survey was distributed through a snowball method via national oncology societies to chemotherapy-prescribing physicians in 21 European countries. We compared the workload of medical oncologists in Eastern European countries (EECs) and Western European countries (WECs). The primary measure of workload was the annual number of new cancer patient consults seen per oncologist. RESULTS: In total, 495 oncologists from 16 European countries completed our survey: 100 from seven EECs and 395 from nine WECs. The median number of annual consults per medical oncologist was 225 in EECs compared with 175 in WECs (P < 0.001). The proportion of medical oncologists seeing more than 300 consults/year was 35% (35/100) in EECs compared with 18% (68/395) in WECs. The median number of patients seen in a full day clinic was 25 in EECs and 15 in WECs (P < 0.001). Eastern European medical oncologists reported spending a median of 25 min per new consultation compared with 45 min in WECs (P < 0.001). The top two reported barriers in both EECs and WECs to patient care were high clinical volumes and insufficient time for reading. CONCLUSION: The clinical workload of medical oncologists in EECs was substantially higher than in WECs. European health policymakers and educators need to address existing disparities in the workload of medical oncologist, undertake plans for future workforce supply and consider alternative models of care.

The Canadian Cancer Research Conference 2019.

The 5th Canadian Cancer Research Conference (ccrc) took place 3-5 November 2019 in Ottawa, Ontario. Nearly 1000 participants-scientists, oncologists, community members, and patients-gathered to share knowledge, foster collaboration, and fuel the future of cancer research in Canada. The scientific program included 3 plenary sessions, 26 concurrent sessions, and 2 poster sessions presenting research described in more than 600 submitted abstracts, giving participants the opportunity to share health research that collectively encompassed the 4 pillars recognized by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. In addition to the breadth of topics addressed by Canadian and international experts, the highlights of the meeting included the integration of patients and patient advocates, new rapid-fire sessions for abstract presentation, and events that enhanced learning opportunities for trainees.

A conceptual framework for patient-provider communication: a tool in the PRO research tool box.

PURPOSE: To demonstrate how a previously described conceptual framework of physician-patient communication can inform the application of existing theory and the extension of new theory regarding the impact of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical practice. METHOD: We used a communication framework to guide interpretation of empirical results relating to three situations: Collecting PROs from individual patients, providing individual patient's PROs to his/her physician, and providing PROs from clinical trials to individual patients. RESULTS: For each of the selected situations, results of empirical studies of PROs are discussed in terms of the elements of the communication framework. These influences are developed into testable hypotheses regarding the impact of PROs and alternative hypotheses explaining empirical research results. We further illustrate how the conceptual framework can be knitted to other theories of communication to enhance understanding of the use of PROs in clinical practice. CONCLUSION: Guidance of a conceptual framework of communication can enhance understanding of PRO study results and lead to testable hypotheses about how to further improve the clinical use of PROs.

The Colon Health and Life-Long Exercise Change trial: a randomized trial of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies indicate that physical activity (PA) is strongly associated with improved disease outcomes in colon cancer survivors, but a randomized controlled trial is needed to determine whether the association is causal and whether new policies to promote exercise are justified. PURPOSE: The co.21 Colon Health and Life-Long Exercise Change (challenge) trial undertaken by the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group (NCIC CTG) is designed to determine the effects of a structured pa intervention on outcomes for survivors of high-risk stage II or III colon cancer who have completed adjuvant therapy within the previous 2-6 months. METHODS: Trial participants (n = 962) will be stratified by centre, disease stage, body mass index, and performance status, and will be randomly assigned to a structured pa intervention or to general health education materials. The pa intervention will consist of a behavioural support program and supervised pa sessions delivered over a 3-year period, beginning with regular face-to-face sessions and tapering to less frequent face-to-face or telephone sessions. The primary endpoint is disease-free survival. Important secondary endpoints include multiple patient-reported outcomes, objective physical functioning, biologic correlative markers, and an economic analysis. SUMMARY: Cancer survivors and cancer care professionals are interested in the potential role of PA to improve multiple disease-related outcomes, but a randomized controlled trial is needed to provide compelling evidence to justify changes in health care policies and practice.

Evaluation of a widely available patient decision aid for the treatment of prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of patient decision aids (PtDA) is rarely evaluated in the "real world" where patients vary in their preferences related to decision support. PURPOSE: To determine how Canadian patients use and evaluate our widely available PtDA for early-stage prostate cancer treatment with its 8 components. METHODS: Google Analytics and online tracking provided usage information. A Usability Assessment (UA) following the PtDA provided evaluation data; main outcomes [scale: 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)] were (a) the aid was helpful, and (b) I would recommend it to other patients. RESULTS: Usage data were from 993 users, and UAs from 168 of them. Mean "helpfulness" score was 4.1(5 max); mean "recommend" score was 4.2 (5 max). For each PtDA component, there was no significant difference on each main outcome, between those who used it and those who did not. CONCLUSION: Overall, patients who completed the UA rated the PtDA as helpful and would recommend it to other patients. The widely available PtDA accommodated expected variation in decision support desired, and helpfulness was not associated with variation in components used. PRACTICE IMPLICATION: The internet can be an effective medium for making appropriately designed decision support widely available to prostate cancer patients.

Variation in Radiotherapy Referral and Treatment for High-risk Pathological Features after Radical Prostatectomy: Results from a Population-based Study.

AIMS: Guidelines recommend the discussion of adjuvant radiotherapy post-prostatectomy for prostate cancer patients with high-risk pathology to consider all of their treatment options. We determine whether patterns of radiotherapy referral and treatment post-prostatectomy reflect guideline-based use in a contemporary prostatectomy cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic treatment records were linked to Ontario's cancer registry. Multivariable regression was used to evaluate clinical and health systems factors associated with referral and the use of adjuvant radiotherapy within 6 months post-prostatectomy. RESULTS: Among 2663 patients treated with prostatectomy between 1 January 2012 and 30 November 2012, 1261 (47%) were found to have adverse pathology and 492 were referred to radiation oncology ≤6 months post-prostatectomy, of whom 51% received adjuvant radiotherapy. Multivariable analysis showed that patients were more likely to be referred to radiation oncology from a low-volume surgical facility (≤50 versus >50 radical prostatectomy cases, odds ratio 2.50 [1.80-3.48]), if they lived farther from a radiotherapy centre (>50 km versus <10 km, odds ratio 1.73 [1.22-2.46]), if they were seen by radiation oncology preoperatively (odds ratio 1.95 [1.51-2.52]), or if they had adverse pathology: high T-category (pT3b/T4 versus pT2, odds ratio 17.87 [12.14-26.30]; pT3a versus pT2, odds ratio 5.24 [3.95-6.97]), positive margins (non-apex positive versus negative, odds ratio 4.20 [3.19-5.53]; apex only positive versus negative, odds ratio 2.60 [1.71-3.94]) and high Gleason score (8-10 versus ≤6, odds ratio 11.32 [5.37-23.84]; 7 versus ≤6, odds ratio 4.18 [2.16-8.10]). Wide geographic variation in radiotherapy referral rates persisted (range 6-66%; P < 0.0001). After radiotherapy referral, only high T-category (pT3b/T4 versus pT2, odds ratio 5.37 [3.01-9.60]; pT3a versus pT2, odds ratio 2.72 [1.59-4.65]) and non-apex positive margins (odds ratio 2.81 [1.86-4.23]) remained significantly predictive of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Variations in referral for a discussion of radiotherapy post-prostatectomy are not mainly explained by patient characteristics. After seeing radiation oncology, treatment decisions correlated most strongly with pathological findings. Understanding the reasons for the tremendous non-clinical variations in care is needed to ensure access to potentially curative radiotherapy post-prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer patients.

Medical oncology workload in Canada: infrastructure, supports, and delivery of clinical care.

Background: In 2000, a Canadian task force recommended that medical oncologists (mos) meet a target of 160-175 new patient consultations per year. Here, we report the Canadian results of a global survey of mo workload compared with mo workload in other high-income countries (hics). Methods: Using a snowball method, an online survey was distributed by national oncology societies to chemotherapy-prescribing physicians in 22 hics (World Bank criteria). The survey was distributed within Canada to all members of the Canadian Association of Medical Oncologists. Workload was measured as the annual number of new cancer patient consults per oncologist. Results: The survey was completed by 782 oncologists from hics, including 58 from Canada. Median annual consults per mo were 175 in Canada compared with 125 in other hics. The proportions of mos having 100 or fewer consults or more than 300 consults per year were 3% (2/58) and 5% (3/58) in Canada compared with 31% (222/724) and 16% (116/724) in other hics (p < 0.001 and p = 0.023 respectively). The median number of patients seen in a full-day clinic was 15 in Canada and 25 in other hics (p = 0.220). Canadian mos reported spending a median of 55 minutes per new consultation; new consultations of 35 minutes were reported in other hics (p < 0.001). Median hours worked per week was 55 in Canada and 45 in other hics (p = 0.200). Conclusions: Although the median annual clinical volume for Canadian mos aligns with recommended targets, half the respondents exceeded that level of activity. Health policymakers and educators have to consider mo workforce supply and alternative models of care in preparation for the anticipated surge in cancer incidence in the coming decade.

Measuring the Quality of Personal Care in Patients Undergoing Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer.

AIMS: To describe the quality of the non-technical component of the care (personal care) of patients receiving radical radiotherapy for prostate cancer and to identify elements of personal care that should be priorities for quality improvement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and eight patients undergoing radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer completed a self-administered questionnaire that asked them to rate the importance of 143 non-technical elements of care and to rate the quality of their own care with respect to each element. The elements that a patient rated as both 'very important' and less than 'very good' were deemed to be his priorities for improvement. The priorities of the population were established by ranking the elements based on the percentage of patients who identified them as a priority (importance/quality analysis). RESULTS: The response rate was 65%. The percentage of elements rated 'very good' varied from patient to patient: median 79% (interquartile range 69-92%). The percentage of elements rated either 'very good' or 'good' was higher: median 96% (interquartile range 86-98%). Nonetheless, almost every patient rated at least some elements of his care as less than optimal, regardless of the cut-off point used to define optimal quality. Patients assigned their lowest quality ratings to elements relating to the quality of the treatment environment and comprehensiveness of additional services available to them. However, patients rated most of these elements as relatively unimportant, and importance/quality analysis identified elements of care relating to communication of information about the disease and its treatment as the highest priorities for quality improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients rated most elements of their personal care as very good, but almost all were able to identify some elements that were less than optimal. When ratings of quality were integrated with ratings of importance, elements relating to communication emerged as the patients' highest priorities for quality improvement.

Assessing the reliability of two toxicity scales: implications for interpreting toxicity data.

BACKGROUND: The toxicity of a given cancer therapy is an important end point in clinical trials examining the potential costs and benefits of that therapy. Treatment-related toxicity is conventionally measured with one of several toxicity criteria grading scales, even though the reliability and validity of these scales have not been established. PURPOSE: We determined the reliability of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group (NCIC-CTG) expanded toxicity scale and the World Health Organization (WHO) standard toxicity scale by use of a clinical simulation of actual patients. METHODS: Seven experienced data managers each interviewed 12 simulated patients and scored their respective acute toxic effects. Inter-rater agreement (agreement between multiple raters of the same case) was calculated using the kappa (kappa) statistic across all seven randomly assigned raters for each of 18 toxicity categories (13 NCIC-CTG and five WHO categories). Intra-rater agreement (agreement within the same rater on one case rated on separate occasions) was calculated using kappa over repeated cases (where raters were blinded to the repeated nature of the subjects). Proportions of agreement (estimate of the probability of two randomly selected raters assigning the same toxicity grade to a given case) were also calculated for inter-rater agreement. Since minor lack of agreement might have adversely affected these statistics of agreement, both kappa and proportion of agreement analyses were repeated for the following condensed grading categories: none (0) versus low-grade (1 or 2) versus high-grade (3 or 4) toxicity present. RESULTS: Modest levels of inter-rater reliability were demonstrated in this study with kappa values that ranged from 0.50 to 1.00 in laboratory-based categories and from -0.04 to 0.82 for clinically based categories. Proportions of agreement for clinical categories ranged from 0.52 to 0.98. Condensing the toxicity grades improved statistics of agreement, but substantial lack of agreement remained (kappa range, -0.04-0.82; proportions of agreement range, 0.67-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Experienced data managers, when interviewing patients, draw varying conclusions regarding toxic effects experienced by such patients. Neither the NCIC-CTG expanded toxicity scale nor the WHO standard toxicity scale demonstrated a clear superiority in reliability, although the breadth of toxic effects recorded differed.

Quality of Radiation Therapy Referral and Utilisation Post-prostatectomy: A Population-based Study of Time Trends.

AIMS: Adjuvant radiotherapy post-prostatectomy has been shown to benefit patients with adverse pathology. It remains unclear whether salvage radiotherapy confers equivalent outcomes. Practice guidelines recommend referral to radiation oncology within 6 months after prostatectomy to discuss adjuvant and salvage radiotherapy. The study objectives were to assess, at a population level: (i) post-prostatectomy referral patterns for radiotherapy; (ii) adjuvant and salvage radiotherapy utilisation; and (iii) time trends in relation to clinical trials and guidelines. These findings provide indications of access to quality care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study. Electronic radiotherapy consultation and treatment records were linked to the population-based Ontario Cancer Registry. The population included prostate cancer cases treated with prostatectomy in Ontario between 2003 and 2012. Radiotherapy referral and treatment rates over time were analysed using the chi-squared trend test. RESULTS: Over the study period, 30 447 prostate cancer patients received prostatectomy. The proportion seen by radiation oncology within 6 months after prostatectomy doubled from 10.7% in 2003-2004 to 21.7% in 2011-2012 (P < 0.0001 for trend), with the largest annual percentage difference in 2009-2011 (3.4%). Among 4641 patients seen within 6 months, adjuvant radiotherapy rates remained at 51.0% ± 3.0%. Contemporaneous with radiation oncology referral trends, overall adjuvant radiotherapy use increased from 6.2% in 2003-2004 to 11.0% in 2011-2012 (P < 0.001), while salvage radiotherapy remained at 8.4% ± 0.4%. Consequently, the total proportion receiving radiotherapy within 24 months increased from 14.1% in 2003-2004 to 17.7% in 2009-2010 (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: There was an increase in access to early radiation oncology referral post-prostatectomy and adjuvant radiotherapy in Ontario between 2003 and 2012, following guideline publication.

Trading treatment toxicity for survival in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: To determine how patients weigh potential survival benefits against the potential toxicity of different treatment strategies for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Specifically, we were interested in what improvement in survival probability patients would want to have before accepting more toxic therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty-six outpatients who had experienced lung cancer (n = 22) or prostate cancer (n = 34), and 20 clinic nurses and radiation therapy technologists participated. A treatment trade-off interview was conducted with each participant that compared low-dose versus high-dose radiotherapy and high-dose radiotherapy versus combination chemo-radiotherapy. Preferences for treatments were assessed by systematically increasing the hypothetical survival advantage of the more toxic treatment until the person reached his or her threshold for choosing the more toxic treatment. RESULTS: A wide range of thresholds was observed for both groups. The distributions of survival advantage thresholds for lung cancer and prostate cancer patients were not significantly different but were generally lower thresholds than those declared by staff. If the 3-year survival advantage was 10%, 60% of patients and 15% of staff would consider combination therapy over high-dose radiotherapy. Within patients, apparent willingness to consider more toxic treatments was not significantly related to age, sex, education, or preferred role in decision making. The treatment trade-off method had good test-retest reliability. CONCLUSION: There is great interindividual variability in willingness to accept aggressive treatments for locally advanced NSCLC. When choosing NSCLC treatment, each patient should be provided with comprehensive information about the options so that he or she may express his or her preferences should he or she wish to participate in the decision.

Decision analysis in locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: is it useful?

PURPOSE: The optimal management of locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has not been established. While combined-modality treatments have been shown to increase the survival of patients with this illness, the appropriate balance between the benefit of increased quantity of life and the quality-of-life costs of the more toxic treatment combinations remains unresolved. Decision analysis has been promoted as useful when medical decisions must be made under conditions of uncertainty. We consider the potential of this method to guide therapy in locally advanced NSCLC. METHODS: We developed two types of decision models that addressed the choice between radiation alone and combined chemotherapy-radiation therapy in locally advanced NSCLC. The models were constructed using the principles of decision analysis. RESULTS: The models successfully replicated results of relevant clinical trials published in the literature. The analyses of both models showed that the treatment decision was sensitive to patients' values, despite significant increases in survival rates. The models clarified a need for further validation of the three fundamental components: structuring the decision, determining the probabilities of events, and assigning utilities to treatment outcomes. CONCLUSION: In the setting of NSCLC, the models suggest that quality-of-life considerations are important in the treatment choice. Further research is required to identify the health states critical to the decision, the probabilities for occurrence of these health states, and valid measures of their utility.

Phase I study of a decision aid for patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Many patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) are eligible for combined-modality therapy (CMT; chemotherapy and radiotherapy). Although CMT offers slightly higher chances of survival than radiotherapy alone (RT), it also carries a higher probability of toxicity, raising the possibility that some patients may prefer to decline CMT. We report a pilot study of a decision aid designed for patients in this setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The aid included a structured description of the treatment options and trade-off exercises designed to help clarify the patient's values for the relevant outcomes by determining the patient's survival advantage threshold (SAT; the increase in survival conferred by CMT over RT that the patient deemed necessary for choosing CMT). Additional outcome measures included each patient's strength of treatment preference, decisional conflict, objective understanding of survival information, and decisional role preference. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients met the eligibility criteria for the study. Of these, seven declined the decision aid because they had a clear treatment preference. The remaining 20 participants completed the decision aid; 18 chose CMT, and two chose RT. All 20 patients wished to participate in the decision to some extent. All patients reported that using the decision support was useful to them and recommended its use for others. No patient or physician reported that the aid interfered with the physician-patient relationship. Patients' 3-year SATs and median SATs were each strongly correlated with their strengths of treatment preference (rho = 0.83, P <.001 and rho = 0.67, P =.02, respectively). For all but one patient, either their 3-year or median survival threshold was consistent with their final treatment choice. Ten patients reported a stronger treatment preference after using the decision aid. CONCLUSION: We conclude that implementing the decision-aid for patients with LA-NSCLC is feasible, that it demonstrates convergent validity, and that it is favorably evaluated by patients and their physicians. The aid seems to help patients understand the benefits and risks of treatment and to choose the treatment that is most consistent with their values. Further evaluation of the aid is warranted.

Involved-field radiotherapy alone for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: To describe the outcome of involved-field radiotherapy in patients with early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A written policy for the radical treatment of early-stage NSCLC with involved-field radiotherapy was adopted at our center in 1986. The sites of known disease were treated to a dose of 52.5 Gy in 20 daily fractions over 4 weeks without elective irradiation of radiologically uninvolved regional nodes. We have reviewed the outcome of this policy in 102 patients treated with radiotherapy alone between 1986 and 1995. RESULTS: The patients' median age was 71.5 years. The stage distribution was as follows: T1, 33.3%; T2, 56.9%; T3, 8.8%; and T4, 1.0%. Only 5 cases were N1; the remainder were N0. Most patients (76.5%) were not surgical candidates because of co-morbidity. Ninety-three percent had a CT of the thorax as part of their initial staging, while mediastinoscopy was performed in only 16.7%. Overall survival was 35% at 3 years and 16% at 5 years. Recurrence free survival was 23.9% at 3 years and 13. 9% at 5 years. Cause-specific survival was 43.5% at 3 years and 26. 8% at 5 years. Of those who recurred, 68.9% had a local component of failure at initial relapse, and 49.2% failed locally without evidence of regional or distant metastases. Isolated regional nodal relapse at initial failure occurred in only 6.6% of recurrences. There were no treatment interruptions due to acute toxicity and no treatment-related deaths. CONCLUSION: Involved-field radiotherapy alone cures a small but significant number of patients with early-stage NSCLC. This approach is recommended in patients who are unfit for surgery and who have severely compromised pulmonary function that would preclude the use of wide-field radiotherapy. The dose used in this study was well tolerated, but produced suboptimal local control rates.

Necrosis following radiotherapy for carcinoma of the pinna.

PURPOSE: Radiation therapy is often the preferred modality of treatment for carcinoma of the pinna because it avoids the cosmetic defect of surgery. However, radiation oncologists are sometimes reluctant to irradiate the ear because of the risk of subsequent necrosis. The goal of this study was to establish the long-term disease control and necrosis rates following irradiation of the external ear. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A retrospective analysis was undertaken of 138 courses of curative radiotherapy given to 128 patients for biopsy-proven basal (70 courses), squamous (62 courses), or mixed (6 courses) tumors of the pinna between January 1, 1982, and December 31, 1991, at the Kingston Regional Cancer Center. RESULTS: The median age of the patients was 73 (range 43-94) and the median size of the tumors was 12 mm (range 3-50 mm). Treatment was given using orthovoltage X rays (79) or electrons (59). The most common dose prescription was 35 Gy/5 fractions; total doses ranged from 17.50 to 64 Gy. The median follow-up is 58 months (range 6-149). The actuarial 5-year local control rate is 93%; the actuarial necrosis rate at 5 years is 13%. Most necroses healed with conservative management; only two patients required surgery for necrosis. We analyzed the following factors as possible predictors of radiation necrosis: patient age, size of lesion, histology, fraction size, total dose, overall time, and beam energy. Only daily fraction sizes > 6 Gy (p = 0.0093) and treatment times < 5 days (p = 0.0053) were significantly associated with an increased risk of necrosis. CONCLUSION: To reduce the risk of necrosis, radiation therapy for external ear cancer should be given using protracted fractionation.

A population-based study of rectal cancer: permanent colostomy as an outcome.

PURPOSE: The objectives of this study are to describe the utilization of surgery and of radiotherapy in the treatment of newly diagnosed rectal cancer in Ontario between 1982 and 1994, and to describe the probability of permanent colostomy at any time after the diagnosis of rectal cancer, as an outcome of the treatment of newly diagnosed rectal cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Electronic records of rectal cancer (International Classification of Diseases code 154) from the Ontario Cancer Registry (n = 18,695, excluding squamous, basaloid, cloacogenic, and carcinoid histology) were linked to surgical records from all Ontario hospitals, and radiotherapy (RT) records from Ontario cancer centers. Procedures occurring within 4 months of diagnosis, or within 4 months of another procedure for rectal cancer, were considered part of initial treatment. Multivariate analyses controlled for age, sex, and year of diagnosis. RESULTS: Resection plus permanent colostomy was performed in 33.1% of cases, whereas local excision or resection without permanent colostomy was performed in 38.2%. Multivariate logistic regression demonstrated higher odds ratios (OR) for resection plus permanent colostomy in all regions of Ontario relative to Toronto. The OR for postoperative RT following local excision or resection without permanent colostomy varied among the regions relative to Toronto (e.g., OR Ottawa = 0.59, OR Hamilton = 0.76, OR London = 1.25). The relative risk (RR) of colostomy conditional upon survival within 5 years from diagnosis varied among regions relative to Toronto (e.g., RR Ottawa = 1.21, RR Hamilton = 1.20). CONCLUSIONS: There is regional variation in the utilization of resection with permanent colostomy, and in the utilization of postoperative RT among cases not undergoing permanent colostomy. Regions with higher initial rates of resection plus permanent colostomy continue to experience higher probability of permanent colostomy 5 years after diagnosis of rectal cancer. Higher initial rates of permanent colostomy may be malleable to interventions aimed at improving overall outcomes.

A real-time audit of radiation therapy in a regional cancer center.

PURPOSE: To report the development, structure, and implementation of a real-time clinical radiotherapy audit of the practice of radiation oncology in a regional cancer center. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Radiotherapy treatment plans were audited by a real-time peer-review process over an 8-year period (1989-1996). The overall goal of the audit was to establish a process for quality assurance (QA) of radiotherapy planning and prescription for individual patients. A parallel process was developed to audit the implementation of intervention-specific radiotherapy treatment policies. RESULTS: A total of 3052 treatment plans were audited. Of these, 124 (4.1%) were not approved by the audit due to apparent errors in radiation planning. The majority of the nonapproved plans (79%) were modified prior to initiating treatment; the audit provided important clinical feedback about individual patient care in these instances. Most of the remaining nonapproved plans were deviations from normal practice due to patient-specific considerations. A further 110 (3.6% of all audited plans) were not approved by the audit due to deviations from radiotherapy treatment policy. A minority of these plans (22%) were modified prior to initiating treatment and the remainder provided important feedback for continuous quality improvement of treatment policies. CONCLUSION: A real-time audit of radiotherapy practice in a regional cancer center setting proved feasible and provided important direct and indirect patient benefits.

What prostate cancer patients should know: variation in professionals' opinions.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to determine what questions health-care professionals think should be addressed with curable prostate cancer patients before treatment decisions are made. METHOD: A survey was distributed to radiation oncologists, urologists, medical oncologists, nurses and radiation therapy technologists (RTTs) involved in treating prostate cancer patients. Participants were asked to judge the importance of addressing each of 78 questions (essential/important/no opinion/avoid) with a described hypothetical patient prior to the treatment decision. Eighty participants were later selected at random for a retest. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 55% (284/518) on the initial survey and 56% (45/80) on the retest. The relative importance of the various questions was similar across groups (r(76) ranged from 0.75 to 0.91, all P<0.001). Despite the between-group similarity, opinions within each group varied widely. For example, among oncologists, the number of questions deemed essential by individual respondents ranged from five to 69, with >90% respondent agreement on only 15 of the 78 questions. The extent of agreement was similar in the other groups. The retest showed that essential and important responses were reasonably stable, i.e. 92% of questions judged essential at one time were judged either essential (58%) or important (34%) at the other time. CONCLUSIONS: Although the relative importance of addressing the various questions appears similar across the professional groups involved in the care of prostate patients, within each profession there seems to be little agreement. The lack of agreement includes both how many questions are essential to address and whether or not most individual questions are essential.