Enhancing International Cancer Organization Collaborations: King Hussein Cancer Center and Princess Margaret Cancer Centre Model for Collaboration.

Collaborative partnerships, which link two health organizations with shared characteristics to achieve common goals and to improve healthcare quality, are becoming increasingly common in oncology. The purpose of this study is to review the collaboration between King Hussein Cancer Center (KHCC) and Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (PM). The context, input, process, and product (CIPP) model, a quasi-experimental form of program evaluation, has been applied to the KHCC-PM collaboration. This model is well suited to evaluate complex collaborations as it does not assume linear relationships. Data sources include stakeholders' judgements of the collaboration, assessment of achievements, and informal interviews with key participants involved in the program. KHCC and PM are recognized as high-caliber comprehensive cancer centers, with a common goal of delivering high-quality care to patients. Through personal relationships among faculty in the centers and the perceived opportunities for mutual benefit, KHCC and PM signed a memorandum of understanding in 2013 to enter into a formal partnership. This partnership has been an evolving process that started with collaboration on education and grew to include clinical care. Research is an area for potential future collaboration. Enabling factors in the collaboration include dedication of individuals involved, trusting relationships amongst faculty, and the reciprocal nature of the relationship. Challenges have been financial, competing interests, and the absence of a successful collaborative model to follow. The KHCC and PM collaboration has been successful. A strategic plan is being developed and followed to guide areas of expansion.

The power of integration: radiotherapy and global palliative care.

Radiotherapy (RT) is a powerful tool for the palliation of the symptoms of advanced cancer, although access to it is limited or absent in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). There are multiple factors contributing to this, including assumptions about the economic feasibility of RT in LMICs, the logical challenges of building capacity to deliver it in those regions, and the lack of political support to drive change of this kind. It is encouraging that the problem of RT access has begun to be included in the global discourse on cancer control and that palliative care and RT have been incorporated into national cancer control plans in some LMICs. Further, RT twinning programs involving high- and low-resource settings have been established to improve knowledge transfer and exchange. However, without large-scale action, the consequences of limited access to RT in LMICs will become dire. The number of new cancer cases around the world is expected to double by 2030, with twice as many deaths occurring in LMICs as in high-income countries (HICs). A sustained and coordinated effort involving research, education, and advocacy is required to engage global institutions, universities, health care providers, policymakers, and private industry in the urgent need to build RT capacity and delivery in LMICs.

Expanding global access to radiotherapy.

Radiotherapy is a critical and inseparable component of comprehensive cancer treatment and care. For many of the most common cancers in low-income and middle-income countries, radiotherapy is essential for effective treatment. In high-income countries, radiotherapy is used in more than half of all cases of cancer to cure localised disease, palliate symptoms, and control disease in incurable cancers. Yet, in planning and building treatment capacity for cancer, radiotherapy is frequently the last resource to be considered. Consequently, worldwide access to radiotherapy is unacceptably low. We present a new body of evidence that quantifies the worldwide coverage of radiotherapy services by country. We show the shortfall in access to radiotherapy by country and globally for 2015-35 based on current and projected need, and show substantial health and economic benefits to investing in radiotherapy. The cost of scaling up radiotherapy in the nominal model in 2015-35 is US$26·6 billion in low-income countries, $62·6 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $94·8 billion in upper-middle-income countries, which amounts to $184·0 billion across all low-income and middle-income countries. In the efficiency model the costs were lower: $14·1 billion in low-income, $33·3 billion in lower-middle-income, and $49·4 billion in upper-middle-income countries-a total of $96·8 billion. Scale-up of radiotherapy capacity in 2015-35 from current levels could lead to saving of 26·9 million life-years in low-income and middle-income countries over the lifetime of the patients who received treatment. The economic benefits of investment in radiotherapy are very substantial. Using the nominal cost model could produce a net benefit of $278·1 billion in 2015-35 ($265·2 million in low-income countries, $38·5 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $239·3 billion in upper-middle-income countries). Investment in the efficiency model would produce in the same period an even greater total benefit of $365·4 billion ($12·8 billion in low-income countries, $67·7 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $284·7 billion in upper-middle-income countries). The returns, by the human-capital approach, are projected to be less with the nominal cost model, amounting to $16·9 billion in 2015-35 (-$14·9 billion in low-income countries; -$18·7 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $50·5 billion in upper-middle-income countries). The returns with the efficiency model were projected to be greater, however, amounting to $104·2 billion (-$2·4 billion in low-income countries, $10·7 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $95·9 billion in upper-middle-income countries). Our results provide compelling evidence that investment in radiotherapy not only enables treatment of large numbers of cancer cases to save lives, but also brings positive economic benefits.

Active breathing control for patients receiving mediastinal radiation therapy for lymphoma: Impact on normal tissue dose.

PURPOSE: Active breathing control (ABC) is emerging as a tool to reduce heart and lung dose for lymphoma patients receiving mediastinal radiation therapy (RT). The objective of this study was to report our early institutional experience with this technique, with emphasis on quantifying the changes in normal tissue dose and exploring factors that could be used to select patients with the greatest benefit. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients receiving mediastinal involved-field RT (IFRT) for lymphoma were eligible. The ABC was performed using a moderate deep-inspiration breath-hold (mDIBH) technique. All patients were replanned with free-breathing (FB) computed tomographic data sets and comparisons of lung, cardiac, and female breast tissue doses were made between mDIBH and FB plans. Logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with improvement in mean lung and heart dose with mDIBH. RESULTS: Forty-seven patients were analyzed; the majority (87.2%) had Hodgkin lymphoma. Median prescribed dose was 30 Gy (range, 20-36 Gy), with 78.7% of cases being treated with parallel-opposed beams. The use of mDIBH significantly improved average mean lung dose (FB: 11.0 Gy; mDIBH: 9.5 Gy; P < .0001), lung V20 (28% vs 22%; P < .0001), and mean heart dose (14.3 Gy vs 11.8 Gy; P = .003), but increased the mean breast dose (FB: 3.0 Gy; mDIBH 3.6 Gy; P = .0005). The magnitude of diaphragmatic excursion on the inhale scan was significantly associated with dosimetric improvement in both heart and lung dose with mDIBH. CONCLUSIONS: Mediastinal IFRT for lymphoma delivered with mDIBH can significantly reduce lung and heart dose compared with FB, although not for all patients, and may increase breast dose in females. Its implementation is achievable in both adult and pediatric populations. Further work is necessary to better predict which patients benefit from this technique.

Online planning and delivery technique for radiotherapy of spinal metastases using cone-beam CT: image quality and system performance.

PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility of an online strategy for palliative radiotherapy (RT) of spinal bone metastasis, which integrates imaging, planning, and treatment delivery in a single step at the treatment unit. The technical challenges of this approach include cone-beam CT (CBCT) image quality for target definition, online planning, and efficient process integration. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An integrated imaging, planning, and delivery system was constructed and tested with phantoms. The magnitude of CBCT image artifacts following the use of an antiscatter grid and a nonlinear scatter correction was quantified using phantom data and images of patients receiving conventional palliative RT of the spine. The efficacy of online planning was then assessed using corrected CBCT images. Testing of the complete process was performed on phantoms with assessment of timing and dosimetric accuracy. RESULTS: The use of image corrections reduced the cupping artifact from 30% to 4.5% on CBCT images of a body phantom and improved the accuracy of CBCT numbers (water: +/- 20 Hounsfield unit [HU], and lung and bone: to within +/- 130 HU). Bony anatomy was clearly visible and was deemed sufficient for target definition. The mean total time (n = 5) for application of the online approach was 23.1 min. Image-guided dose placement was assessed using radiochromic film measurements with good agreement (within 5% of dose difference and 2 mm of distance to agreement). CONCLUSIONS: The technical feasibility of CBCT-guided online planning and delivery for palliative single treatment has been demonstrated. The process was performed in one session equivalent to an initial treatment slot (<30 min) with dosimetric accuracy satisfying accepted RT standards.