Combining Computed Tomography-Based Bone Density Assessment with FRAX Screening in Men with Prostate Cancer.

To investigate the addition of a computed tomography (CT)-based method of osteoporosis screening to FRAX without bone mineral density (BMD) fracture risk assessment in men undergoing radiotherapy for prostate cancer, we reviewed the records of all patients with localized prostate cancer treated with external beam radiotherapy at our institution between 2001 and 2012. The 10-yr probability of hip fracture was calculated using the FRAX algorithm without BMD. The CT attenuation of the L5 trabecular bone (L5CT) was assessed by contouring the trabecular bone on a single CT slice at the level of the midvertebral body and by averaging the Hounsfield units (HU) of all included voxels. L5CT values of 105 and 130 HU were used as screening thresholds. The clinical characteristics of additional patients identified by each L5CT screening threshold value were compared to patients whose estimated 10-yr risk of hip fracture was 3% or greater by FRAX without BMD. A total of 609 patients treated between 2001 and 2012 had CT scans available for review and complete clinical information allowing for FRAX without BMD risk calculation. Seventy-four (12.2%) patients had an estimated 10-yr risk of hip fracture of 3% or greater. An additional 22 (3.6%) and 71 (11.6%) patients were identified by CT screening when thresholds L5CT = 105 HU and L5CT = 130 HU were used, respectively. Compared to the group of patients identified by FRAX without BMD, the additional patients identified by CT screening at each L5CT threshold level tended to be younger and heavier, and were more likely to be African-American or treated without androgen deprivation therapy. These results suggest that the addition of CT-based screening to FRAX without BMD risk assessment identifies additional men with different underlying clinical characteristics who may be at risk for osteoporosis and may benefit from pharmacological therapy to increase BMD and reduce fracture risk.

Improving Communication of Peer-Review Conference Outcomes: A Practical Experience.

Purpose: The aim of this work was to describe the design and implementation of a more robust workflow for communicating outcomes from a peer-review chart rounds conference. We also provide information regarding cycle times, plan revisions, and other key metrics that we have observed since initial implementation. Methods and Materials: A multidisciplinary team of stakeholders including physicians, physicists, and dosimetrists developed a revised peer-review workflow that addressed key needs to improve the prior process. Consensus terminology was developed to reduce ambiguity regarding the priority of peer-review outcomes and to clarify expectations of the treating physician in response to peer-review outcomes. A custom workflow software tool was developed to facilitate both upstream and downstream processes from the chart rounds conference. The peer-review outcomes of the chart rounds conference and resulting plan changes for the first 18 months of implementation were summarized. Results: In the first 18 months after implementation of the revised processes, 2294 plans were reviewed, and feedback priority levels assigned. Across all cases with feedback, the median time for the treating attending physician to acknowledge conference comments was 1 day and was within 7 calendar days for 89.1% of cases. Conference feedback was acknowledged within 1 day for 74 of 115 (64.3%) cases with level 2 comments and for 18 of 21 (85.7%) cases with level 3 comments (P = .054). Contours were modified in 13 of 116 (11%) cases receiving level 2 feedback and 10 of 21 (48%) cases receiving level 3 feedback (P < .001). The treatment plan was revised in 18 of 116 (16%) cases receiving level 2 feedback and 13 of 21 (61%) cases receiving level 3 feedback (P < .001). Conclusions: We successfully implemented a workflow to improve upstream and downstream processes for a chart rounds conference. Standardizing how peer-review outcomes were communicated and recording physician responses allow for improved ability to monitor conference activities.