Optimizing Outpatient Radiation Oncology Consult Workflow by Using Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing: Efficiency and Financial Impacts.

PURPOSE: Clinical efficiency is a key component of value-based health care. Our objective here was to identify workflow inefficiencies by using time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) and evaluate the implementation of a new clinical workflow in high-volume outpatient radiation oncology clinics. METHODS: Our quality improvement study was conducted with the Departments of GI, Genitourinary (GU), and Thoracic Radiation Oncology at a large academic cancer center and four community network sites. TDABC was used to create process maps and optimize workflow for outpatient consults. Patient encounter metrics were captured with a real-time status function in the electronic medical record. Time metrics were compared using Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS: Individual patient encounter data for 1,328 consults before the intervention and 1,234 afterward across all sections were included. The median overall cycle time was reduced by 21% in GI (19 minutes), 18% in GU (16 minutes), and 12% at the community sites (9 minutes). The median financial savings per consult were $52 in US dollars (USD) for the GI, $33 USD for GU, $30 USD for thoracic, and $42 USD for the community sites. Patient satisfaction surveys (from 127 of 228 patients) showed that 99% of patients reported that their providers spent adequate time with them and 91% reported being seen by a care provider in a timely manner. CONCLUSION: TDABC can effectively identify opportunities to improve clinical efficiency. Implementing workflow changes on the basis of our findings led to substantial reductions in overall encounter cycle times across several departments, as well as high patient satisfaction and significant financial savings.

Implementation and Efficacy of a Large-Scale Radiation Oncology Case-Based Peer-Review Quality Program across a Multinational Cancer Network.

PURPOSE: With expansion of academic cancer center networks across geographically-dispersed sites, ensuring high-quality delivery of care across all network affiliates is essential. We report on the characteristics and efficacy of a radiation oncology peer-review quality assurance (QA) system implemented across a large-scale multinational cancer network. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Since 2014, weekly case-based peer-review QA meetings have been standard for network radiation oncologists with radiation oncology faculty at a major academic center. This radiotherapy (RT) QA program involves pre-treatment peer-review of cases by disease site, with disease-site subspecialized main campus faculty members. This virtual QA platform involves direct review of the proposed RT plan as well as supporting data, including relevant pathology and imaging studies for each patient. Network RT plans were scored as being concordant or nonconcordant based on national guidelines, institutional recommendations, and/or expert judgment when considering individual patient-specific factors for a given case. Data from January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2019, were aggregated for analysis. RESULTS: Between 2014 and 2019, across 8 network centers, a total of 16,601 RT plans underwent peer-review. The network-based peer-review case volume increased over the study period, from 958 cases in 2014 to 4,487 in 2019. A combined global nonconcordance rate of 4.5% was noted, with the highest nonconcordance rates among head-and-neck cases (11.0%). For centers that joined the network during the study period, we observed a significant decrease in the nonconcordance rate over time (3.1% average annual decrease in nonconcordance, P = 0.01); among centers that joined the network prior to the study period, nonconcordance rates remained stable over time. CONCLUSIONS: Through a standardized QA platform, network-based multinational peer-review of RT plans can be achieved. Improved concordance rates among newly added network affiliates over time are noted, suggesting a positive impact of network membership on the quality of delivered cancer care.

Impact of Cancer Care Regionalization on Patient Volume.

BACKGROUND: Cancer centers are regionalizing care to expand patient access, but the effects on patient volume are unknown. This study aimed to compare patient volumes before and after the establishment of head and neck regional care centers (HNRCCs). METHODS: This study analyzed 35,394 unique new patient visits at MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) before and after the creation of HNRCCs. Univariate regression estimated the rate of increase in new patient appointments. Geospatial analysis evaluated patient origin and distribution. RESULTS: The mean new patients per year in 2006-2011 versus 2012-2017 was 2735 ± 156 patients versus 3155 ± 207 patients, including 464 ± 78 patients at HNRCCs, reflecting a 38.4 % increase in overall patient volumes. The rate of increase in new patient appointments did not differ significantly before and after HNRCCs (121.9 vs 95.8 patients/year; P = 0.519). The patients from counties near HNRCCs, showed a 210.8 % increase in appointments overall, 33.8 % of which were at an HNRCC. At the main campus exclusively, the shift in regional patients to HNRCCs coincided with a lower rate of increase in patients from the MDACC service area (33.7 vs. 11.0 patients/year; P = 0.035), but the trend was toward a greater increase in out-of-state patients (25.7 vs. 40.3 patients/year; P = 0.299). CONCLUSIONS: The creation of HNRCCs coincided with stable increases in new patient volume, and a sizeable minority of patients sought care at regional centers. Regional patients shifted to the HNRCCs, and out-of-state patient volume increased at the main campus, optimizing access for both local and out-of-state patients.

Unilateral Radiation Therapy for Tonsillar Cancer: Treatment Outcomes in the Era of Human Papillomavirus, Positron-Emission Tomography, and Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to evaluate disease, survival, and toxic effects after unilateral radiation therapy treatment for tonsillar cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A retrospective study was performed of patients treated at our institution within the period from 2000 to 2018. Summary statistics were used to assess the cohort by patient characteristics and treatments delivered. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to determine survival outcomes. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 403 patients, including 343 (85%) with clinical and/or radiographic evidence of ipsilateral cervical nodal disease and 181 (45%) with multiple involved nodes. Human papillomavirus was detected in 294 (73%) tumors. Median follow-up time was 5.8 years. Disease relapse was infrequent with local recurrence in 9 (2%) patients, neck recurrence in 13 (3%) patients, and recurrence in the unirradiated contralateral neck in 9 (2%) patients. Five- and 10-year overall survival rates were 94% and 89%, respectively. Gastrostomy tubes were needed in 32 (9%) patients, and no patient had a feeding tube 6 months after therapy. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with well-lateralized tonsillar tumors and no clinically evident adenopathy of the contralateral neck, unilateral radiation therapy offers favorable rates of disease outcomes and a relatively low toxicity profile.

Swallowing After Primary TORS and Unilateral or Bilateral Radiation for Low- to Intermediate-Risk Tonsil Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The primary course of treatment for patients with low- to intermediate-risk tonsil cancer has evolved with a shift toward primary transoral robotic surgery (TORS) or radiation therapy (RT). While favorable outcomes have been reported after deintensification via unilateral TORS or RT (uniRT), comparisons of functional outcomes between these treatments are lacking. We compared clinical outcomes (Dynamic Imaging Grade of Swallowing Toxicity [DIGEST] and feeding tube [FT]) and patient-reported swallowing outcomes (MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory [MDADI]) based on primary treatment strategy: TORS, uniRT, or bilateral RT (biRT). STUDY DESIGN: Secondary analysis of prospective cohort. SETTING: Single institution. METHODS: The study sample comprised 135 patients with HPV/p16+ T1-T3, N0-2b (American Joint Committee on Cancer, seventh edition), N0-1 (eighth edition) squamous cell carcinoma of the tonsil were sampled from a prospective registry. Modified barium swallow studies graded per DIGEST, FT placement and duration, and MDADI were collected. RESULTS: Baseline DIGEST grade significantly differed among treatment groups, with higher dysphagia prevalence in the TORS group (34%) vs the biRT group (12%, P = .04). No significant group differences were found in DIGEST grade or dysphagia prevalence at subacute and longitudinal time points (P = .41). Mean MDADI scores were similar among groups at baseline (TORS, 92; uniRT, 93; biRT, 93; P = .90), subacute (TORS, 83; uniRT, 88; biRT, 82; P = .38) and late time points (TORS, 86; uniRT, 86; biRT, 87; P = .99). FT placement and duration significantly differed among primary treatment groups (FT [median days]: TORS, 89% [3]; uniRT, 8% [82]; biRT, 37% [104]; P < .001). CONCLUSION: While TORS and uniRT offer optimal functional outcomes related to dysphagia, results suggest that no measurable clinician-graded or patient-reported differences in swallow outcomes exist among these primary treatment strategies and biRT. Aside from baseline differences that drive treatment selection, differences in FT rate and duration by primary treatment strategy likely reflect diverse toxicities beyond dysphagia.

Proton Therapy for Head and Neck Cancer: A 12-Year, Single-Institution Experience.

PURPOSE: To characterize our experience and the disease control and toxicity of proton therapy (PT) for patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Clinical outcomes for patients with HNC treated with PT at our institution were prospectively collected in 2 institutional review board-approved prospective studies. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patient characteristics and outcomes. Overall survival, local-regional control, and disease-free survival were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Treatment-related toxicities were recorded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.03) scale. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 573 patients treated from February 2006 to June 2018. Median patient age was 61 years. Oropharynx (33.3%; n = 191), paranasal sinus (11%; n = 63), and periorbital tissues (11%; n = 62) were the most common primary sites. Patients with T3/T4 or recurrent disease comprised 46% (n = 262) of the cohort. The intent of PT was definitive in 53% (n = 303), postoperative in 37% (n = 211), and reirradiation in 10% (n = 59). Median dose was 66 Gy (radiobiological equivalent). Regarding systemic therapy, 43% had received concurrent (n = 244), 3% induction (n = 19), and 15% (n = 86) had both. At a median follow-up of 2.4 years, 88 patients (15%) had died and 127 (22%) developed disease recurrence. The overall survival, local-regional control, and disease-free survival at 2 and 5 years were, respectively, 87% and 75%, 87% and 78%, and 74% and 63%. Maximum toxicity (acute or late) was grade 3 in 293 patients (51%), grade 2 in 234 patients (41%), and grade 1 in 31 patients (5%). There were 381 acute grade 3 and 190 late grade 3 unique toxicities across 212 (37%) and 150 (26%) patients, respectively. There were 3 late-grade 4 events across 2 patients (0.3%), 2 (0.3%) acute-grade 5, and no (0%) late-grade 5 events. CONCLUSIONS: The overall results from this prospective study of our initial decade of experience with PT for HNC show favorable disease control and toxicity outcomes in a multidisease-site cohort and provide a reference benchmark for future comparison and study.

Proton Therapy for Major Salivary Gland Cancer: Clinical Outcomes.

PURPOSE: To report clinical outcomes in terms of disease control and toxicity in patients with major salivary gland cancers (SGCs) treated with proton beam therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical and dosimetric characteristics of patients with SGCs treated from August 2011 to February 2020 on an observational, prospective, single-institution protocol were abstracted. Local control and overall survival were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method. During radiation, weekly assessments of toxicity were obtained, and for patients with ≥ 90 days of follow-up, late toxicity was assessed. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients were identified. Median age was 54 years (range, 23-87 years). Sixty-three patients (88%) received postoperative therapy, and nine patients (12%) were treated definitively. Twenty-six patients (36%) received concurrent chemotherapy. Nine patients (12%) had received prior radiation. All (99%) but one patient received unilateral treatment with a median dose of 64 GyRBE (relative biological effectiveness) (interquartile range [IQR], 60-66), and 53 patients (74%) received intensity-modulated proton therapy with either single-field or multifield optimization. The median follow-up time was 30 months. Two-year local control and overall survival rates were 96% (95% confidence interval [CI] 85%-99%) and 89% (95% CI 76%-95%], respectively. Radiation dermatitis was the predominant grade-3 toxicity (seen in 21% [n = 15] of the patients), and grade ≥ 2 mucositis was rare (14%; n = 10 patients). No late-grade ≥ 3 toxicities were reported. CONCLUSION: Proton beam therapy for treatment of major SGCs manifests in low rates of acute mucosal toxicity. In addition, the current data suggest a high rate of local control and minimal late toxicity.

Work Outcomes after Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) versus Intensity-Modulated Photon Therapy (IMRT) for Oropharyngeal Cancer.

PURPOSE: We compared work outcomes in patients with oropharyngeal cancer (OPC), randomized to intensity-modulated proton (IMPT) versus intensity-modulated photon therapy (IMRT) for chemoradiation therapy (CRT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In 147 patients with stage II-IVB squamous cell OPC participating in patient-reported outcomes assessments, a prespecified secondary aim of a randomized phase II/III trial of IMPT (n = 69) versus IMRT (n = 78), we compared absenteeism, presenteeism (i.e., the extent to which an employee is not fully functional at work), and work productivity losses. We used the work productivity and activity impairment questionnaire at baseline (pre-CRT), at the end of CRT, and at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. A one-sided Cochran-Armitage test was used to analyze within-arm temporal trends, and a χ2 test was used to compare between-arm differences. Among working patients, at each follow-up point, a 1-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare work-productivity scores. RESULTS: Patient characteristics in IMPT versus IMRT arms were similar. In the IMPT arm, within-arm analysis demonstrated that an increasing proportion of patients resumed working after IMPT, from 60% (40 of 67) pre-CRT and 71% (30 of 42) at 1 year to 78% (18 of 23) at 2 years (P = 0.025). In the IMRT arm, the proportion remained stable, with 57% (43 of 76) pre-CRT, 54% (21 of 39) at 1 year, and 52% (13 of 25) working at 2 years (P = 0.47). By 2 years after CRT, the between-arm difference between patients who had IMPT and those who had IMRT trended toward significance (P = 0.06). Regardless of treatment arm, among working patients, the most severe work impairments occurred from treatment initiation to the end of CRT, with significant recovery from absenteeism, presenteeism, and productivity impairments by the 2-year follow-up (P < 0.001 for all). Higher magnitudes of recovery from absenteeism (at 1 year, P = 0.05; and at 2 years, P = 0.04) and composite work impairment scores (at 1 year, P = 0.04; and at 2 years, P = 0.04) were seen in patients treated with IMPT versus those treated with IMRT. CONCLUSION: In patients with OPC receiving curative CRT, patients randomized to IMPT demonstrated increasing work and productivity recovery trends. Studies are needed to identify mechanisms underlying head and neck CRT treatment causing work disability and impairment.

Proton Therapy for HPV-Associated Oropharyngeal Cancers of the Head and Neck: a De-Intensification Strategy.

OPINION STATEMENT: The rise in the incidence of human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPC), the relatively young age at which it is diagnosed, and its favorable prognosis necessitate the use of treatment techniques that reduce the likelihood of side effects during and after curative treatment. Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) is a form of radiotherapy that de-intensifies treatment through dose de-escalation to normal tissues without compromising dose to the primary tumor and involved, regional lymph nodes. Preclinical studies have demonstrated that HPV-positive squamous cell carcinoma is more sensitive to proton radiation than is HPV-negative squamous cell carcinoma. Retrospective studies comparing intensity-modulated photon (X-ray) radiotherapy to IMPT for OPC suggest comparable rates of disease control and lower rates of pain, xerostomia, dysphagia, dysgeusia, gastrostomy tube dependence, and osteoradionecrosis with IMPT-all of which meaningfully affect the quality of life of patients treated for HPV-associated OPC. Two phase III trials currently underway-the "Randomized Trial of IMPT versus IMRT for the Treatment of Oropharyngeal Cancer of the Head and Neck" and the "TOxicity Reduction using Proton bEam therapy for Oropharyngeal cancer (TORPEdO)" trial-are expected to provide prospective, level I evidence regarding the effectiveness of IMPT for such patients.

Five-Year Longitudinal Analysis of Patient-Reported Outcomes and Cosmesis in a Randomized Trial of Conventionally Fractionated Versus Hypofractionated Whole-Breast Irradiation.

PURPOSE: There are limited prospective data on predictors of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after whole-breast irradiation (WBI) plus a boost. We sought to characterize longitudinal PROs and cosmesis in a randomized trial comparing conventionally fractionated (CF) versus hypofractionated (HF) WBI. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From 2011 to 2014, women aged ≥40 years with Tis-T2 N0-N1a M0 breast cancer who underwent a lumpectomy with negative margins were randomized to CF-WBI (50 Gray [Gy]/25 fractions plus boost) versus HF-WBI (42.56 Gy/16 fractions plus boost). At baseline (pre-radiation), at 6 months, and yearly thereafter through 5 years, PROs included the Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale (BCTOS), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B), and Body Image Scale; cosmesis was reported by the treating physician using Radiation Therapy Oncology Group cosmesis values. Multivariable mixed-effects growth curve models evaluated associations of the treatment arm and patient factors with outcomes and tested for relevant interactions with the treatment arm. RESULTS: A total of 287 patients were randomized, completing a total of 14,801 PRO assessments. The median age was 60 years, 37% of patients had a bra cup size ≥D, 44% were obese, and 30% received chemotherapy. Through 5 years, there were no significant differences in PROs or cosmesis by treatment arm. A bra cup size ≥D was associated with worse BCTOS cosmesis (P < .001), BCTOS pain (P = .001), FACT-B Trial Outcome Index (P = .03), FACT-B Emotional Well-being (P = .03), and Body Image Scale (P = .003) scores. Physician-rated cosmesis was worse in patients who were overweight (P = .02) or obese (P < .001). No patient subsets experienced better PROs or cosmesis with CF-WBI. CONCLUSIONS: Both CF-WBI and HF-WBI confer similar longitudinal PROs and physician-rated cosmesis through 5 years of follow-up, with no relevant subsets that fared better with CF-WBI. This evidence supports broad adoption of hypofractionation with boost, including in patients receiving chemotherapy and in a population with a high prevalence of obesity. The associations of large breast size and obesity with adverse outcomes across multiple domains highlight the opportunity to engage at-risk patients in lifestyle intervention strategies, as well as to consider alternative radiation treatment regimens.

Implementation of a stereotactic body radiotherapy program for unresectable pancreatic cancer in an integrated community academic radiation oncology satellite network.

With increasing interest in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for unresectable pancreatic cancer, quality improvement (QI) initiatives to develop integrated clinical workflows are crucial to ensure quality assurance (QA) when introducing this challenging technique into radiation practices. MATERIALS/METHODS: In 2017, we used the Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA) QI methodology to implement a new pancreas SBRT program in an integrated community radiation oncology satellite. A unified integrated information technology infrastructure was used to virtually integrate the planned workflow into the community radiation oncology satellite network (P - Plan/D - Do). This workflow included multiple prospective quality assurance (QA) measures including multidisciplinary evaluation, prospective scrutiny of radiation target delineation, prospective radiation plan evaluation, and monitoring of patient outcomes. Institutional review board approval was obtained to retrospectively study and report outcomes of patients treated in this program (S - Study). RESULTS: There were 12 consecutive patients identified who were treated in this program from 2017 to 2020 with a median follow-up of 27 months. The median survival was 13 months, median local failure free survival was 12 months and median progression free survival was 6 months from SBRT. There were no acute or late Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Effects (CTCAE) version 5 toxicities ≥ Grade 3. CONCLUSION: We report the successful implementation of a community pancreas SBRT program involving multiple prospective QA measures, providing the groundwork to safely expand access to pancreas SBRT in our community satellite network (A - Act).

Radiation Oncology Strategies to Flatten the Curve During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic: Experience From a Large Tertiary Cancer Center.

During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, minimizing exposure risk for patients with cancer and health care personnel was of utmost importance. Here, we present steps taken to date to flatten the curve at the radiation oncology division of a tertiary cancer center with the goal of mitigating risk of exposure among patients and staff, and optimizing resource utilization. Response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic in this large tertiary referral center included volume reduction, personal protective equipment recommendations, flexible clinic visit interaction types dictated by need and risk reduction, and numerous social distancing strategies. We hope these outlined considerations can assist the wider radiation oncology community as we collectively face this ongoing challenge.

Mitigating the impact of COVID-19 on oncology: Clinical and operational lessons from a prospective radiation oncology cohort tested for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic warrants operational initiatives to minimize transmission, particularly among cancer patients who are thought to be at high-risk. Within our department, a multidisciplinary tracer team prospectively monitored all patients under investigation, tracking their test status, treatment delays, clinical outcomes, employee exposures, and quarantines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective cohort tested for SARS-COV-2 infection over 35 consecutive days of the early pandemic (03/19/2020-04/22/2020). RESULTS: A total of 121 Radiation Oncology patients underwent RT-PCR testing during this timeframe. Of the 7 (6%) confirmed-positive cases, 6 patients were admitted (4 warranting intensive care), and 2 died from acute respiratory distress syndrome. Radiotherapy was deferred or interrupted for 40 patients awaiting testing. As the median turnaround time for RT-PCR testing decreased from 1.5 (IQR: 1-4) to ≤1-day (P < 0.001), the median treatment delay also decreased from 3.5 (IQR: 1.75-5) to 1 business day (IQR: 1-2) [P < 0.001]. Each patient was an exposure risk to a median of 5 employees (IQR: 3-6.5) through prolonged close contact. During this timeframe, 39 care-team members were quarantined for a median of 3 days (IQR: 2-11), with a peak of 17 employees simultaneously quarantined. Following implementation of a "dual PPE policy," newly quarantined employees decreased from 2.9 to 0.5 per day. CONCLUSION: The severe adverse events noted among these confirmed-positive cases support the notion that cancer patients are vulnerable to COVID-19. Active tracking, rapid diagnosis, and aggressive source control can mitigate the adverse effects on treatment delays, workforce incapacitation, and ideally outcomes.

Three-Year Outcomes With Hypofractionated Versus Conventionally Fractionated Whole-Breast Irradiation: Results of a Randomized, Noninferiority Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: The adoption of hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation (HF-WBI) remains low, in part because of concerns regarding its safety when used with a tumor bed boost or in patients who have received chemotherapy or have large breast size. To address this, we conducted a randomized, multicenter trial to compare conventionally fractionated whole-breast irradiation (CF-WBI; 50 Gy/25 fx + 10 to 14 Gy/5 to 7 fx) with HF-WBI (42.56 Gy/16 fx + 10 to 12.5 Gy/4 to 5 fx). PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 2011 to 2014, 287 women with stage 0 to II breast cancer were randomly assigned to CF-WBI or HF-WBI, stratified by chemotherapy, margin status, cosmesis, and breast size. The trial was designed to test the hypothesis that HF-WBI is not inferior to CF-WBI with regard to the proportion of patients with adverse cosmetic outcome 3 years after radiation, assessed using the Breast Cancer Treatment Outcomes Scale. Secondary outcomes included photographically assessed cosmesis scored by a three-physician panel and local recurrence-free survival. Analyses were intention to treat. RESULTS: A total of 286 patients received the protocol-specified radiation dose, 30% received chemotherapy, and 36.9% had large breast size. Baseline characteristics were well balanced. Median follow-up was 4.1 years. Three-year adverse cosmetic outcome was 5.4% lower with HF-WBI ( Pnoninferiority = .002; absolute risks were 8.2% [n = 8] with HF-WBI v 13.6% [n = 15] with CF-WBI). For those treated with chemotherapy, adverse cosmetic outcome was higher by 4.1% (90% upper confidence limit, 15.0%) with HF-WBI than with CF-WBI; for large breast size, adverse cosmetic outcome was 18.6% lower (90% upper confidence limit, -8.0%) with HF-WBI. Poor or fair photographically assessed cosmesis was noted in 28.8% of CF-WBI patients and 35.4% of HF-WBI patients ( P = .31). Three-year local recurrence-free survival was 99% with both HF-WBI and CF-WBI ( P = .37). CONCLUSION: Three years after WBI followed by a tumor bed boost, outcomes with hypofractionation and conventional fractionation are similar. Tumor bed boost, chemotherapy, and larger breast size do not seem to be strong contraindications to HF-WBI.

Favorable patient reported outcomes following IMRT for early carcinomas of the tonsillar fossa: Results from a symptom assessment study.

BACKGROUND: A questionnaire-based study was conducted to assess long-term patient reported outcomes (PROs) following definitive IMRT-based treatment for early stage carcinomas of the tonsillar fossa. METHODS: Participants had received IMRT with or without systemic therapy for squamous carcinoma of the tonsillar fossa (T1-2 and N0-2b) with a minimum follow-up of 2years. Patients completed a validated head and neck cancer-specific PRO instrument, the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Head and Neck module (MDASI-HN). Symptoms were compared between treatment groups of interest and overall symptom burden was evaluated. RESULTS: Of 139 participants analyzed, 51% had received ipsilateral neck IMRT, and 62% single modality IMRT alone (no systemic therapy). There were no differences in mean severity ratings for the top-ranked individual symptoms or symptom interference for those treated with bilateral versus ipsilateral neck IMRT alone. However, 40% of those treated with bilateral versus 25% of those treated with ipsilateral neck RT alone reported moderate-to-severe levels of dry mouth (p=0.03). Fatigue, numbness/tingling, and constipation were rated more severe for those who had received systemic therapy (p<0.05 for each), but absolute differences were small. Overall, 51% had no more than mild symptom ratings across all 22 symptoms assessed. CONCLUSIONS: The long-term patient reported symptom profile in this cohort of tonsil cancer survivors treated with definitive IMRT-based treatment showed a majority of patients with no more than mild symptoms, low symptom interference, and provides an opportunity for future comparison studies with other treatment approaches.

Acute and Short-term Toxic Effects of Conventionally Fractionated vs Hypofractionated Whole-Breast Irradiation: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: The most appropriate dose fractionation for whole-breast irradiation (WBI) remains uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To assess acute and 6-month toxic effects and quality of life (QOL) with conventionally fractionated WBI (CF-WBI) vs hypofractionated WBI (HF-WBI). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Unblinded randomized trial of CF-WBI (n = 149; 50.00 Gy/25 fractions + boost [10.00-14.00 Gy/5-7 fractions]) vs HF-WBI (n = 138; 42.56 Gy/16 fractions + boost [10.00-12.50 Gy/4-5 fractions]) following breast-conserving surgery administered in community-based and academic cancer centers to 287 women 40 years or older with stage 0 to II breast cancer for whom WBI without addition of a third field was recommended; 76% of study participants (n = 217) were overweight or obese. Patients were enrolled from February 2011 through February 2014 and observed for a minimum of 6 months. INTERVENTIONS: Administration of CF-WBI or HF-WBI. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Physician-reported acute and 6-month toxic effects using National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria, and patient-reported QOL using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy for Patients with Breast Cancer (FACT-B). All analyses were intention to treat, with outcomes compared using the χ2 test, Cochran-Armitage test, and ordinal logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 287 participants, 149 were randomized to CF-WBI and 138 to HF-WBI. Treatment arms were well matched for baseline characteristics, including FACT-B total score (HF-WBI, 120.1 vs CF-WBI, 118.8; P = .46) and individual QOL items such as somewhat or more lack of energy (HF-WBI, 38% vs CF-WBI, 39%; P = .86) and somewhat or more trouble meeting family needs (HF-WBI, 10% vs CF-WBI, 14%; P = .54). Maximum physician-reported acute dermatitis (36% vs 69%; P < .001), pruritus (54% vs 81%; P < .001), breast pain (55% vs 74%; P = .001), hyperpigmentation (9% vs 20%; P = .002), and fatigue (9% vs 17%; P = .02) during irradiation were lower in patients randomized to HF-WBI. The rate of overall grade 2 or higher acute toxic effects was less with HF-WBI than with CF-WBI (47% vs 78%; P < .001). Six months after irradiation, physicians reported less fatigue in patients randomized to HF-WBI (0% vs 6%; P = .01), and patients randomized to HF-WBI reported less lack of energy (23% vs 39%; P < .001) and less trouble meeting family needs (3% vs 9%; P = .01). Multivariable regression confirmed the superiority of HF-WBI in terms of patient-reported lack of energy (odds ratio [OR], 0.39; 95% CI, 0.24-0.63) and trouble meeting family needs (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.16-0.75). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Treatment with HF-WBI appears to yield lower rates of acute toxic effects than CF-WBI as well as less fatigue and less trouble meeting family needs 6 months after completing radiation therapy. These findings should be communicated to patients as part of shared decision making. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01266642.

Analysis of Charges Associated with Definitive Nonsurgical Therapy for Early-Stage Lateralized Tonsil Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The cost of treatment as it affects comparative effectiveness is becoming increasingly more important. Because cost data are not readily available, we evaluated the charges associated with definitive nonsurgical therapy for early-stage lateralized tonsil cancers. METHODS: Patients treated with unilateral radiation therapy (RT) for T1 or T2 tonsil cancer between 1995 and 2007 were retrospectively reviewed. Total and radiation-specific charges, from 3 months before to 4 months after radiation, were adjusted for inflation. All facets of treatment were evaluated for significant associations with total billing. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients were identified. Three-year overall survival, disease-specific survival, and recurrence-free survival were 97 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.88-0.99], 98 % (95 % CI 0.89-1), and 96 % (95 % CI 0.88-0.99), respectively. The median for radiation-specific charges was $60,412 (range $16,811-$84,792). The median for total charges associated with treatment was $109,917 (range $36,680-$231,895). Total billing for treatment was significantly associated with the year of diagnosis (p = 0.008), intensity-modulated radiation therapy versus wedge pair RT (p = 0.005), preradiation direct laryngoscopy (p < 0.0001), chemotherapy (p < 0.0001), gastrostomy tube placement (p = 0.004), and postradiation neck dissection (p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Although cost data for treatment are not readily available, historically, the recovery rate is approximately 30 %. The charges associated with definitive nonsurgical therapy for early-stage lateralized tonsil cancer have a wide range likely due to treatment-related procedures, the use of chemotherapy, and evolving RT technologies. These benchmark data are important given renewed interested in primary surgery for tonsil cancer. Cost of care, disease control, and functional outcomes will be critical for comparisons of effectiveness when selecting treatment modalities.

Prospective peer review quality assurance for outpatient radiation therapy.

PURPOSE: We implemented a peer review program that required presentation of all nonpalliative cases to a weekly peer review conference. The purpose of this review is to document compliance and determine how this program impacted care. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 2988 patients were eligible for peer review. Patient data were presented to a group of physicians, physicists, and dosimetrists, and the radiation therapy plan was reviewed. Details of changes made were documented within a quality assurance note dictated after discussion. Changes recommended by the peer review process were categorized as changes to radiation dose, target, or major changes. RESULTS: Breast cancer accounted for 47.9% of all cases, followed in frequency by head-and-neck (14.8%), gastrointestinal (9.9%), genitourinary (9.3%), and thoracic (6.7%) malignancies. Of the 2988 eligible patients, 158 (5.3%) were not presented for peer review. The number of missed presentations decreased over time; 2007, 8.2%; 2008, 5.7%; 2009, 3.8%; and 2010, 2.7% (P < .001). The reason for a missed presentation was unknown but varied by disease site and physician. Of the 2830 cases presented for peer review, a change was recommended in 346 cases (12.2%) and categorized as a dose change in 28.3%, a target change in 69.1%, and a major treatment change in 2.6%. When examined by year of treatment the number of changes recommended decreased over time: 2007, 16.5%; 2008, 11.5%; 2009, 12.5%; and 2010, 7.8% (P < .001). The number of changes recommended varied by disease site and physician. The head-and-neck, gynecologic, and gastrointestinal malignancies accounted for the majority of changes made. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with this weekly program was satisfactory and improved over time. The program resulted in decreased treatment plan changes over time reflecting a move toward treatment consensus. We recommend that peer review be considered for patients receiving radiation therapy as it creates a culture where guideline adherence and discussion are part of normal practice.