Cancer Center Staff Satisfaction: Descriptive Results of a Canadian Study.

Caring for cancer patients is generally considered very rewarding work, but it can also be stressful and demanding. Therefore, it is important for oncology healthcare professionals to feel satisfied with their work environment in order to provide the best care possible. An ethics-approved 61-item staff satisfaction survey was developed in-house to gain insights regarding workplace satisfaction among all staff at The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Center. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the responses. A total of 478 individuals completed the online survey, with 75.1% women, 23.2% men, and 1.7% preferring not to say. This represented the vast majority (>75%) of cancer center staff. The approximate breakdown according to healthcare professional type was as follows: 21% nurses, 20% radiation therapists, 18% physicians, 13% clerical staff, and 28% other types of staff. Almost all (97.4%) generally enjoyed their work, with 60% stating "very much" and 37.4% stating "a little bit", and 93.3% found working with cancer patients rewarding. The overall satisfaction level at work was high, with 30.1% reporting "very satisfied" and 54.2% "somewhat satisfied". However, in terms of their work being stressful, 18.6% stated it was "very much" and 62.1% "a little bit". Also, in terms of their workload, 61.3% stated it was "very busy" and 10% stated it was "excessively busy". The most enjoyable aspects of work were listed as interactions with colleagues, interactions with patients, and learning new things. The least enjoyable aspects of work were excessive workload, a perceived unsupportive work environment, and technology problems. Levels of satisfaction and stress at work varied according to role at the cancer center. Most cancer center staff seem to enjoy their work and find it rewarding. However, the work environment can be challenging and stressful. Areas for improvement include managing workloads, ensuring staff feel supported, and improving the user-friendliness of technology.

Long-Term Results of NRG Oncology RTOG 0617: Standard- Versus High-Dose Chemoradiotherapy With or Without Cetuximab for Unresectable Stage III Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: RTOG 0617 compared standard-dose (SD; 60 Gy) versus high-dose (HD; 74 Gy) radiation with concurrent chemotherapy and determined the efficacy of cetuximab for stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: The study used a 2 × 2 factorial design with radiation dose as 1 factor and cetuximab as the other, with a primary end point of overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Median follow-up was 5.1 years. There were 3 grade 5 adverse events (AEs) in the SD arm and 9 in the HD arm. Treatment-related grade ≥3 dysphagia and esophagitis occurred in 3.2% and 5.0% of patients in the SD arm v 12.1% and 17.4% in the HD arm, respectively (P = .0005 and < .0001). There was no difference in pulmonary toxicity, with grade ≥3 AEs in 20.6% and 19.3%. Median OS was 28.7 v 20.3 months (P = .0072) in the SD and HD arms, respectively, 5-year OS and progression-free survival (PFS) rates were 32.1% and 23% and 18.3% and 13% (P = .055), respectively. Factors associated with improved OS on multivariable analysis were standard radiation dose, tumor location, institution accrual volume, esophagitis/dysphagia, planning target volume and heart V5. The use of cetuximab conferred no survival benefit at the expense of increased toxicity. The prior signal of benefit in patients with higher H scores was no longer apparent. The progression rate within 1 month of treatment completion in the SD arm was 4.6%. For comparison purposes, the resultant 2-year OS and PFS rates allowing for that dropout rate were 59.6% and 30.7%, respectively, in the SD arms. CONCLUSION: A 60-Gy radiation dose with concurrent chemotherapy should remain the standard of care, with the OS rate being among the highest reported in the literature for stage III NSCLC. Cetuximab had no effect on OS. The 2-year OS rates in the control arm are similar to the PACIFIC trial.

Institutional Enrollment and Survival Among NSCLC Patients Receiving Chemoradiation: NRG Oncology Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0617.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the effect of institutional accrual volume on clinical outcomes among patients receiving chemoradiation for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) on a phase III trial. METHODS: Patients with LA-NSCLC were randomly assigned to 60 Gy or 74 Gy radiotherapy (RT) with concurrent carboplatin/paclitaxel +/- cetuximab on NRG Oncology RTOG 0617. Participating institutions were categorized as low-volume centers (LVCs) or high-volume centers (HVCs) according to the number of patients accrued (≤3 vs > 3). All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Range of accrual for LVCs (n = 195) vs HVCs (n = 300) was 1 to 3 vs 4 to 18 patients. Baseline characteristics were similar between the two cohorts. Treatment at a HVC was associated with statistically significantly longer overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) compared with treatment at a LVC (median OS = 26.2 vs 19.8 months; HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.56 to 0.88, P = .002; median PFS: 11.4 vs 9.7 months, HR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.65-0.99, P = .04). Patients treated at HVCs were more often treated with intensity-modulated RT (54.0% vs 39.5%, P = .002), had a lower esophageal dose (mean = 26.1 vs 28.0 Gy, P = .03), and had a lower heart dose (median = V5 Gy 38.2% vs 54.1%, P = .006; V50 Gy 3.6% vs 7.3%, P < .001). Grade 5 adverse events (AEs) (5.3% vs 9.2%, P = .09) and RT termination because of AEs (1.3% vs 4.1%, P = .07) were less common among patients treated at HVCs. HVC remained independently associated with longer OS (P = .03) when accounting for other factors. CONCLUSION: Treatment at institutions with higher clinical trial accrual volume is associated with longer OS among patients with LA-NSCLC participating in a phase III trial.

Standard-dose versus high-dose conformal radiotherapy with concurrent and consolidation carboplatin plus paclitaxel with or without cetuximab for patients with stage IIIA or IIIB non-small-cell lung cancer (RTOG 0617): a randomised, two-by-two factorial phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare overall survival after standard-dose versus high-dose conformal radiotherapy with concurrent chemotherapy and the addition of cetuximab to concurrent chemoradiation for patients with inoperable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: In this open-label randomised, two-by-two factorial phase 3 study in 185 institutions in the USA and Canada, we enrolled patients (aged ≥ 18 years) with unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer, a Zubrod performance status of 0-1, adequate pulmonary function, and no evidence of supraclavicular or contralateral hilar adenopathy. We randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) patients to receive either 60 Gy (standard dose), 74 Gy (high dose), 60 Gy plus cetuximab, or 74 Gy plus cetuximab. All patients also received concurrent chemotherapy with 45 mg/m(2) paclitaxel and carboplatin once a week (AUC 2); 2 weeks after chemoradiation, two cycles of consolidation chemotherapy separated by 3 weeks were given consisting of paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2)) and carboplatin (AUC 6). Randomisation was done with permuted block randomisation methods, stratified by radiotherapy technique, Zubrod performance status, use of PET during staging, and histology; treatment group assignments were not masked. Radiation dose was prescribed to the planning target volume and was given in 2 Gy daily fractions with either intensity-modulated radiation therapy or three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy. The use of four-dimensional CT and image-guided radiation therapy were encouraged but not necessary. For patients assigned to receive cetuximab, 400 mg/m(2) cetuximab was given on day 1 followed by weekly doses of 250 mg/m(2), and was continued through consolidation therapy. The primary endpoint was overall survival. All analyses were done by modified intention-to-treat. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00533949. FINDINGS: Between Nov 27, 2007, and Nov 22, 2011, 166 patients were randomly assigned to receive standard-dose chemoradiotherapy, 121 to high-dose chemoradiotherapy, 147 to standard-dose chemoradiotherapy and cetuximab, and 110 to high-dose chemoradiotherapy and cetuximab. Median follow-up for the radiotherapy comparison was 22.9 months (IQR 27.5-33.3). Median overall survival was 28.7 months (95% CI 24.1-36.9) for patients who received standard-dose radiotherapy and 20.3 months (17.7-25.0) for those who received high-dose radiotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 1.38, 95% CI 1.09-1.76; p=0.004). Median follow-up for the cetuximab comparison was 21.3 months (IQR 23.5-29.8). Median overall survival in patients who received cetuximab was 25.0 months (95% CI 20.2-30.5) compared with 24.0 months (19.8-28.6) in those who did not (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.84-1.35; p=0.29). Both the radiation-dose and cetuximab results crossed protocol-specified futility boundaries. We recorded no statistical differences in grade 3 or worse toxic effects between radiotherapy groups. By contrast, the use of cetuximab was associated with a higher rate of grade 3 or worse toxic effects (205 [86%] of 237 vs 160 [70%] of 228 patients; p<0.0001). There were more treatment-related deaths in the high-dose chemoradiotherapy and cetuximab groups (radiotherapy comparison: eight vs three patients; cetuximab comparison: ten vs five patients). There were no differences in severe pulmonary events between treatment groups. Severe oesophagitis was more common in patients who received high-dose chemoradiotherapy than in those who received standard-dose treatment (43 [21%] of 207 patients vs 16 [7%] of 217 patients; p<0.0001). INTERPRETATION: 74 Gy radiation given in 2 Gy fractions with concurrent chemotherapy was not better than 60 Gy plus concurrent chemotherapy for patients with stage III non-small-cell lung cancer, and might be potentially harmful. Addition of cetuximab to concurrent chemoradiation and consolidation treatment provided no benefit in overall survival for these patients. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

IMRT sparing of normal tissues in locoregional treatment of breast cancer.

PURPOSE: This clinical study was designed to prospectively evaluate the acute and moderately-late cardiac and lung toxicities of intensity modulated radiation therapy delivered by helical tomotherapy (IMRT-HT) for locoregional breast radiation treatment including the internal mammary nodes (IMN). MATERIAL/METHODS: 30 patients with stage III breast cancers have been accrued in this study. All patients received adjuvant chemotherapy. Target volumes were defined as follows: the PTV included breast/chest wall, axillary level II, III, infra/supraclavicular, IM nodes CTVs plus 3 mm margins. The heart with subunits and the lungs were defined as critical organs. Dose to PTV was 50 Gy in 25 fractions. Acute toxicities were assessed every week and 2 weeks post treatment using the CTCAE v3.0.scale. The moderately-late toxicities were assessed clinically plus by cardiac myoview perfusion tests scheduled at baseline, 3 and 12-month follow-up, as well a CT chest at the 6 month follow-up. The data analysis is descriptive. RESULTS: All participants completed the 5-week course of radiation without interruption. Skin erythema was modest and mainly grade 1-2 between the 3rd and the 5th week of radiation treatment. Only 4/30 patients experienced grade 3 skin reactions, mostly seen 2 weeks post radiation. Only 5 patients demonstrated grade 1 or 2 dyspnea, but 3 of them already had symptoms pre-radiation treatment. With a median follow-up of 58 (24-76) months, there have been infrequent moderately-late side effects. Most were grade 1 and were sometimes present at the baseline assessment. Cardiac myoview tests done at baseline and 1-year follow-up for 15 out of 18 left sided breast cancers did not show any abnormalities related to radiation. The 6-month follow-up chest CT-scans done for 25 out of 30 patients showed minimal anterior lung fibrosis for 7 patients and were completely normal for the other 18. No locoregional recurrence has been recorded and the 5-year survival is 78% (95% CI: 70-97%). CONCLUSION: IMRT-HT for locoregional breast radiation is very well tolerated with minimal acute or moderately-late side effects. Cardiac and respiratory tests did not show any strong evidence of significant treatment related abnormalities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov: http://NCT00508352.

Barriers to palliative radiotherapy referral: a Canadian perspective.

Radiotherapy is an effective but underutilized treatment modality for cancer patients. We decided to investigate the factors influencing radiotherapy referral among family physicians in our region. A 30-item survey was developed to determine palliative radiotherapy knowledge and factors influencing referral. It was sent to 400 physicians in eastern Ontario (Canada) and the completed surveys were evaluated. The overall response rate was 50% with almost all physicians seeing cancer patients recently (97%) and the majority (80%) providing palliative care. Approximately 56% had referred patients for radiotherapy previously and 59% were aware of the regional community oncology program. Factors influencing radiotherapy referral included the following: waiting times for radiotherapy consultation and treatment, uncertainty about the benefits of radiotherapy, patient age, and perceived patient inconvenience. Physicians who referred patients for radiotherapy were more than likely to provide palliative care, work outside of urban centres, have hospital privileges and had sought advice from a radiation oncologist in the past. A variety of factors influence the referral of cancer patients for radiotherapy by family physicians and addressing issues such as long waiting times, lack of palliative radiotherapy knowledge and awareness of Cancer Centre services could increase the rate of appropriate radiotherapy patient referral.

Family physicians' perspectives regarding palliative radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: To assess family physicians' views on common indications for palliative radiotherapy and to determine whether this influences patient referral. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A 30-item questionnaire evaluating radiotherapy knowledge and training developed at the Ottawa Regional Cancer Centre (ORCC) was mailed to a random sample of 400 family physicians in eastern Ontario, Canada. The completed surveys were collected and analyzed, and form the basis of this study. RESULTS: A total of 172 completed surveys were received for a net response rate of 50% among practicing family physicians. Almost all of the physicians (97%) had recently seen cancer patients in their offices, with 85% regularly caring for patient with advanced cancer. Fifty-four percent had referred patients in the past for radiotherapy and 53% had contacted a radiation oncologist for advice. Physicians who were more knowledgeable about the common indications for palliative radiotherapy were significantly more likely to refer patients for radiotherapy (P < 0.01). Inability to contact a radiation oncologist was correlated with not having referred patients for radiotherapy (P < 0.01). Only 10% of the physicians had received radiotherapy education during their formal medical training. CONCLUSIONS: Many of the family physicians surveyed were unaware of the effectiveness of radiotherapy in a variety of common palliative situations, and radiotherapy referral was correlated with knowledge about the indications for palliative radiotherapy. This was not surprising given the limited education they received in this area and the limited contact they have had with radiation oncologists. Strategies need to be developed to improve continuing medical education opportunities for family physicians and to facilitate more interaction between these physicians and radiation oncologists.