Variation in Access to Palliative Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer: A Population-Based Study in Canada.

BACKGROUND: As a result of improvements in cancer therapies, patients with metastatic malignancies are living longer, and the role of palliative radiotherapy has become increasingly recognized. However, access to adequate palliative radiotherapy may continue to be a challenge, as is evident from the high proportion of patients dying of prostate cancer who never receive palliative radiotherapy. The main objective of this investigation is to identify and describe the factors associated with the receipt of palliative radiation treatment in a decedent cohort of prostate cancer patients in Ontario. METHODOLOGY:  Population-based administrative databases from Ontario, Canada, were used to identify prostate cancer decedents, 65 years or older who received androgen deprivation therapy between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2018. Baseline and treatment characteristics were analyzed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression models for association with receipt of radiotherapy in a two-year observation period before death. RESULTS: We identified 3,788 prostate cancer decedents between 2013 and 2018; among these, 49.9% received radiotherapy in the two years preceding death. There were statistically significant positive associations between receipt of radiotherapy and younger age at diagnosis (odds ratio [OR] 1.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-2.3); higher stage at diagnosis (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1-1.7); receipt of care at a regional cancer center (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.3-2.4); and involvement of radiation oncologists (OR 155.1, 95% CI 83.3-288.7) or medical oncologists (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1-1.8). However, there were no associations between receipt of radiotherapy and income, distance to the nearest cancer center, involvement of urologists in cancer care, healthcare administrative region, home-care involvement, or number of hospitalizations in the observation period. CONCLUSIONS: We found the utilization of palliative radiotherapy for prostate cancer patients in Ontario varies depending on age, stage at diagnosis, number of comorbidities, registration at regional cancer centers, and involvement of oncologists. There were no differences detected based on income or distance from a cancer center. The findings of this study represent an important opportunity to facilitate better access to palliative radiotherapy and referrals to multidisciplinary regional cancer centers, to improve the quality of life of this patient population.

Artificial Intelligence-Based Radiotherapy Contouring and Planning to Improve Global Access to Cancer Care.

PURPOSE: Increased automation has been identified as one approach to improving global cancer care. The Radiation Planning Assistant (RPA) is a web-based tool offering automated radiotherapy (RT) contouring and planning to low-resource clinics. In this study, the RPA workflow and clinical acceptability were assessed by physicians around the world. METHODS: The RPA output for 75 cases was reviewed by at least three physicians; 31 radiation oncologists at 16 institutions in six countries on five continents reviewed RPA contours and plans for clinical acceptability using a 5-point Likert scale. RESULTS: For cervical cancer, RPA plans using bony landmarks were scored as usable as-is in 81% (with minor edits 93%); using soft tissue contours, plans were scored as usable as-is in 79% (with minor edits 96%). For postmastectomy breast cancer, RPA plans were scored as usable as-is in 44% (with minor edits 91%). For whole-brain treatment, RPA plans were scored as usable as-is in 67% (with minor edits 99%). For head/neck cancer, the normal tissue autocontours were acceptable as-is in 89% (with minor edits 97%). The clinical target volumes (CTVs) were acceptable as-is in 40% (with minor edits 93%). The volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were acceptable as-is in 87% (with minor edits 96%). For cervical cancer, the normal tissue autocontours were acceptable as-is in 92% (with minor edits 99%). The CTVs for cervical cancer were scored as acceptable as-is in 83% (with minor edits 92%). The VMAT plans for cervical cancer were acceptable as-is in 99% (with minor edits 100%). CONCLUSION: The RPA, a web-based tool designed to improve access to high-quality RT in low-resource settings, has high rates of clinical acceptability by practicing clinicians around the world. It has significant potential for successful implementation in low-resource clinics.

Quality indicators in surgical oncology: systematic review of measures used to compare quality across hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Measurement and reporting of quality indicators at the hospital level has been shown to improve outcomes and support patient choice. Although there are many studies validating individual quality indicators, there has been no systematic approach to understanding what quality indicators exist for surgical oncology and no standardization for their use. The aim of this study was to review quality indicators used to assess variation in quality in surgical oncology care across hospitals or regions. It also sought to describe the aims of these studies and what, if any, feedback was offered to the analysed groups. METHODS: A literature search was performed to identify studies published between 1 January 2000 and 23 October 2023 that applied surgical quality indicators to detect variation in cancer care at the hospital or regional level. RESULTS: A total of 89 studies assessed 91 unique quality indicators that fell into the following Donabedian domains: process indicators (58; 64%); outcome indicators (26; 29%); structure indicators (6; 7%); and structure and outcome indicators (1; 1%). Purposes of evaluating variation included: identifying outliers (43; 48%); comparing centres with a benchmark (14; 16%); and supplying evidence of practice variation (29; 33%). Only 23 studies (26%) reported providing the results of their analyses back to those supplying data. CONCLUSION: Comparisons of quality in surgical oncology within and among hospitals and regions have been undertaken in high-income countries. Quality indicators tended to be process measures and reporting focused on identifying outlying hospitals. Few studies offered feedback to data suppliers.

Common Sense (Radiation) Oncology: Redefining targets in radiotherapy.

In 2023, the Common Sense Oncology (CSO) movement was launched with the goal of recalibrating cancer care to focus on outcomes that matter to patients. We extend the three CSO pillars - evidence generation, interpretation and communication - to radiation oncology and advocate for better evidence demonstrating the value of our modality.

Quality indicators for evaluating cancer care in low-income and middle-income country settings: a multinational modified Delphi study.

This Policy Review sourced opinions from experts in cancer care across low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) to build consensus around high-priority measures of care quality. A comprehensive list of quality indicators in medical, radiation, and surgical oncology was identified from systematic literature reviews. A modified Delphi study consisting of three 90-min workshops and two international electronic surveys integrating a global range of key clinical, policy, and research leaders was used to derive consensus on cancer quality indicators that would be both feasible to collect and were high priority for cancer care systems in LMICs. Workshop participants narrowed the list of 216 quality indicators from the literature review to 34 for inclusion in the subsequent surveys. Experts' responses to the surveys showed consensus around nine high-priority quality indicators for measuring the quality of hospital-based cancer care in LMICs. These quality indicators focus on important processes of care delivery from accurate diagnosis (eg, histologic diagnosis via biopsy and TNM staging) to adequate, timely, and appropriate treatment (eg, completion of radiotherapy and appropriate surgical intervention). The core indicators selected could be used to implement systems of feedback and quality improvement.

What can patient-reported experience measures tell us about the variation in patients' experience of prostate cancer care? A cross-sectional study using survey data from the National Prostate Cancer Audit in England.

OBJECTIVES: A national survey aimed to measure how men with prostate cancer perceived their involvement in and decisions around their care immediately after diagnosis. This study aimed to describe any differences found by socio-demographic groups. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of men who were diagnosed with and treated for prostate cancer. SETTING: The National Prostate Cancer Audit patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) survey in England. PARTICIPANTS: Men diagnosed in 2014-2016, with non-metastatic prostate cancer, were surveyed. Responses from 32 796 men were individually linked to records from a national clinical audit and to administrative hospital data. Age, ethnicity, deprivation and disease risk classification were used to explore variation in responses to selected questions. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Responses to five questions from the PREMs survey: the proportion responding to the highest positive category was compared across the socio-demographic characteristics above. RESULTS: When adjusted for other factors, older men were less likely than men under the age of 60 to feel side effects had been explained in a way they could understand (men 80+: relative risk (RR)=0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.00), that their views were considered (RR=0.79, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.87) or that they were involved in decisions (RR=0.92, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.00). The latter was also apparent for men who were not white (black men: RR=0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.98; Asian men: RR=0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.96) and, to a lesser extent, for more deprived men. CONCLUSIONS: The observed discrepancies highlight the need for more focus on initiatives to improve the experience of ethnic minority patients and those older than 60 years. The findings also argue for further validation of discriminatory instruments to help cancer care providers fully understand the variation in the experience of their patients.

Association of travel time, patient characteristics, and hospital quality with patient mobility for breast cancer surgery: A national population-based study.

BACKGROUND: This national study investigated hospital quality and patient factors associated with treatment location for breast cancer surgery. METHODS: By using linked administrative data sets from the English National Health Service, the authors identified all women diagnosed between January 2, 2016, and December 31, 2018, who underwent breast-conserving surgery (BCS) or a mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction. The extent to which patients bypassed their nearest hospital was investigated using a geographic information system (ArcGIS). Conditional logistic regressions were used to estimate the impact of travel time, hospital quality, and patient characteristics. RESULTS: 22,622 Of 69,153 patients undergoing BCS, 22,622 (32.7%) bypassed their nearest hospital; and, of 23,536 patients undergoing mastectomy, 7179 (30.5%) bypassed their nearest hospital. Women who were younger, without comorbidities, or from rural areas were more likely to travel to more distant hospitals (p < .05). Patients undergoing BCS (odds ratio [OR], 1.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.36-2.50) or mastectomy (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.14-2.02) were more likely to be treated at specialist breast reconstruction centers despite not undergoing the procedure. Patients receiving mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction were more likely to travel to hospitals employing surgeons who had a media reputation (OR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.28-4.52). Patients undergoing BCS were less likely to travel to hospitals with shorter surgical waiting times (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.46-0.92). The authors did not observe a significant impact for research activity, hospital quality rating, breast re-excision rates, or the status as a multidisciplinary cancer center. CONCLUSIONS: Patient choice policies may drive inequalities in the health care system without improving patient outcomes.

The impact of transportation mode, socioeconomic deprivation and rurality on travel times to radiotherapy and surgical services for patients with prostate cancer: A national population-based evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The distances that patients have to travel can influence their access to cancer treatment. We investigated the determinants of travel time, separately for journeys by car and public transport, to centres providing radical surgery or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. METHODS: Using national cancer registry records linked to administrative hospital data, we identified patients who had radical surgery or radiotherapy for prostate cancer between January 2017 and December 2018 in the English National Health Service. Estimated travel times from the patients' residential area to the nearest specialist surgical or radiotherapy centre were estimated for journeys by car and by public transport. RESULTS: We included 13,186 men who had surgery and 26,581 who had radiotherapy. Estimated travel times by public transport (74.4 mins for surgery and 69.4 mins for radiotherapy) were more than twice as long as by car (33.4 mins and 29.1mins, respectively). Patients living in more socially deprived neighbourhoods in rural areas had the longest travel times to the nearest cancer treatment centres by car (62.0 mins for surgery and 52.1 mins for radiotherapy). Conversely patients living in more affluent neighbourhoods in urban conurbations had the shortest (18.7 mins for surgery and 17.9 mins for radiotherapy). CONCLUSION: Travel times to cancer centres vary widely according to mode of transport, socioeconomic deprivation, and rurality. Policies changing the geographical configuration of cancer services should consider the impact on the expected travel times both by car and by public transport to avoid enhancing existing inequalities in access to treatment and patient outcomes.

The future of cancer care in the UK-time for a radical and sustainable National Cancer Plan.

Cancer affects one in two people in the UK and the incidence is set to increase. The UK National Health Service is facing major workforce deficits and cancer services have struggled to recover after the COVID-19 pandemic, with waiting times for cancer care becoming the worst on record. There are severe and widening disparities across the country and survival rates remain unacceptably poor for many cancers. This is at a time when cancer care has become increasingly complex, specialised, and expensive. The current crisis has deep historic roots, and to be reversed, the scale of the challenge must be acknowledged and a fundamental reset is required. The loss of a dedicated National Cancer Control Plan in England and Wales, poor operationalisation of plans elsewhere in the UK, and the closure of the National Cancer Research Institute have all added to a sense of strategic misdirection. The UK finds itself at a crossroads, where the political decisions of governments, the cancer community, and research funders will determine whether we can, together, achieve equitable, affordable, and high-quality cancer care for patients that is commensurate with our wealth, and position our outcomes among the best in the world. In this Policy Review, we describe the challenges and opportunities that are needed to develop radical, yet sustainable plans, which are comprehensive, evidence-based, integrated, patient-outcome focused, and deliver value for money.

Risk of COVID-19 death for people with a pre-existing cancer diagnosis prior to COVID-19-vaccination: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

While previous reviews found a positive association between pre-existing cancer diagnosis and COVID-19-related death, most early studies did not distinguish long-term cancer survivors from those recently diagnosed/treated, nor adjust for important confounders including age. We aimed to consolidate higher-quality evidence on risk of COVID-19-related death for people with recent/active cancer (compared to people without) in the pre-COVID-19-vaccination period. We searched the WHO COVID-19 Global Research Database (20 December 2021), and Medline and Embase (10 May 2023). We included studies adjusting for age and sex, and providing details of cancer status. Risk-of-bias assessment was based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Pooled adjusted odds or risk ratios (aORs, aRRs) or hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using generic inverse-variance random-effects models. Random-effects meta-regressions were used to assess associations between effect estimates and time since cancer diagnosis/treatment. Of 23 773 unique title/abstract records, 39 studies were eligible for inclusion (2 low, 17 moderate, 20 high risk of bias). Risk of COVID-19-related death was higher for people with active or recently diagnosed/treated cancer (general population: aOR = 1.48, 95% CI: 1.36-1.61, I2 = 0; people with COVID-19: aOR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.41-1.77, I2 = 0.58; inpatients with COVID-19: aOR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.34-2.06, I2 = 0.98). Risks were more elevated for lung (general population: aOR = 3.4, 95% CI: 2.4-4.7) and hematological cancers (general population: aOR = 2.13, 95% CI: 1.68-2.68, I2 = 0.43), and for metastatic cancers. Meta-regression suggested risk of COVID-19-related death decreased with time since diagnosis/treatment, for example, for any/solid cancers, fitted aOR = 1.55 (95% CI: 1.37-1.75) at 1 year and aOR = 0.98 (95% CI: 0.80-1.20) at 5 years post-cancer diagnosis/treatment. In conclusion, before COVID-19-vaccination, risk of COVID-19-related death was higher for people with recent cancer, with risk depending on cancer type and time since diagnosis/treatment.

Does Research from Clinical Trials in Metastatic Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer Treatment Translate into Access to Treatments for Patients in the "Real World"? A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Since 2015 there have been major advances in the management of primary metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) following the publication of key clinical trials that demonstrated significant clinical benefits with docetaxel chemotherapy or novel hormone therapy (NHT) in addition to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Despite these advances, there is evidence to show that these treatments are not being utilised for mHSPC in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To determine the utilisation of docetaxel and NHT in mHSPC in routine practice and the determinants of variation in their use. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: MEDLINE and Embase were searched systematically for studies on utilisation of treatments for primary mHSPC that were based on regional or national data sets and published after January 2005. Study results were summarised using a narrative synthesis. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Thirteen papers were included in the analysis, six full-text articles and seven abstracts, on studies that included a total of 166 876 patients. The utilisation rate of treatment intensification with either docetaxel or NHT (enzalutamide, apalutamide, or abiraterone) in addition to ADT ranged from 9.3% to 38.1% across the studies. Younger, White patients with fewer comorbidities and living in more urban settings were more likely to be prescribed treatment intensification. Patients treated in private academic institutions by oncologists were more likely to receive docetaxel or NHT. Socioeconomic status did not impact receipt of systemic therapy. NHT utilisation rates appear to have increased over time. CONCLUSIONS: These results highlight the need to change the approach to the treatment of primary mHSPC in the real world by harnessing the practice-changing results from recent trials in this setting to optimise upfront systemic therapy for this patient population. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed the use of treatments for primary metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer that showed a benefit in key clinical trials. We found that these treatments are underused, particularly among certain patient groups.

Challenges in building radiotherapy capacity: A longitudinal study evaluating eight years of the Brazilian radiotherapy expansion plan.

BACKGROUND: In 2012, the Brazilian government launched a radiotherapy (RT) expansion plan (PER-SUS) to install 100 linear accelerators. This study assesses the development of this program after eight years. METHODS: Official reports from the Ministry of Health (MoH) were reviewed. RT centres projects status, timeframes, and cost data (all converted to US dollars) were extracted. The time analysis was divided into seven phases, and for cost evaluation, there were five stages. The initial predicted project time (IPPT) and costs (estimated by the MoH) for each phase were compared between the 18 operational RT centres (able to treat patients) and 30 non-operational RT centres using t-tests, ANOVA, and the Mann-Whitney U. A p-value < 0.05 indicates statistical significance. RESULTS: A significant delay was observed when comparing the IPPT with the overall time to conclude each 48 RT centres project (p < 0.001), with considerable delays in the first five phases (p < 0.001 for all). Moreover, the median time to conclude the first 18 operational RT centres (77.4 months) was shorter compared with the 30 non-operational RT centres (94.0 months), p < 0.001. The total cost of 48 RT services was USD 82,84 millions (mi) with a significant difference in the per project median total cost between 18 operational RT centres, USD1,34 mi and 30 non-operational RT centres USD2,11 mi, p < 0.001. All phases had a higher cost when comparing 30 non-operational RT centres to 18 operational RT centres, p < 0.001. The median total cost for expanding existing RT centres was USD1,30 mi versus USD2,18 mi for new RT services, p < 0.0001. CONCLUSION: After eight years, the PER-SUS programs showed a substantial delay in most projects and their phases, with increased costs over time. POLICY SUMMARY: Our findings indicate a need to act to increase the success of this plan. This study may provide a benchmark for other developing countries trying to expand RT capacity.

Fully-automated, CT-only GTV contouring for palliative head and neck radiotherapy.

Planning for palliative radiotherapy is performed without the advantage of MR or PET imaging in many clinics. Here, we investigated CT-only GTV delineation for palliative treatment of head and neck cancer. Two multi-institutional datasets of palliative-intent treatment plans were retrospectively acquired: a set of 102 non-contrast-enhanced CTs and a set of 96 contrast-enhanced CTs. The nnU-Net auto-segmentation network was chosen for its strength in medical image segmentation, and five approaches separately trained: (1) heuristic-cropped, non-contrast images with a single GTV channel, (2) cropping around a manually-placed point in the tumor center for non-contrast images with a single GTV channel, (3) contrast-enhanced images with a single GTV channel, (4) contrast-enhanced images with separate primary and nodal GTV channels, and (5) contrast-enhanced images along with synthetic MR images with separate primary and nodal GTV channels. Median Dice similarity coefficient ranged from 0.6 to 0.7, surface Dice from 0.30 to 0.56, and 95th Hausdorff distance from 14.7 to 19.7 mm across the five approaches. Only surface Dice exhibited statistically-significant difference across these five approaches using a two-tailed Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test (p ≤ 0.05). Our CT-only results met or exceeded published values for head and neck GTV autocontouring using multi-modality images. However, significant edits would be necessary before clinical use in palliative radiotherapy.

ARCHERY: a prospective observational study of artificial intelligence-based radiotherapy treatment planning for cervical, head and neck and prostate cancer - study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Fifty per cent of patients with cancer require radiotherapy during their disease course, however, only 10%-40% of patients in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) have access to it. A shortfall in specialised workforce has been identified as the most significant barrier to expanding radiotherapy capacity. Artificial intelligence (AI)-based software has been developed to automate both the delineation of anatomical target structures and the definition of the position, size and shape of the radiation beams. Proposed advantages include improved treatment accuracy, as well as a reduction in the time (from weeks to minutes) and human resources needed to deliver radiotherapy. METHODS: ARCHERY is a non-randomised prospective study to evaluate the quality and economic impact of AI-based automated radiotherapy treatment planning for cervical, head and neck, and prostate cancers, which are endemic in LMICs, and for which radiotherapy is the primary curative treatment modality. The sample size of 990 patients (330 for each cancer type) has been calculated based on an estimated 95% treatment plan acceptability rate. Time and cost savings will be analysed as secondary outcome measures using the time-driven activity-based costing model. The 48-month study will take place in six public sector cancer hospitals in India (n=2), Jordan (n=1), Malaysia (n=1) and South Africa (n=2) to support implementation of the software in LMICs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received ethical approval from University College London (UCL) and each of the six study sites. If the study objectives are met, the AI-based software will be offered as a not-for-profit web service to public sector state hospitals in LMICs to support expansion of high quality radiotherapy capacity, improving access to and affordability of this key modality of cancer cure and control. Public and policy engagement plans will involve patients as key partners.

Moving forward through consensus: a national Delphi approach to determine the top research priorities in prostate cancer in Uganda.

OBJECTIVE: To identify key areas for research in prostate cancer (PC) in the Ugandan context by establishing the major health system, socioeconomic and clinical barriers to seeking, reaching and receiving high-quality cancer care. DESIGN: Modified Delphi Technique. SETTING: Government and private-not-for-profit hospitals. METHODS: We applied a two-stage modified Delphi technique to identify the consensus view across cancer experts. In round 1, experts received a questionnaire containing 21 statements drawn from a systematic review identifying the reason for the delay in accessing cancer care. Each statement was scored out of 20. Statements scoring ≥15 from over 70% of participants were prioritised for inclusion while statements for which <30% of participants gave a score of ≥15 were excluded. Sixteen statements were included in round 2 as they did not receive consensus for inclusion or exclusion. RESULTS: We found that the top six research priority areas arise from challenges including: (1) lack of diagnostic services-ultrasound, laboratory tests and biopsy facilities; (2) high costs of services, for example, surgery, radiotherapy, hormone therapy are unaffordable to most patients, (3) lack of essential medicines, (4) limited radiotherapy capacity, (5) lack of awareness of cancer as a disease and low recognition of symptoms, (6) low healthcare literacy. The lack of critical surgical supplies, high diagnostic and treatment costs were ranked highest in order of importance in round 1. Round 2 also revealed lack of diagnostic services, unavailability of critical medicines, lack of radiotherapy options, high costs of treatments and lack of critical surgical supplies as the top priorities. CONCLUSION: These research priority areas ought to be addressed in future research to improve prompt PC diagnosis and care in Uganda. There is need to improve the supply of high-quality affordable anticancer medicines for PC patients so as to improve the survivorship from the cancer.

Organisation and delivery of supportive services for patients with prostate cancer in the National Health Service in England and Wales: a national cross-sectional hospital survey and latent class analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We assessed how often National Health Service (NHS) hospitals reported that they had specific supportive services for patients with prostate cancer available onsite, including nursing support, sexual function and urinary continence services, psychological and genetic counselling, and oncogeriatric services. We identified groups of hospitals with similar patterns of supportive services. DESIGN/SETTING: We conducted an organisational survey in 2021 of all NHS hospitals providing prostate cancer services in England and Wales. Latent class analysis grouped hospitals with similar patterns of supportive services. RESULTS: In 138 hospitals, an advanced prostate cancer nurse was available in 125 hospitals (90.6%), 107 (77.5%) had a clinical nurse specialist (CNS) attending all clinics, 103 (75.7%) had sexual function services, 111 (81.6%) had continence services and 93 (69.4%) psychological counselling. The availability of genetic counselling (41 hospitals, 30.6%) and oncogeriatric services (15 hospitals, 11.0%) was lower. The hospitals could be divided into three groups. The first and largest group of 85 hospitals provided the most comprehensive supportive services onsite: all hospitals had a CNS attending all clinics, 84 (98.8%) sexual function services and 73 (85.9%) continence services. A key characteristic of the second group of 31 hospitals was that none had a CNS attending all clinics. A key characteristic of the third group of 22 hospitals was that none had sexual function services available. The hospitals in the largest group were more likely to run joint clinics (p<0.001) and host the regional specialist multidisciplinary team (p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable variation in supportive services for prostate cancer available onsite in NHS hospitals in England and Wales. Availability of genetic counselling and oncogeriatric services is low. The different patterns of supportive services among hospitals demonstrate that initiatives to improve the availability of the entire range of supportive services to all patients should be carefully targeted.

Quality indicators for systemic anticancer therapy services: a systematic review of metrics used to compare quality across healthcare facilities.

PURPOSE: The number of systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) regimens has expanded rapidly over the last decade. There is a need to ensure quality of SACT delivery across cancer services and systems in different resource settings to reduce morbidity, mortality, and detrimental economic impact at individual and systems level. Existing literature on SACT focuses on treatment efficacy with few studies on quality or how SACT is delivered within routine care in comparison to radiation and surgical oncology. METHODS: Systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched and handsearching was undertaken to identify literature on existing quality indicators (QIs) that detect meaningful variations in the quality of SACT delivery across different healthcare facilities, regions, or countries. Data extraction was undertaken by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: This review identified 63 distinct QIs from 15 papers. The majority were process QIs (n = 55, 87.3%) relating to appropriateness of treatment and guideline adherence (n = 28, 44.4%). There were few outcome QIs (n = 7, 11.1%) and only one structural QI (n = 1, 1.6%). Included studies solely focused on breast, colorectal, lung, and skin cancer. All but one studies were conducted in high-income countries. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review highlight a significant lack of research on SACT QIs particularly those appropriate for resource-constrained settings in low- and middle-income countries. This review should form the basis for future work in transforming performance measurement of SACT provision, through context-specific QI SACT development, validation, and implementation.

Radiation Planning Assistant - A Web-based Tool to Support High-quality Radiotherapy in Clinics with Limited Resources.

Access to radiotherapy worldwide is limited. The Radiation Planning Assistant (RPA) is a fully automated, web-based tool that is being developed to offer fully automated radiotherapy treatment planning tools to clinics with limited resources. The goal is to help clinical teams scale their efforts, thus reaching more patients with cancer. The user connects to the RPA via a webpage, completes a Service Request (prescription and information about the radiotherapy targets), and uploads the patient's CT image set. The RPA offers two approaches to automated planning. In one-step planning, the system uses the Service Request and CT scan to automatically generate the necessary contours and treatment plan. In two-step planning, the user reviews and edits the automatically generated contours before the RPA continues to generate a volume-modulated arc therapy plan. The final plan is downloaded from the RPA website and imported into the user's local treatment planning system, where the dose is recalculated for the locally commissioned linac; if necessary, the plan is edited prior to approval for clinical use.