Associations Between Radiation Oncologist Demographic Factors and Segmentation Similarity Benchmarks: Insights From a Crowd-Sourced Challenge Using Bayesian Estimation.

PURPOSE: The quality of radiotherapy auto-segmentation training data, primarily derived from clinician observers, is of utmost importance. However, the factors influencing the quality of clinician-derived segmentations are poorly understood; our study aims to quantify these factors. METHODS: Organ at risk (OAR) and tumor-related segmentations provided by radiation oncologists from the Contouring Collaborative for Consensus in Radiation Oncology data set were used. Segmentations were derived from five disease sites: breast, sarcoma, head and neck (H&N), gynecologic (GYN), and GI. Segmentation quality was determined on a structure-by-structure basis by comparing the observer segmentations with an expert-derived consensus, which served as a reference standard benchmark. The Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) was primarily used as a metric for the comparisons. DSC was stratified into binary groups on the basis of structure-specific expert-derived interobserver variability (IOV) cutoffs. Generalized linear mixed-effects models using Bayesian estimation were used to investigate the association between demographic variables and the binarized DSC for each disease site. Variables with a highest density interval excluding zero were considered to substantially affect the outcome measure. RESULTS: Five hundred seventy-four, 110, 452, 112, and 48 segmentations were used for the breast, sarcoma, H&N, GYN, and GI cases, respectively. The median percentage of segmentations that crossed the expert DSC IOV cutoff when stratified by structure type was 55% and 31% for OARs and tumors, respectively. Regression analysis revealed that the structure being tumor-related had a substantial negative impact on binarized DSC for the breast, sarcoma, H&N, and GI cases. There were no recurring relationships between segmentation quality and demographic variables across the cases, with most variables demonstrating large standard deviations. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights substantial uncertainty surrounding conventionally presumed factors influencing segmentation quality relative to benchmarks.

Perceptions on and roadblocks to implementation of standardized nomenclature in radiation oncology: A survey from TG-263U1.

PURPOSE: AAPM Task Group No. 263U1 (Update to Report No. 263 - Standardizing Nomenclatures in Radiation Oncology) disseminated a survey to receive feedback on utilization, gaps, and means to facilitate further adoption. METHODS: The survey was created by TG-263U1 members to solicit feedback from physicists, dosimetrists, and physicians working in radiation oncology. Questions on the adoption of the TG-263 standard were coupled with demographic information, such as clinical role, place of primary employment (e.g., private hospital, academic center), and size of institution. The survey was emailed to all AAPM, AAMD, and ASTRO members. RESULTS: The survey received 463 responses with 310 completed survey responses used for analysis, of whom most had the clinical role of medical physicist (73%) and the majority were from the United States (83%). There were 83% of respondents who indicated that they believe that having a nomenclature standard is important or very important and 61% had adopted all or portions of TG-263 in their clinics. For those yet to adopt TG-263, the staffing and implementation efforts were the main cause for delaying adoption. Fewer respondents had trouble adopting TG-263 for organs at risk (29%) versus target (44%) nomenclature. Common themes in written feedback were lack of physician support and available resources, especially in vendor systems, to facilitate adoption. CONCLUSIONS: While there is strong support and belief in the benefit of standardized nomenclature, the widespread adoption of TG-263 has been hindered by the effort needed by staff for implementation.  Feedback from the survey is being utilized to drive the focus of the update efforts and create tools to facilitate easier adoption of TG-263.

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.

Radiotherapy statements of the 18th St. Gallen International Breast Cancer Consensus Conference-a German expert perspective.

PURPOSE: To summarize the radiotherapy-relevant statements of the 18th St. Gallen Breast Cancer Consensus Conference and interpret the findings in light of German guideline recommendations. METHODS: Statements and voting results from the 18th St. Gallen International Breast Cancer Consensus Conference were collected and analyzed according to their relevance for the radiation oncology community. The voting results were discussed in two hybrid meetings among the authors of this manuscript on March 18 and 19, 2023, in light of the German S3 guideline and the 2023 version of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie (AGO) guidelines. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: There was a high level of agreement between the radiotherapy-related statements of the 18th St. Gallen International Breast Cancer Consensus Conference and the German S3 and AGO guidelines. Discrepancies include the impact of number of lymph node metastases for the indication for postmastectomy radiotherapy.

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.

Systematic Implementation of Effective Quality Assurance Processes for the Assessment of Radiation Target Volumes in Head and Neck Cancer.

PURPOSE: Significant heterogeneity exists in clinical quality assurance (QA) practices within radiation oncology departments, with most chart rounds lacking prospective peer-reviewed contour evaluation. This has the potential to significantly affect patient outcomes, particularly for head and neck cancers (HNC) given the large variance in target volume delineation. With this understanding, we incorporated a prospective systematic peer contour-review process into our workflow for all patients with HNC. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of implementing prospective peer review into practice for our National Cancer Institute Designated Cancer Center and to report factors associated with contour modifications. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Starting in November 2020, our department adopted a systematic QA process with real-time metrics, in which contours for all patients with HNC treated with radiation therapy were prospectively peer reviewed and graded. Contours were graded with green (unnecessary), yellow (minor), or red (major) colors based on the degree of peer-recommended modifications. Contours from November 2020 through September 2021 were included for analysis. RESULTS: Three hundred sixty contours were included. Contour grades were made up of 89.7% green, 8.9% yellow, and 1.4% red grades. Physicians with >12 months of clinical experience were less likely to have contour changes requested than those with <12 months (8.3% vs 40.9%; P < .001). Contour grades were significantly associated with physician case load, with physicians presenting more than the median number of 50 cases having significantly less modifications requested than those presenting <50 (6.7% vs 13.3%; P = .013). Physicians working with a resident or fellow were less likely to have contour changes requested than those without a trainee (5.2% vs 12.6%; P = .039). Frequency of major modification requests significantly decreased over time after adoption of prospective peer contour review, with no red grades occurring >6 months after adoption. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the importance of prospective peer contour-review implementation into systematic clinical QA processes for HNC. Physician experience proved to be the highest predictor of approved contours. A growth curve was demonstrated, with major modifications declining after prospective contour review implementation. Even within a high-volume academic practice with subspecialist attendings, >10% of patients had contour changes made as a direct result of prospective peer review.

Practical Implications of the American Society for Radiation Oncology Radiation Oncology Case Rate Program Proposal for Radiation Oncologists.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology has proposed the Radiation Oncology Case Rate Program (ROCR) to advocate for fair reimbursement for radiation oncologists. ROCR would replace Medicare fee-for-service with a case rate payment for each of the 15 most common cancer types treated with external beam or stereotactic radiation therapy. This topic discussion attempts to provide a concise overview of the practical implications for radiation oncologists should the ROCR payment program be legislated by Congress and subsequently implemented by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. This topic discussion covers the practical changes to billing and reimbursement, the Health Equity Achievement in Radiation Therapy payment, the Quality of Care requirement, and the available tool to calculate the effect of the ROCR based on an individual practice's case mix.

ACR-ARS Practice Parameter for Communication: Radiation Oncology.

BACKGROUND: This practice parameter was revised collaboratively by the American College of Radiology (ACR), and the American Radium Society (ARS). Timely, accurate, and effective communications are critical to quality and safety in contemporary medical practices. Radiation oncology incorporates the science and technology of complex, integrated treatment delivery and the art of providing care to individual patients. Through written physical and/or electronic reports and direct communication, radiation oncologists convey their knowledge and evaluation regarding patient care, clinical workup, and treatment provided to others in the management of the patient. Applicable practice parameters need to be revised periodically regarding medical record documentation for professional and technical components of services delivered. METHODS: This practice parameter was developed and revised according to the process described under the heading "The Process for Developing ACR Practice Parameters and Technical Standards" on the ACR website ( https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Practice-Parameters-and-Technical-Standards ) by the Committee on Practice Parameters-Radiation Oncology of the ACR Commission on Radiation Oncology in collaboration with the ARS. Both societies have reviewed and approved the document. RESULTS: This practice parameter addresses radiation oncology communications in general, including (a) medical record, (b) electronic, and (c) doctor-patient communications, as well as specific documentation for radiation oncology reports such as (a) consultation, (b) clinical treatment management notes (including inpatient communication), (c) treatment (completion) summary, and (d) follow-up visits. CONCLUSIONS: The radiation oncologist's participation in the multidisciplinary management of patients is reflected in timely, medically appropriate, and informative communication with patients, caregivers, referring physician, and other members of the health care team. The ACR-ARS Practice Parameter for Communication: Radiation Oncology is an educational tool designed to assist practitioners in providing appropriate communication regarding radiation oncology care for patients.

ACR-ARS Practice Parameter for Radiation Oncology.

BACKGROUND: This practice parameter was revised collaboratively by the American College of Radiology (ACR), and the American Radium Society. This practice parameter provides updated reference literature regarding radiation oncology practice and its key personnel. METHODS: This practice parameter was developed according to the process described under the heading The Process for Developing ACR Practice Parameters and Technical Standards on the ACR website ( https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Practice-Parameters-and-Technical-Standards ) by the Committee on Practice Parameters-Radiation Oncology of the ACR Commission on Radiation Oncology in collaboration with the American Radium Society. RESULTS: This practice parameter provides a comprehensive update to the reference literature regarding radiation oncology practice in general. The overall roles of the radiation oncologist, the Qualified Medical Physicist, and other specialized personnel involved in the delivery of external-beam radiation therapy are discussed. The use of radiation therapy requires detailed attention to equipment, patient and personnel safety, equipment maintenance and quality assurance, and continuing staff education. Because the practice of radiation oncology occurs in a variety of clinical environments, the judgment of a qualified radiation oncologist should be used to apply these practice parameters to individual practices. Radiation oncologists should follow the guiding principle of limiting radiation exposure to patients and personnel while accomplishing therapeutic goals. CONCLUSION: This practice parameter can be used as an effective tool to guide radiation oncology practice by successfully incorporating the close interaction and coordination among radiation oncologists, medical physicists, dosimetrists, nurses, and radiation therapists.

Essential requirements for reporting radiation therapy in breast cancer clinical trials: An international multi-disciplinary consensus endorsed by the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO).

The European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) has advocated the establishment of guidelines to optimise precision radiotherapy (RT) in conjunction with contemporary therapeutics for cancer care. Quality assurance in RT (QART) plays a pivotal role in influencing treatment outcomes. Clinical trials incorporating QART protocols have demonstrated improved survival rates with minimal associated toxicity. Nonetheless, in routine clinical practice, there can be variability in the indications for RT, dosage, fractionation, and treatment planning, leading to uncertainty. In pivotal trials reporting outcomes of systemic therapy for breast cancer, there is limited information available regarding RT, and the potential interaction between modern systemic therapy and RT remains largely uncharted. This article is grounded in a consensus recommendation endorsed by ESTRO, formulated by international breast cancer experts. The consensus was reached through a modified Delphi process and was presented at an international meeting convened in Florence, Italy, in June 2023. These recommendations are regarded as both optimal and essential standards, with the latter aiming to define the minimum requirements. A template for a case report form (CRF) has been devised, which can be utilised by all clinical breast cancer trials involving RT. Optimal requirements include adherence to predefined RT planning protocols and centralised QART. Essential requirements aim to reduce variations and deviations from the guidelines in RT, even when RT is not the primary focus of the trial. These recommendations underscore the significance of implementing these practices in both clinical trials and daily clinical routines to generate high-quality data.

Overview and Recommendations for Prospective Multi-institutional Spatially Fractionated Radiation Therapy Clinical Trials.

PURPOSE: The highly heterogeneous dose delivery of spatially fractionated radiation therapy (SFRT) is a profound departure from standard radiation planning and reporting approaches. Early SFRT studies have shown excellent clinical outcomes. However, prospective multi-institutional clinical trials of SFRT are still lacking. This NRG Oncology/American Association of Physicists in Medicine working group consensus aimed to develop recommendations on dosimetric planning, delivery, and SFRT dose reporting to address this current obstacle toward the design of SFRT clinical trials. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Working groups consisting of radiation oncologists, radiobiologists, and medical physicists with expertise in SFRT were formed in NRG Oncology and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine to investigate the needs and barriers in SFRT clinical trials. RESULTS: Upon reviewing the SFRT technologies and methods, this group identified challenges in several areas, including the availability of SFRT, the lack of treatment planning system support for SFRT, the lack of guidance in the physics and dosimetry of SFRT, the approximated radiobiological modeling of SFRT, and the prescription and combination of SFRT with conventional radiation therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Recognizing these challenges, the group further recommended several areas of improvement for the application of SFRT in cancer treatment, including the creation of clinical practice guidance documents, the improvement of treatment planning system support, the generation of treatment planning and dosimetric index reporting templates, and the development of better radiobiological models through preclinical studies and through conducting multi-institution clinical trials.

Quality management in radiotherapy treatment delivery.

Radiation Oncology continues to rely on accurate delivery of radiation, in particular where patients can benefit from more modulated and hypofractioned treatments that can deliver higher dose to the target while optimising dose to normal structures. These deliveries are more complex, and the treatment units are more computerised, leading to a re-evaluation of quality assurance (QA) to test a larger range of options with more stringent criteria without becoming too time and resource consuming. This review explores how modern approaches of risk management and automation can be used to develop and maintain an effective and efficient QA programme. It considers various tools to control and guide radiation delivery including image guidance and motion management. Links with typical maintenance and repair activities are discussed, as well as patient-specific quality control activities. It is demonstrated that a quality management programme applied to treatment delivery can have an impact on individual patients but also on the quality of treatment techniques and future planning. Developing and customising a QA programme for treatment delivery is an important part of radiotherapy. Using modern multidisciplinary approaches can make this also a useful tool for department management.

[Feedback on the first three years of application of the reform of the third cycle in oncology]. / La phase socle en oncologie : retour d'expérience sur les trois premières années d'application de la réforme du troisième cycle.

Since the establishment of the reform of medical studies' third cycle in 2017, the first two residency semesters define the "phase socle" whose objective is to provide the basic knowledge of the specialty. We have carried out a declarative survey, submitted in 2020 to all French residents in Oncology whose "phase socle" had taken place during the first 3 years of the reform. The main objectives of this survey were to evaluate the theoretical teaching of oncology as well as the practical hospital training provided during this phase. The response rate was 44% (among 355 residents, 155 answered). In terms of theoretical training, the level of satisfaction with the national teaching courses of the Collège National des Enseignants en Cancérologie and the distant learning courses on the SIDES-NG platform was considered satisfactory (average visual analog scale of 6.7/10 and 5.7/10, respectively). There was greater heterogeneity in the organization of local courses, of which only 50% of base phase residents benefited. In terms of practical training, the training value of the medical oncology and radiation oncology residencies was good (visual analogue scale 7.9/10 and 6.7/10, respectively), with educational objectives adapted to the base phase, but with a greater workload for medical oncology. This study provides feedback that shows the success of this reform in oncology. It also offers suggestions, which could be the basis to improve the formation of oncology residents.

European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology Advisory Committee in Radiation Oncology Practice consensus recommendations on patient selection and dose and fractionation for external beam radiotherapy in early breast cancer.

High-quality randomised clinical trials testing moderately fractionated breast radiotherapy have clearly shown that local control and survival is at least as effective as with 2 Gy daily fractions with similar or reduced normal tissue toxicity. Fewer treatment visits are welcomed by patients and their families, and reduced fractions produce substantial savings for health-care systems. Implementation of hypofractionation, however, has moved at a slow pace. The oncology community have now reached an inflection point created by new evidence from the FAST-Forward five-fraction randomised trial and catalysed by the need for the global radiation oncology community to unite during the COVID-19 pandemic and rapidly rethink hypofractionation implementation. The aim of this paper is to support equity of access for all patients to receive evidence-based breast external beam radiotherapy and to facilitate the translation of new evidence into routine daily practice. The results from this European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology Advisory Committee in Radiation Oncology Practice consensus state that moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy can be offered to any patient for whole breast, chest wall (with or without reconstruction), and nodal volumes. Ultrafractionation (five fractions) can also be offered for non-nodal breast or chest wall (without reconstruction) radiotherapy either as standard of care or within a randomised trial or prospective cohort. The consensus is timely; not only is it a pragmatic framework for radiation oncologists, but it provides a measured proposal for the path forward to influence policy makers and empower patients to ensure equity of access to evidence-based radiotherapy.

Radiation therapy: Regulatory framework and constraints.

The purpose of this article is to describe the regulatory framework of the radiotherapy practice in France.

Quality/risk management system in radiotherapy: Changes afoot.

The French sanitary and regulatory context in which radiotherapy centres are comprised is evolving. Risk and quality management systems are currently adapting to these evolutions. The French nuclear safety agency (ASN) decision of July 1st 2008 on quality assurance obligations in radiotherapy has reached 10 years of age, and the French high authority of health (HAS) certification system 20 years now. Mandatory tools needed for the improvement of quality and safety in healthcare are now well known. From now on, the focus of healthcare policies is oriented towards evaluation of efficiency of these new organisations designed following ASN and HAS nationwide guidelines.

SEOR SBRT-SG survey on SRS/SBRT dose prescription criteria in Spain

Aim Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) are essential tools in radiation oncology. In Spain, the use of these techniques continues to grow as older linear accelerators (linacs) are replaced with modern equipment. However, little is known about inter-centre variability in prescription and dose heterogeneity limits. Consequently, the SBRT-Spanish Task Group (SBRT-SG) of the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology (SEOR) has undertaken an initiative to assess prescription and homogeneity in SRS/SBRT treatment. In the present study, we surveyed radiation oncology (RO) departments to obtain a realistic overview of prescription methods used for SBRT and SRS treatment in Spain. Methods A brief survey was developed and sent to 34 RO departments in Spain, mostly those who are members of the SEOR SBRT-SG. The survey contained seven questions about the specific prescription mode, dose distribution heterogeneity limits, prescription strategies according to SRS/SBRT type, and the use of IMRT–VMAT (Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy–Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy). Results Responses were received from 29 centres. Most centres (59%) used the prescription criteria D95% ≥ 100%. Accepted dose heterogeneity was wide, ranging from 107 to 200%. Most centres used IMRT–VMAT (93%). Conclusions This survey about SRS/SBRT prescription and dose heterogeneity has evidenced substantial inter-centre variability in prescription criteria, particularly for intended and accepted dose heterogeneity. These differences could potentially influence the mean planning target volume dose and its correlation with treatment outcomes. The findings presented here will be used by the SEOR SBRT-SG to develop recommendations for SRS/SBRT dose prescription and heterogeneity (AU)