Pattern of care in radiotherapy at a University Hospital in Spain: the RENORT project.

PURPOSE: RENORT is a novel data mining application developed to extract relevant clinical data from oncology information systems (OIS; ARIA and Mosaiq) used in radiation oncology (RO). METHODS/PATIENTS: We used RENORT to extract demographic and clinical data from the OIS of all patients treated at the RO Department at the General Hospital of Valencia during the year 2019. RESULTS: A total of 1158 treatments were performed. The female/male ratio was 39.3%/60.7%, with a mean age of 66 years. The mean waiting time between the treatment decision/proposal to the first visit was 10.1 days. Mean duration of the treatment preparation process was 21 days. Most patients (90.4%) completed treatment within the prescribed time ± 7 days. The most common sites/treatment types were: metastatic/palliative treatments (n = 300; 25.9%), breast (209; 18.0%), genitourinary (195; 16.8%), digestive (116; 10.0%), thoracic (104; 9.0%), head and neck (62; 5.4%), and skin cancer (51; 4.4%). The distribution according to treatment intent was as follows: palliative (n = 266; 23.0%), adjuvant curative (335; 28.9%), radical without adjuvant treatment (229; 19.8%), radical with concomitant treatment (188; 16.2%), curative neoadjuvant (70; 6.0%), salvage radiotherapy (61; 5.3%); and reirradiation (9; 0.8%). The most common treatment techniques were IMRT/VMAT with IGRT (n = 468; 40.4%), 3D-CRT with IGRT (421; 36.4%), SBRT (127; 11.0%), 2DRT (57; 4.9%), and SFRT (56; 4.8%). A mean of 15.9 fractions were administered per treatment. Hypofractionated schemes were used in 100% of radical intent breast and prostate cancer treatments. CONCLUSIONS: The RENORT application facilitates data retrieval from oncology information systems to allow for a comprehensive determination of the real role of radiotherapy in the treatment of cancer patients. This application is valuable to identify patterns of care and to assess treatment efficacy.

[Reducing the impact of COVID-19 on radiation oncology units of developing countries: A rapid review and expert consensus]. / Reduciendo el impacto de COVID-19 sobre la radioterapia oncológica en países en desarrollo: revisión rápida y consenso de expertos.

OBJECTIVE: To generate recommendations on the management of radiotherapeutic treatments during the pandemic, adapted to a country with limited health resources. METHODS: We did a rapid review of the literature, searching for papers that describe any measures to reduce the risk of COVID-19 infection, as well as management guidelines to reduce the workload, in radiotherapy units. The following conditions were included in the scope of this review: gynecological tumors, breast cancer, gastrointestinal tumors, genitourinary tumors, head and neck tumors, skin cancer, tumors of the central nervous system, and lymphomas. An expert group discussed online the extracted data and drafted the recommendations. Using a modified Delphi method, the consensus was reached among 14 certificated radio-oncologists. The quality of the evidence that supported the recommendations on treatment schedules was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 57 documents were included. Of these, 25 provided strategies to reduce the risk of infection. Recommendations for each condiction were extracted from the remaining documents. The recommendations aim to establish specific parameters where treatments can be omitted, deferred, prioritized, and shortened. Treatment schemes are recommended for each condition, prioritizing hypo-fractionated schemes whenever possible. CONCLUSIONS: We propose strategies for the management of radiotherapy services to guarantee the continuity of high-quality treatments despite the health crisis caused by COVID-19.

OBJETIVO: Establecer recomendaciones para la toma de decisiones de manejo en radioterapia durante la pandemia de COVID-19, adaptadas a un país con recursos de salud limitados. MÉTODOS: A través de una revisión rápida de la literatura se buscaron publicaciones que describieran medidas para reducir el riesgo de infección por COVID-19, así como también pautas de manejo para reducir la carga de trabajo en las unidades de radioterapia. Se incluyeron en el alcance de esta revisión las siguientes patologías: tumores ginecológicos, cáncer de mama, tumores gastrointestinales, tumores genitourinarios, tumores de cabeza y cuello, cáncer de piel, tumores del sistema nervioso central y linfomas. Un grupo de expertos discutió en línea los datos extraídos y redactó las recomendaciones. Mediante un método Delphi modificado, se evaluó el consenso entre 14 radio-oncólogos certificados. Se evaluó la calidad de la evidencia que sustentó las recomendaciones sobre esquemas de tratamiento. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron un total de 57 documentos. De 25 trabajos se extrajeron las estrategias para reducir el riesgo de infección. De los restantes, se obtuvieron las recomendaciones para cada patología. Las recomendaciones están orientadas a establecer escenarios específicos donde se pueden omitir, diferir, priorizar y acortar los tratamientos. En el ítem de acortar se recomiendan esquemas de tratamiento para cada patología, priorizando los esquemas hipofraccionados cuando fue posible. CONCLUSIÓN: Se plantean estrategias para la gestión de los servicios de radioterapia con el objetivo de garantizar que los tratamientos de alta calidad para pacientes oncológicos sigan entregándose, pese a la crisis sanitaria ocasionada por COVID-19.

Radiotherapy in the Caribbean: a spotlight on the human resource and equipment challenges among CARICOM nations.

BACKGROUND: There is limited data on access to radiotherapy services for CARICOM nations. METHODS: This was a descriptive mixed-methods observational study which used data collected via survey from staff working in Radiation Oncology in 14 CARICOM countries. Benchmark recommendations from the International Atomic Energy Agency were compared to existing numbers. The Directory of Radiotherapy Centers, World Bank, and Global Cancer Observatory databases were all accessed to provide information on radiotherapy machines in the region, population statistics, and cancer incidence data respectively. Both population and cancer incidence-based analyses were undertaken to facilitate an exhaustive review. RESULTS: Radiotherapy machines were present in only 50% of the countries. Brachytherapy services were performed in only six countries (42.9%). There were a total of 15 external beam machines, 22 radiation oncologists, 22 medical physicists, and 60 radiation therapists across all nations. Utilizing patient-based data, the requirement for machines, radiation oncologists, medical physicists, and radiation therapists was 40, 66, 44, and 106, respectively. Only four (28.6%) countries had sufficient radiation oncologists. Five (35.7%) countries had enough medical physicists and radiation therapists. Utilizing population-based data, the necessary number of machines, radiation oncologists, and medical physicists was 105, 186, and 96 respectively. Only one county (7.1%) had an adequate number of radiation oncologists. The number of medical physicists was sufficient in just three countries (21.4%). There were no International Atomic Energy Agency population guidelines for assessing radiation therapists. A lower economic index was associated with a larger patient/population to machine ratio. Consequentially, Haiti had the most significant challenge with staffing and equipment requirements, when compared to all other countries, regardless of the evaluative criteria. Depending on the mode of assessment, Haiti's individual needs accounted for 37.5% (patient-based) to 59.0% (population-based) of required machines, 40.1% (patient-based) to 59.7% (population-based) of needed radiation oncologists, 38.6% (patient-based) to 58.3% (population-based) of medical physicists, and 42.5% (patient-based) of radiation therapists. CONCLUSION: There are severe deficiencies in radiotherapy services among CARICOM nations. Regardless of the method of comparative analysis, the current allocation of equipment and staffing scarcely meets 50% of regional requirements.

100% peer review in radiation oncology: is it feasible?

PURPOSE: Peer review has been proposed as a strategy to ensure patient safety and plan quality in radiation oncology. Despite its potential benefits, barriers commonly exist to its optimal implementation in daily clinical routine. Our purpose is to analyze peer-review process at our institution. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Based on our group peer-review process, we quantified the rate of plan changes, time and resources needed for this process. Prospectively, data on cases presented at our institutional peer-review conference attended by physicians, resident physicians and physicists were collected. Items such as time to present per case, type of patient (adult or pediatric), treatment intent, dose, aimed technique, disease location and receipt of previous radiation were gathered. Cases were then analyzed to determine the rate of major change, minor change and plan rejection after presentation as well as the median time per session. RESULTS: Over a period of 4 weeks, 148 cases were reviewed. Median of attendants was six physicians, three in-training-physicians and one physicist. Median time per session was 38 (4-72) minutes. 59.5% of cases presented in 1-4 min, 32.4% in 5-9 min and 8.1% in ≥ 10 min. 79.1% of cases were accepted without changes, 11.5% with minor changes, 6% with major changes and 3.4% were rejected with indication of new presentation. Most frequent reason of change was contouring corrections (53.8%) followed by dose or fractionation (26.9%). CONCLUSION: Everyday group consensus peer review is an efficient manner to recollect clinical and technical data of cases presented to ensure quality radiation care before initiation of treatment as well as ensuring department quality in a feedback team environment. This model is feasible within the normal operation of every radiation oncology Department.

Reduciendo el impacto de COVID-19 sobre la radioterapia oncológica en países en desarrollo: revisión rápida y consenso de expertos / Reducing the impact of COVID-19 on radiation oncology units of developing countries: a rapid review and expert consensus

OBJETIVO: Establecer recomendaciones para la toma de decisiones de manejo en radioterapia durante la pandemia de COVID-19, adaptadas a un país con recursos de salud limitados. MÉTODOS: A través de una revisión rápida de la literatura se buscaron publicaciones que describieran medidas para reducir el riesgo de infección por COVID-19, así como también pautas de manejo para reducir la carga de trabajo en las unidades de radioterapia. Se incluyeron en el alcance de esta revisión las siguientes patologías: tumores ginecológicos, cáncer de mama, tumores gastrointestinales, tumores genitourinarios, tumores de cabeza y cuello, cáncer de piel, tumores del sistema nervioso central y linfomas. Un grupo de expertos discutió en línea los datos extraídos y redactó las recomendaciones. Mediante un método Delphi modificado, se evaluó el consenso entre 14 radio-oncólogos certificados. Se evaluó la calidad de la evidencia que sustentó las recomendaciones sobre esquemas de tratamiento. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron un total de 57 documentos. De 25 trabajos se extrajeron las estrategias para reducir el riesgo de infección. De los restantes, se obtuvieron las recomendaciones para cada patología. Las recomendaciones están orientadas a establecer escenarios específicos donde se pueden omitir, diferir, priorizar y acortar los tratamientos. En el ítem de acortar se recomiendan esquemas de tratamiento para cada patología, priorizando los esquemas hipofraccionados cuando fue posible. CONCLUSIÓN: Se plantean estrategias para la gestión de los servicios de radioterapia con el objetivo de garantizar que los tratamientos de alta calidad para pacientes oncológicos sigan entregándose, pese a la crisis sanitaria ocasionada por COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: To generate recommendations on the management of radiotherapeutic treatments during the pandemic, adapted to a country with limited health resources. METHODS: We did a rapid review of the literature, searching for papers that describe any measures to reduce the risk of COVID-19 infection, as well as management guidelines to reduce the workload, in radiotherapy units. The following conditions were included in the scope of this review: gynecological tumors, breast cancer, gastrointestinal tumors, genitourinary tumors, head and neck tumors, skin cancer, tumors of the central nervous system, and lymphomas. An expert group discussed online the extracted data and drafted the recommendations. Using a modified Delphi method, the consensus was reached among 14 certificated radio-oncologists. The quality of the evidence that supported the recommendations on treatment schedules was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 57 documents were included. Of these, 25 provided strategies to reduce the risk of infection. Recommendations for each condiction were extracted from the remaining documents. The recommendations aim to establish specific parameters where treatments can be omitted, deferred, prioritized, and shortened. Treatment schemes are recommended for each condition, prioritizing hypo-fractionated schemes whenever possible. CONCLUSIONS: We propose strategies for the management of radiotherapy services to guarantee the continuity of high-quality treatments despite the health crisis caused by COVID-19.

Are there enough radiation oncologists to lead the new Spanish radiotherapy?

AIM: Radiation oncology services in Spain are undergoing a process of technical modernization, but-in a context of increasing demand by an ageing population-it is unclear whether there are enough radiation oncologists to staff the newly equipped units. This study aims to assess the number of specialists working in radiation oncology services in Spain relative to current and future needs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the second half of 2017, the Commission on Infrastructures of the Spanish Society for Radiation Oncology (SEOR) sent a questionnaire on radiation oncology staff to the heads of all 122 public (n = 76, 62%) and private (n = 46, 38%) radiation oncology services in Spain. Data collected were the number of professionals, their position, and their year of birth for specialists and residents in each service. In the descriptive analysis, for continuous variables we calculated means, standard deviations and ranges for each Spanish region and work post. For qualitative variables, we constructed frequency tables. All analyses were performed with R statistical software, version 3.5.1. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 100% among service heads across all 122 centers. The total number of radiation oncologists working in these centers is 721, or 15.4 per million population, with considerable variations between regions. Given the national recommendations to have 20 radiation oncologists per million population, there is currently a deficit of 204 specialists. If the 163 upcoming retirements are also taken into account, there will be 367 fewer radiation oncologists than required to meet the 25% increase in indications for radiotherapy projected for 2025. CONCLUSIONS: The classic model for calculating staff needs based on the number of treatments is outdated, and recommendations should be revised to reflect the current reality. A new model should integrate the most complex technological advances and emerging plans in radiotherapy, without neglecting the other activities carried out in radiation oncology services that are not directly linked to patient care.

Necessidades atuais de radioterapia no SUS e estimativas para o ano de 2030 / Current radiotherapy needs in SUS and estimates for the year 2030 / Las necesidades actuales de radioterapia en el SUS y las estimaciones para el año 2030

Introdução: O câncer se encontra entre as principais doenças crônicas não transmissíveis do mundo e, para 2030, é esperado um aumento na incidência de 54% em relação a 2015. esse incremento requer estratégias e políticas públicas que visem atender às demandas por tratamento, especialmente terapia de radiação, uma vez que envolve equipamentos e recursos humanos específicos. Objetivos: a presentar o cenário atual da radioterapia no Brasil, seus recursos estruturais e humanos, bem como estimar o cenário da radioterapia para o país em 2030. Método: trata-se de um estudo descritivo realizado com base em referencial teórico e conformado a partir de estimativas populacionais, atual e projetada, bancos de dados de sistemas de informação oficiais e sítios de classe profissional, e em legislação e normas emitidas por órgãos que normatizam e licenciam o tema no Brasil. Resultado: o s resultados obtidos demonstram que o déficit em julho de 2015 no Brasil é de 255 serviços de radioterapia e em recursos humanos de 387 radioterapeutas, 546 físico-médicos e 425 supervisores de produção. Para o ano de 2030, o déficit estimado é de 198 serviços de radioterapia e em recursos humanos de 235 físico-médicos e 114 supervisores de produção. Conclusão: o envelhecimento populacional e o consequente aumento das doenças crônicas não transmissíveis como o câncer exigem dos serviços públicos de saúde um planejamento que garanta as demandas por tratamento. o déficit, atual e projetado, de radioterapia no Brasil sinaliza a urgência de estratégias e políticas públicas capazes de atender às necessidades apresentadas.

Introduction: Cancer is amongst the main non-communicable chronic diseases in the world and for 2030 it is expected to increase in the incidence of 54% compared to 2015. This increase requires public strategies and policies to meet the demands for treatment, especially therapy radiation, since it involves specific equipment and manpower. Objectives: to present the current scenario of radiotherapy in Brazil, its structural and human resources, and to evaluate the scene of radiation to the country in 2030. Method: This is a descriptive study based on reference theoretical and in current and projected population estimates, databases of official information systems and professional class, and legislation and regulations issued by agencies that regulate and license the subject in Brazil. Results: The results showed that the deficit in July 2015 in Brazil is 255 radiotherapy services and human resources of 387 radiation therapists, 546 physical-medical and 425 production supervisors. For the year 2030 the estimated deficit is 198 radiotherapy and human resources of 235 physical-medical and 114 production supervisor. Conclusion: The aging population and consequent increase in chronic diseases like cancer demand the public health services to do some planning to ensure the demand for treatment. The deficit, current and projected radiotherapy in Brazil indicates the urgency of strategies and public policies to meet the needs presented.

Introducción: El cáncer es una de las principales enfermedades crónicas más no transmisibles del mundo y para el 2030 se espera un aumento en la incidencia del 54% en comparación con 2015. este aumento requiere de estrategias y políticas públicas para satisfacer las demandas por tratamiento, especialmente la terapia la radiación, ya que se involucra equipos y mano de obra específica. Objetivos: Presentar el escenario actual de la radioterapia en Brasil, sus recursos estructurales y humanos, y para evaluar la escena de la radioterapia para el país en 2030. Método: se trata de un estudio descriptivo con una base referencial teórica y conformado a partir de las estimativas poblacionales, actualizadas y proyectados, bases de datos de los sistemas de información y los sitios oficiales de clase profesional, y en emisiones de leyes y reglamentos de los organismos que regulan y autorizan el tema en Brasil. Resultados: los resultados mostraron que el déficit en julio de 2015 en Brasil es de 255 servicios de radioterapia y recursos humanos de 387 radioterapeutas, 546 supervisores de producción-físicos médicos y 425. Para el año 2030 el déficit estimado es de 198 radioterapia y recursos humanos de los servicios 235 físicos médicos y 114 supervisores de producción. Conclusión: e l envejecimiento de la población y el consiguiente aumento de las enfermedades crónicas como el cáncer exigen que los servicios de salud pública un planeamiento para asegurar las demandas del tratamiento. e l déficit actual, en radioterapia es proyectado en Brasil indica la urgencia de estrategias y políticas públicas capaces de atender las necesidades que se presentan.

Bibliometrics of intraoperative radiotherapy: analysis of technology, practice and publication tendencies.

PURPOSE: To analyze the performance and quality of intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) publications identified in medical databases during a recent period in terms of bibliographic metrics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A bibliometric search was conducted for IORT papers published in the PubMed database between 1997 and 2013. Publication rate was used as a quantity indicator; the 2012 Science Citation Index Impact Factor as a quality indicator. Furthermore, the publications were stratified in terms of study type, scientific topic reported, year of publication, tumor type and journal specialty. We performed a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine differences between the means of the analyzed groups. RESULTS: Among the total of 207 journals, articles were reported significantly more frequently in surgery (n = 399, 41 %) and radiotherapy journals (n = 273, 28 %; p < 0.01). The highest impact factor was achieved by clinical oncology journals (p < 0.01). The majority of identified articles were retrospective cohort reports (n = 622, 64 %), followed by review articles (n = 204, 21 %; p < 0.001). Regarding primary topic, reports on cancer outcome following specific tumor therapy were most frequently published (n = 661, 68 %; p < 0.001) and gained the highest mean impact factor (p < 0.01). Gastrointestinal tumor reports were represented most frequently (n = 456, 47 %; p < 0.001) and the mean superior impact factor was earned by breast and gynecologic publications (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: We identified a consistent and sustained scientific productivity of international IORT expert groups. Most publications appeared in journals with surgical and radiooncological content. The highest impact factor was achieved by medical oncology journals.

Spanish radiobiological pattern of care in lung cancer: a GOECP/SEOR study.

INTRODUCTION: A survey regarding radiobiological questions in the treatment of lung cancer (LC) was done to study the clinical aspects of radiotherapy in Spain, in order to standardise treatment decisions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From November 2007 to March 2008, a survey was performed among radiation oncologists in Spain specialising in LC treatment via e-mail, which included questions regarding different radiobiological aspects of radiotherapy LC treatment. The extent of the resulting material made it necessary to divide it into two parts; the first is presented in this article. The second, which includes items about alpha/beta-NTCP/TCP values and reirradiation criteria, will be reported elsewhere. RESULTS: Thirty-one radiation therapists from 29 radiation oncology departments answered the survey. 77.4-93.5% of responders used the basic formula from the linear-quadratic model and/or computer software for radiobiological calculations; 100% used lung (mostly V20, median <30%) and spinal cord constraints (mostly a median of physical maximum dose <45.5 Gy); and 90.3% used heart and oesophagus constraints (very heterogeneous parameters in both organs). CONCLUSIONS: Radiobiological considerations are clearly present in the planning process of radiotherapy of LC in Spain, with a high coincidence with the literature regarding lung and spinal cord constraints. The heterogeneity shown for oesophagus and heart results demonstrates the need for continuing investigation into the standardisation of clinical, dosimetric and radiobiologic aspects of the treatment of this cancer.

Patterns of care for brachytherapy in Europe. Results in Spain.

INTRODUCTION: In 2003 ESTRO began a project whose primary objective, was to make a map in the European area of infrastructures in technology and personnel for brachytherapy. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A survey and a web site were elaborated. The survey was sent to the 76 Spanish Radiation Oncology departments in May 2003. RESULTS: By the end of 2003, 66 (86.8%) services had responded, 40 (71.4%) of which had brachytherapy. The services with brachytherapy treated 73.5% of the total patients, an average of 1,199 patients. The mean number of patients treated with brachytherapy by department was 135.5 and the number of applications was 265 annually. The average number of specialists was 7, 4 of them trained in brachytherapy. The average weekly work load of the radiation oncologists, physicists, and technicians was 22.6 h, 13.8 h and 21.0 h, respectively. The mean time dedicated to each patient by radiation oncologists, physicists and technicians was 9.2 h; 6.19 h; 7.2 h, respectively. The total number of afterloaders was 43 (22 HDR, 18 LDR, 3 PDR). The tumours most frequently treated with brachytherapy were gynaecological (56.24%), breast (14.2%) and prostate (11.7%). High dose rate was used in 47.46% of the patients and low dose rate in 47.24%. Between 1997 and 2002 there was an increase of 50.53% in patients treated with brachytherapy. CONCLUSIONS: The survey shows the brachytherapy resources and activity in Spain up to 2003. Increased use of brachytherapy in prostate tumours, prevalence of gynaecology brachytherapy and similar number of treatments with HDR and LDR are demonstrated in the Patterns of Care of Brachytherapy in Europe (PCBE) study in Spain.