Incident Learning and Failure-Mode-and-Effects-Analysis Guided Safety Initiatives in Radiation Medicine.

By combining incident learning and process failure-mode-and-effects-analysis (FMEA) in a structure-process-outcome framework we have created a risk profile for our radiation medicine practice and implemented evidence-based risk-mitigation initiatives focused on patient safety. Based on reactive reviews of incidents reported in our departmental incident-reporting system and proactive FMEA, high safety-risk procedures in our paperless radiation medicine process and latent risk factors were identified. Six initiatives aimed at the mitigation of associated severity, likelihood-of-occurrence, and detectability risks were implemented. These were the standardization of care pathways and toxicity grading, pre-treatment-planning peer review, a policy to thwart delay-rushed processes, an electronic whiteboard to enhance coordination, and the use of six sigma metrics to monitor operational efficiencies. The effectiveness of these initiatives over a 3-years period was assessed using process and outcome specific metrics within the framework of the department structure. There has been a 47% increase in incident-reporting, with no increase in adverse events. Care pathways have been used with greater than 97% clinical compliance rate. The implementation of peer review prior to treatment-planning and use of the whiteboard have provided opportunities for proactive detection and correction of errors. There has been a twofold drop in the occurrence of high-risk procedural delays. Patient treatment start delays are routinely enforced on cases that would have historically been rushed. Z-scores for high-risk procedures have steadily improved from 1.78 to 2.35. The initiatives resulted in sustained reductions of failure-mode risks as measured by a set of evidence-based metrics over a 3-years period. These augment or incorporate many of the published recommendations for patient safety in radiation medicine by translating them to clinical practice.

Long-term outcomes in younger men following permanent prostate brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: We reviewed the long-term outcomes in men undergoing permanent prostate brachytherapy with a focus on those presenting before age 60 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 1992 and 2005 a total of 2,119 patients with clinical stage T1-T2, N0, M0 prostate cancer treated with permanent prostate brachytherapy were included in this study. Treatment regimens consisted of permanent prostate brachytherapy with or without hormone therapy, permanent prostate brachytherapy with external beam radiotherapy, or all 3 modalities. Biochemical recurrence was defined using the Phoenix definition. Multivariate analysis was performed to determine if age and/or other clinicopathological features were associated with disease progression. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate rates of freedom from progression with the log rank test to compare patients younger than 60 vs 60 years or older. RESULTS: Median followup was 56.1 months. In the study population 237 patients were younger than 60 years at diagnosis (11%). The 5 and 10-year freedom from progression rates were 90.1% and 85.6%, respectively, for the entire population. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that prostate specific antigen (p <0.01), biopsy Gleason score (p <0.0001) and year of treatment (p <0.001) were associated with freedom from progression while age (p = 0.95) and clinical stage (p = 0.11) were not. There was no significant difference in freedom from progression between men younger than 60, or 60 years or older (log rank p = 0.46). In the younger cohort the 10-year freedom from progression for patients presenting with low, intermediate and high risk disease was 91.3%, 80.0% and 70.2% compared to 91.8%, 83.4% and 72.1%, respectively, for men 60 years or older. CONCLUSIONS: Our long-term results confirm favorable outcomes after permanent prostate brachytherapy in men younger than 60 years. Outcomes are impacted by disease related risk factors but not by age or clinical stage. Definitive treatment options for younger men with clinically localized prostate cancer should include permanent prostate brachytherapy.

12-year outcomes following permanent prostate brachytherapy in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: We reviewed the outcomes in men treated with permanent prostate brachytherapy (PPB). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 1,449 consecutive patients with a mean age of 68 years treated with PPB between 1992 and 2000 and mean pretreatment prostate specific antigen (PSA) 10.1 ng/ml were included in this study. Of the patients 55% presented with Gleason 6 tumors and 28% had Gleason 7 disease. A total of 400 patients (27%) were treated with neoadjuvant hormones and 301 (20%) were treated in combination with external radiation plus PPB. Several biochemical freedom from recurrence (BFR) definitions were determined. Statistical analysis consisted of log rank testing, Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: Median followup was 82 months with 39 patients at risk at for 144 months. Overall and disease specific survival at 12 years was 81% and 93%, respectively. The 12-year BFR was 81%, 78%, 74% and 77% according to the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO), ASTRO-Kattan, ASTRO-Last Call and Houston definitions, respectively. The 12-year ASTRO-Kattan BFR using risk stratification was 89%, 78% and 63% in patients at low, intermediate and high risk, respectively (p = 0.0001). Multivariate analysis identified the dose that 90% of the target volume received (p <0.0001), pretreatment PSA (p = 0.001), Gleason score (p = 0.002), the percent positive core biopsies (p = 0.037), clinical stage (p = 0.689), the addition of hormones (p = 0.655) and the addition of external radiation (p = 0.724) for predicting BFR-ASTRO. Five-year disease specific survival was 44% in patients with a PSA doubling time of less than 12 months vs 88% in those with a PSA doubling time of 12 months or greater (p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: PPB offers acceptable 12-year BFR in patients who present with clinically localized prostate cancer. Implant dosimetry continues as an important predictor for BFR, while the addition of adjuvant therapies such as hormones and external radiation are insignificant. In patients who experience biochemical failure it appears that PSA doubling time is an important predictor of survival.

12-year outcomes following permanent prostate brachytherapy in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: We reviewed the outcomes in men treated with permanent prostate brachytherapy (PPB). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 1,449 consecutive patients with a mean age of 68 years treated with PPB between 1992 and 2000 and mean pretreatment prostate specific antigen (PSA) 10.1 ng/ml were included in this study. Of the patients 55% presented with Gleason 6 tumors and 28% had Gleason 7 disease. A total of 400 patients (27%) were treated with neoadjuvant hormones and 301 (20%) were treated in combination with external radiation plus PPB. Several biochemical freedom from recurrence (BFR) definitions were determined. Statistical analysis consisted of log rank testing, Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: Median followup was 82 months with 39 patients at risk at for 144 months. Overall and disease specific survival at 12 years was 81% and 93%, respectively. The 12-year BFR was 81%, 78%, 74% and 77% according to the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO), ASTRO-Kattan, ASTRO-Last Call and Houston definitions, respectively. The 12-year ASTRO-Kattan BFR using risk stratification was 89%, 78% and 63% in patients at low, intermediate and high risk, respectively (p = 0.0001). Multivariate analysis identified the dose that 90% of the target volume received (p <0.0001), pretreatment PSA (p = 0.001), Gleason score (p = 0.002), the percent positive core biopsies (p = 0.037), clinical stage (p = 0.689), the addition of hormones (p = 0.655) and the addition of external radiation (p = 0.724) for predicting BFR-ASTRO. Five-year disease specific survival was 44% in patients with a PSA doubling time of less than 12 months vs 88% in those with a PSA doubling time of 12 months or greater (p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: PPB offers acceptable 12-year BFR in patients who present with clinically localized prostate cancer. Implant dosimetry continues as an important predictor for BFR, while the addition of adjuvant therapies such as hormones and external radiation are insignificant. In patients who experience biochemical failure it appears that PSA doubling time is an important predictor of survival.