Strategic planning in an academic radiation medicine program.

BACKGROUND: In this paper, we report on the process of strategic planning in the Radiation Medicine Program (rmp) at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre. The rmp conducted a strategic planning exercise to ensure that program priorities reflect the current health care environment, enable nimble responses to the increasing burden of cancer, and guide program operations until 2020. METHODS: Data collection was guided by a project charter that outlined the project goal and the roles and responsibilities of all participants. The process was managed by a multidisciplinary steering committee under the guidance of an external consultant and consisted of reviewing strategic planning documents from close collaborators and institutional partners, conducting interviews with key stakeholders, deploying a program-wide survey, facilitating an anonymous and confidential e-mail feedback box, and collecting information from group deliberations. RESULTS: The process of strategic planning took place from December 2014 to December 2015. Mission and vision statements were developed, and core values were defined. A final document, Strategic Roadmap to 2020, was established to guide programmatic pursuits during the ensuing 5 years, and an implementation plan was developed to guide the first year of operations. CONCLUSIONS: The strategic planning process provided an opportunity to mobilize staff talents and identify environmental opportunities, and helped to enable more effective use of resources in a rapidly changing health care environment. The process was valuable in allowing staff to consider and discuss the future, and in identifying strategic issues of the greatest importance to the program. Academic programs with similar mandates might find our report useful in guiding similar processes in their own organizations.

Omission of Breast Radiotherapy in Low-risk Luminal A Breast Cancer: Impact on Health Care Costs.

AIMS: The economic burden of cancer care is substantial, including steep increases in costs for breast cancer management. There is mounting evidence that women age ≥ 60 years with grade I/II T1N0 luminal A (ER/PR+, HER2- and Ki67 ≤ 13%) breast cancer have such low local recurrence rates that adjuvant breast radiotherapy might offer limited value. We aimed to determine the total savings to a publicly funded health care system should omission of radiotherapy become standard of care for these patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The number of women aged ≥ 60 years who received adjuvant radiotherapy for T1N0 ER+ HER2- breast cancer in Ontario was obtained from the provincial cancer agency. The cost of adjuvant breast radiotherapy was estimated through activity-based costing from a public payer perspective. The total saving was calculated by multiplying the estimated number of luminal A cases that received radiotherapy by the cost of radiotherapy minus Ki-67 testing. RESULTS: In 2010, 748 women age ≥ 60 years underwent surgery for pT1N0 ER+ HER2- breast cancer; 539 (72%) underwent adjuvant radiotherapy, of whom 329 were estimated to be grade I/II luminal A subtype. The cost of adjuvant breast radiotherapy per case was estimated at $6135.85; the cost of Ki-67 at $114.71. This translated into an annual saving of about $2.0million if radiotherapy was omitted for all low-risk luminal A breast cancer patients in Ontario and $5.1million across Canada. CONCLUSION: There will be significant savings to the health care system should omission of radiotherapy become standard practice for women with low-risk luminal A breast cancer.

SU-D-213CD-06: Workflow and Safety Systems of a Linac-MR Sim-Brachytherapy MRgRT™ Facility.

PURPOSE: To develop the operational workflow and safety systems of a magnetic resonance-guided radiotherapy system (MRgRT™), which comprises an MR scanner on rails that travels between a linac vault, MR simulation room and brachytherapy suite. METHODS: To develop a safe and streamlined clinical workflow, we conducted a comprehensive process review based on a layered approach to overall MRgRT safety that included i) facility design, (ii) workflow iii) system design and interlocks and iv) policies and procedures. We applied existing guidelines for MR and radiation safety, and employed system-level failure modes and effects analyses to design the MRgRT facility and clinical procedures. RESULTS: In the MRgRT system configuration, the MR and treatment systems are physically decoupled and used independently requiring novel administration of existing MR and radiation guidelines. A key element for the safe operation of the moving MR unit is the concept that all three rooms represent zone 4 areas (American College of Radiology guidelines). Using this concept, we applied MR guidelines to develop safe procedures for the overall suite, including screening of all persons entering the suite in zone 2 and control of ferromagnetic materials. We generated a clinical workflow that ensures expedient and safe transition between MR imaging and treatment delivery in both the linac and brachytherapy rooms. In addition, we designed emergency protocols for MRgRT, which helped drive requirements for the facility and system design, e.g., need for an accessible MR-safe stretcher. CONCLUSIONS: We designed the first comprehensive description of the MRgRT workflow, interlocking systems and safety procedures. With this layered approach to safety, we addressed critical aspects regarding safe operation and workflow for the system and provided multiple redundancies for key processes. Coupled with customized staff training, the proposed design ensures the safe operation of the MRgRT facility. This work has received research personnel support from IMRIS.