The American Society for Radiation Oncology Workforce Taskforce Review of the United States Radiation Oncology Workforce Analysis.

Over the past decade, concerns have arisen in radiation oncology regarding potential workforce supply and demand imbalance. The American Society for Radiation Oncology commissioned an independent analysis in 2022, looking at supply and demand in the United States radiation oncology workforce and projecting future trends for 2025 and 2030. The final report, titled Projected Supply and Demand for Radiation Oncologists in the U.S. in 2025 and 2030, is now available. The analysis included evaluating radiation oncologist (RO) supply (new graduates, exits from the specialty), potential changes in demand (growth of Medicare beneficiaries, hypofractionation, loss of indications, new indications) as well as RO productivity (growth of work relative value units [wRVUs] produced), and demand per beneficiary. The results demonstrated a relative balance between radiation oncology supply and demand for radiation services; the growth in ROs was balanced by the rapid growth of Medicare beneficiaries over the same period. The primary factors driving the model were found to be growth of Medicare beneficiaries and change in wRVU productivity, with hypofractionation and loss of indication having only a moderate effect; although the most likely scenario was a balance of workforce supply and demand, scenarios did demonstrate the possibility of over- and undersupply. Oversupply may become a concern if RO wRVU productivity reaches the highest region; beyond 2030, this is also possible if growth in RO supply does not parallel Medicare beneficiary growth, which is projected to decline and will require corresponding supply adjustment. Limitations of the analysis included uncertainty regarding the true number of ROs, the lack of inclusion of most technical reimbursement and its effect as well as failing to account for stereotactic body radiation therapy. A modeling tool is available to allow individuals to evaluate different scenarios. Moving forward, continued study will be needed to evaluate trends (particularly wRVU productivity and Medicare beneficiary growth) to allow for continued assessment of workforce supply and demand in radiation oncology.

Variable Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Radiation Oncology Practices in the United States.

PURPOSE: Early in the pandemic, the American Society for Radiation Oncology surveyed physician leaders at radiation oncology practices in the United States to understand how the field was responding to the outbreak of COVID-19. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Surveys were repeated at multiple points during the pandemic, with a response rate of 43% in April 2020 and 23% in January 2021. To our knowledge, this is the only longitudinal COVID-19 practice survey in oncology in the United States. RESULTS: The surveys indicate that patient access to essential radiation oncology services in the United States has been preserved throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Safety protocols were universally adopted, telehealth was widely adopted and remains in use, and most clinics no longer deferred or postponed radiation treatments as of early 2021. Late-stage disease presentation, treatment interruptions, shortages of personal protective equipment, and vaccination barriers were reported significantly more at community-based practices than at academic practices, and rural practices appear to have faced increased obstacles. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide unique insights into the initial longitudinal effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the delivery of radiation therapy in the United States. Downstream lessons in service adaptation and improvement can potentially be guided by formal concepts of resilience, which have been broadly embraced across the US economy.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Canadian Radiation Oncology Practices.

PURPOSE: To survey Canadian radiation oncology (RO) practice leaders to determine the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on radiation services and patient and staff issues in the early phase of the pandemic and 1 year later. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The RO leader (department or division head) from every Canadian cancer center with radiation services was identified. Two surveys were circulated to the identified leader via email from the Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology central office, using the SurveyMonkey survey tool: the first closed in June 2020 and the second (expanded) survey in June 2021, representing 2 points in time of the COVID-19 pandemic. Questions included patient volume, service interruptions and delays, and changes in scheduling and telemedicine use. Additional questions were included in the follow-up survey to determine further effects on disease presentation, volume, vaccination and access, and personnel issues. RESULTS: Telemedicine was widely adopted early in the pandemic and continued to be a common technique to communicate and connect with patients. Although many centers were deferring or delaying certain disease sites early in the pandemic, this was not as prevalent 1 year later. Reduced cancer screening and patients presenting with more advanced disease were concerns documented in the 2021 survey. A high level of concern regarding stress among health care professionals was identified. CONCLUSIONS: Canadian RO centers have faced numerous challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic but continued to provide timely and essential cancer care for patients with cancer. Future evaluation of RO center practices will be important to continue to document and address the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on issues relevant to RO leaders, patients, and staff.

Disproportionate Negative Impact of the Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Model on Rural Providers: A Cost Identification Analysis of Medicare Claims.

PURPOSE: The Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Model (APM) is a Medicare demonstration project that will test whether prospective bundled payments to a randomly selected group of physician practices, hospital outpatient departments, and freestanding radiation therapy centers reduce overall expenditures while preserving or enhancing the quality of care for beneficiaries. The Model follows a complicated pricing methodology that blends historical reimbursements for a defined set of services made to professional and technical providers to create a weighted payment average for each of 16 cancer types. These averages are then adjusted by various factors to determine APM payments specific to each participating provider. METHODS: This impact study segregates APM participants into rural and urban groups and analyzes the effect of the Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Model on their fee-for-service reimbursements. RESULTS: The main findings of this study are (1) the greater net-negative revenue impact on rural facilities versus urban facilities that would have participated in the Model this year and (2) the relative lack of high-value treatment services (ie, stereotactic radiotherapy and brachytherapy) delivered by rural facilities that exacerbates their negative impact. CONCLUSION: As such, rural providers participating in the Model in its current form may face greater risk to their economic viability and greater difficulty in funding technology improvements necessary for the achievement of high-quality care compared with their urban counterparts.

Effect of COVID-19 pandemic on practice in European radiation oncology centers.

ESTRO surveyed European radiation oncology department heads to evaluate the impact of COVID-19. Telemedicine was used in 78% of the departments, and 60% reported a decline in patient volume. Use of protective measures was implemented on a large scale, but shortages of personal protective equipment were present in more than half of the departments.

Initial Impact and Operational Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic by American Radiation Oncology Practices.

PURPOSE: In February 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic reached the United States. The impact of the pandemic on the US radiation oncology field remains unknown. The American Society for Radiation Oncology surveyed US radiation oncology practice leaders to gauge initial impact and immediate operational responses to the pandemic. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From April 16 to April 30, 2020, the American Society for Radiation Oncology surveyed US radiation oncology practice leaders by email to gauge initial impact and immediate operational responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-two (43%) of 517 leaders responded from community and academic practices (62% and 34%, respectively), hospital-based and free-standing centers (69% and 29%), and metro and rural locations (88% and 12%). Practices reported treating an average of 1086 patients per year in 2019 (range, 0-7900) with an average daily treatment volume of 70 patients (range, 5-400). All practices reported uninterrupted operation. On average, practices were treating 68% of their typical volume (range, 10%-95%), with 92% implementing planned treatment postponement for lower risk patients. An estimated revenue decrease of 20% or more was experienced by 71% of practices. Confirmed COVID-19 patient cases were treated by 39% of practices. Seventy percent experienced staff shortages. Almost all (98%) practices implemented formal operational procedures to protect patients and staff, although personal protective equipment/infection control supply shortages were reported by 78% of practices. Seventy-four percent used telemedicine for virtual follow-up surveillance, and 15% leveraged telemedicine for on-treatment assessment. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical and financial impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on US radiation oncology were deep and broad. Despite reported shortages in personal protective equipment, declines in revenue, and reduced patient volumes, practices adapted quickly by refining standard processes of care, implementing recommended safety measures, and employing telemedicine to facilitate treatment continuity. Patients with higher risk disease experienced uninterrupted access to care. We plan to continue regular surveying across the lifespan of the pandemic to document the geographic and temporal impact of COVID-19 on the field and its patients.

Radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer.

Over 200,000 cases of prostate cancer will be diagnosed in the United States in 2007. Management of this common malignancy is controversial with essentially equal long-term survival and local control with either surgery or radiation therapy stage for stage in the setting of localized disease. Factors that can affect treatment recommendations include stage and grade of disease, the pre-treatment PSA, physician bias and patient choice. This paper examines several of the radiotherapeutic options for the treatment of prostate cancer, and will also discuss evolving modalities that may offer additional treatment choices in the future.

Territorial spacing and interspecific competition in three species of reed warblers.

Ecological and temporal aspects of the occurrence and dispersion patterns in three reed warbler species were examined. This provided insight into their intra-and interspecific territoriality. Seasonal changes in the occurrence of territorial males in a reed bed along a gradient from the shore landward were studied. The results demonstrate that intra- and interspecific spacing depends on interspecific dominance and/or ecological constraints. In this case it was shown that there is competition for common habitats between reed warblers and great reed warblers, whereas the moustached warbler is ecologically segregated. The reasons for these dispersal patterns are discussed. They do not appear to enhance the availability of food resources. It seems more likely that territorial spacing might function to reduce nest predation.

American College of Radiology (ACR) and American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Practice Guideline for Intensity-modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT).

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is a complex technique for the delivery of radiation therapy preferentially to target structures while minimizing doses to adjacent normal critical structures. It is widely utilized in the treatment of a variety of clinical indications in radiation oncology, including tumors of the central nervous system, head and neck, breast, prostate, gastrointestinal tract, and gynecologic organs, as well as in situations where previous radiation therapy has been delivered, and has allowed for significant therapeutic advances in many clinical areas. IMRT treatment planning and delivery is a complex process. Safe and reliable delivery of IMRT requires appropriate process design and adherence to quality assurance (QA) standards. A collaborative effort of the American College of Radiology and American Society for Therapeutic Radiation Oncology has produced a practice guideline for IMRT. The guideline defines the qualifications and responsibilities of all the involved personnel, including the radiation oncologist, physicist, dosimetrist, and radiation therapist. Factors with respect to the QA of the treatment planning system, treatment-planning process, and treatment-delivery process are discussed, as are issues related to the utilization of volumetric modulated arc therapy. Patient-specific QA procedures are presented. Successful IMRT programs involve integration of many processes: patient selection, patient positioning/immobilization, target definition, treatment plan development, and accurate treatment delivery. Appropriate QA procedures, including patient-specific QA procedures, are essential to ensure quality in an IMRT program and to assure patient safety.