Quality Indicators in Palliative Radiation Oncology: Development and Pilot Testing

16030 Background: To assess the overall quality of cancer care, efforts seek consensus quality indicators that crosscut health services. Although pilot programs have collected and analyzed relevant clinical data, they have been unable to collect radiation oncology (RO) data detailed enough to assess the quality of services or to inform key decision makers. Quality Research in Radiation Oncology (QRRO) conducted retrospective surveys of national practice since 1973 with major positive impact on the quality of practice through recursive processes. Methods: From Donabedian’s model of quality assessment, QRRO analyzes crucial quality components by conducting Facilities, Process, and Outcomes Surveys. Survey design allows calculation of national averages for patients treated with RO and comparisons by key factors. Evolving data collection methods allow assessment of modern technologies. Methods start with definition and measurement of evidence-based quality indicators but allow greater detail and specification than most other quality measurement efforts. Results: QRRO showed that radiation dose affected outcomes for prostate cancer patients. Higher radiation doses were associated with improved local tumor control rates and treatment techniques affected toxicity rates. These results, presented widely in numerous venues, stimulated dose escalation clinical trials. Trials conducted in the USA all used QRRO results as critical data, providing the major impetus to test new directions in dose escalation and new methods to target delivery more precisely. National practice shifted to higher doses and use of conformal techniques. The dataset is unique in providing cross-sectional information on practice patterns with a wide variety of treatment approaches from many institutions and sufficient details of treatment delivery to allow examination of questions about quality and effects of techniques. Conclusions: Mounting societal demands for improvement in the quality of care, ever increasing complexity of radiation therapy, and escalating use of multi-modality treatment make continuing to measure, report, and improve quality of care in RO crucial to patients and the profession. Methods must keep pace with new technologies and techniques in radiation therapy. [Supported by NCI grant CA 65435]. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Download Full-text

Impact of the distance from a radiation oncology treatment facilty on initiation of therapy and its influence on survival in patients with stage III and IV NSCLC.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2013.31.15_suppl.e17594 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽

pp. e17594-e17594

Author(s):

Danielle M. File ◽

Carlos Eduardo Arce-Lara ◽

Jeffrey C. Whittle ◽

Elizabeth Gore ◽

Rafael Santana-Davila

Keyword(s):

Radiation Therapy ◽

Metastatic Disease ◽

Radiation Oncology ◽

Stage Iv ◽

The State ◽

Stage Iii ◽

Palliative Radiation ◽

Stage Iv Disease ◽

Oncology Treatment ◽

Time To First Treatment

e17594 Background: Patients with stage III and IV lung cancer require multidisciplinary care. The Milwaukee VA is the only center within the Veterans Health Administration in the state that has a radiation oncology facility. Patients frequently travel from across the state to receive treatment here. We conducted a retrospective review of cases seen in our institution to determine if the distance from the patients’ home to our center influenced their outcome. Methods: Patients with NSCLC treated between 2000 and 2012 were identified from our internal registry. Type of treatment was identified from the registry and confirmed in a chart review.. SAS 9.2 was used for statistical analysis and to measure distance between the patients’ home address and our center. Results: We included 230 patients with stage III disease treated with radiation therapy and 139 patients with stage IV treated with chemotherapy. Of those with Stage III (53% with IIIA and 47% IIIB) 41.3% (n=95) received concurrent radiation therapy and chemotherapy, 14% received sequential therapy, 40% received radiation therapy alone and 5% were treated with chemotherapy followed by palliative radiation. In those with metastatic disease 61% received palliative radiation at some point during their treatment. Median distance between the patients’ home and the Milwaukee VA was 57miles (IQR 10-109) in patients with stage III disease and 22 (IQR 5-84) in those with metastatic disease. There was no correlation between the distance travelled and the time to first treatment in either stage (r=0.008 in stage III and r=0.05 in stage IV). In a univariate analysis living further than 50 miles did not appear to influence survival in stage III (median OS 14.6 vs. 16.4 months p=0.25) nor stage IV disease(9.7 vs 8 p=0.55). In a multivariate analysis when controlling for age, time to first treatment and distance as a continuous variable was not associated with survival in patients with stage III(HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.99-1.02 p=0.15) or stage IV disease (HR 1.01, 95%CI 0.98-1.04 p=0.35). Conclusions: Distance traveled to a radiation oncology treatment facility in this cohort did not influence survival in patients with stage III and IV NSCLC.

Download Full-text

Timing of referral for palliative radiation therapy and length of hospital stay.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2019.37.31_suppl.57 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 37 (31_suppl) ◽

pp. 57-57

Author(s):

Moeko Nagatsuka ◽

Ryan T. Hughes ◽

Chase Glenn ◽

Doris R. Brown

Keyword(s):

Radiation Therapy ◽

Hospital Stay ◽

Cancer Diagnosis ◽

Radiation Oncology ◽

Symptomatic Relief ◽

Length Of Hospital Stay ◽

Continuous Variable ◽

Palliative Radiation ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Palliative Radiation Therapy

57 Background: Palliative radiation therapy (PRT) offers effective symptomatic relief to cancer patients. Increased focus on quality of care and healthcare efficiency necessitate a better understanding of the temporal relationships between consultation for/initiation of PRT and length of hospital stay (LOS). This study aims to assess whether durations from admission to PRT consult/PRT initiation affect LOS. Methods: In an institutional review of patients who received PRT as inpatients between January 2017 and December 2018, 67 met inclusion criteria. Duration of time from admission to consultation or start of PRT were categorized using various thresholds. LOS was compared across groups using the Wilcoxon rank sum test and factors were evaluated as predictors of LOS using bivariate linear regression. Results: PRT was given for pain (37%), neurologic deficits/brain metastases (31%), and respiratory symptoms (19%). Multiple sites were treated in 31%; treatment sites included spine (45%), non-spine bone (27%), chest (22%), abdomen/pelvis (12%), brain (10%) and soft tissue (6%). At admission, patients had known metastases (66%), no prior cancer diagnosis (19%), or known primary cancer (15%). Median LOS was 12 days (IQR 7-18) for all patients. There was a significant difference in LOS for patients referred for PRT within 3 days of admission versus greater than 3 days (11 v. 21 days, p < 0.01). This difference was slightly greater using a threshold of 4 days (11 v. 25 days, p < 0.01) and 5 days (11 v. 26 days, p < 0.01), both of which remained significant when analyzing only patients with prior cancer diagnosis (n = 54). There was no difference in LOS using a threshold of 1 or 2 days. As a continuous variable, duration from admission to PRT was associated with LOS (OR 2.40, p < 0.01). Similar patterns were noted when analyzing by time from admission to PRT start. Conclusions: Earlier radiation oncology consultation for PRT is associated with shorter LOS in patients treated with PRT for symptomatic malignancy. Further research is needed to better define this relationship and improve systematic processes to facilitate early consultation and treatment. A palliative radiation oncology clinic was recently developed to address these issues at our institution.

Download Full-text