Recently published indicators allow for comparison of radiation treatment rates relative to evidence-based guidelines for rectal cancer

177 Background: As part of the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer’s (CPAC) System Performance initiative, indicators measuring treatment practice patterns across the country are now available, offering the ability to compare against evidence-based guidelines. We report on the percentage of patients with stage II and III rectal cancer receiving pre-operative radiation treatment (RT) based on an analysis of Canadian administrative data. A retrospective chart review was conducted to examine reasons for non-treatment with RT, set performance targets, and inform quality improvements. Methods: Data on the percentage of stage II and III rectal cancer cases receiving preoperative RT were obtained from five provincial cancer registries using a standardized methodology for 2,854 cases diagnosed between 2007 and 2008, with 2009 data soon to be available. A retrospective chart review was conducted in five provinces on a random sample of 383 patients diagnosed in 2008 to examine reasons for non-referral and non-treatment. Results: Based on administrative data, an average of 45% of cases received RT preceding surgical resection for stage II or III rectal cancer, ranging from 36% to 48% across provinces. Preoperative RT rates were similar for men and women, but were lower in older patients. From 2007 to 2008, the percentage of patients receiving pre-operative RT increased in all provinces. Results from the chart review showed that, of those who did not receive preoperative RT, 33% were not referred by a surgeon to an oncologist. The most common documented reasons for non-referral were co-morbidities (26%) and patient choice (7%). Among patients referred to an oncologist, 42% were treated with preoperative RT, 30% were treated with post-operative RT and 28% received no treatment. Among those receiving no treatment, 29% were seen only by a medical oncologist, and 18% were not treated due to patient choice. Conclusions: Findings are being used to develop national targets for treatment rates and, working with national oncologist associations, to develop quality improvement strategies, including patient education efforts to promote informed decisions on treatment options.

Download Full-text

Compliance with evidence-based guidelines for radiation of vertebral metastases.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2013.31.31_suppl.36 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 31 (31_suppl) ◽

pp. 36-36

Author(s):

Heather A Curry ◽

Arlene A. Forastiere ◽

Reshma Jagsi ◽

M. Lou Palladino

Keyword(s):

Radiation Treatment ◽

Peer To Peer ◽

Patterns Of Care ◽

Dose Fractionation ◽

Patient Specific ◽

Evidence Based ◽

Vertebral Metastases ◽

Case Review ◽

Treatment Plans ◽

Evidence Based Guidelines

36 Background: Evidence based guidelines pertaining to the management of bony metastases have been published. However, up to 30% of oncology treatments deviate from evidence based standards and widespread variations in clinical practice continue to exist. To explore patterns of care in the treatment of vertebral metastases in a group of working age, insured patients, we assessed treatment plans submitted for preauthorization through eviti Connect. Methods: Eviti Connect is a web-based application that enables oncology providers to obtain automated precertification for patients. The platform evaluates treatment plans for consistency with EBM and compliance with payer policies and plan language. All requests for radiation treatment submitted during a two year period from 6/1/11-5/31/13 were reviewed. Peer to peer discussions were conducted in cases that deviated from EBM. Results: A total of 229 cases for the treatment of vertebral metastases were submitted. 46/229 plans (19.8%) did not meet EBM standards. Some cases displayed more than one deviation. Reasons for non-compliance included atypical treatment schedules (8.69%), SRS/SBRT (36.9%), IMRT (32.6%), and IGRT (58.7%). In 26/46 cases (56.5%) the treating physician provided a medical rationale for the deviation. In 9 cases the physician altered the plan to be compliant; in 5 cases the physician did not agree to a change. The most common dose fractionation schedules were 30 Gy/10 fractions (48.9%) and 37.5 Gy/15 fractions (20.5%). 17 cases were treated using 20 Gy/5 fractions and only 2 cases were treated using 8 Gy X 1. Conclusions: Radiation of vertebral metastases was prescribed in accordance with EBM in the majority of cases. The main reasons for deviation were patient-specific issues that justified the medical necessity of the variance. Case review and peer to peer discussion contributed to understanding the rationale for treatment deviation from guidelines and allowed providers to bring plans into compliance with EBM. Overall only 5% of plans were non-evidence based or lacked a medical justification for deviation. Consistent with patterns of care across the US, within this group of patients, single fraction and hypofractionated radiation regimens were underutilized.

Download Full-text