C. L. Crozier

Penetration of Recommended Procedures for Lung Cancer Staging and Management in the United States Over 10 Years: A Quality Research in Radiation Oncology Survey

PURPOSE To document the penetration of clinical trial results, practice guidelines, and appropriateness criteria into national practice, we compared the use of components of staging and treatment for lung cancer among patients treated in 2006-2007 with those used in patients treated in 1998-1999. METHODS AND MATERIALS Patient, staging work-up, and treatment characteristics were extracted from the process survey database of the Quality Research in Radiation Oncology (QRRO), consisting of records of 340 patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) at 44 institutions and of 144 patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC) at 39 institutions. Data were compared for patients treated in 2006-2007 versus those for patients treated in 1998-1999. RESULTS Use of all recommended procedures for staging and treatment was more common in 2006-2007. Specifically, disease was staged with brain imaging (magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography) and whole-body imaging (positron emission tomography or bone scanning) in 66% of patients with LA-NSCLC in 2006-2007 (vs 42% in 1998-1999, P=.0001) and in 84% of patients with LS-SCLC in 2006-2007 (vs 58.3% in 1998-1999, P=.0011). Concurrent chemoradiation was used for 77% of LA-NSCLC patients (vs 45% in 1998-1999, P<.0001) and for 90% of LS-SCLC patients (vs 62.5% in 1998-1999, P<.0001). Use of the recommended radiation dose (59-74 Gy for NSCLC and 60-70 Gy as once-daily therapy for SCLC) did not change appreciably, being 88% for NSCLC in both periods and 51% (2006-2007) versus 43% (1998-1999) for SCLC. Twice-daily radiation for SCLC was used for 21% of patients in 2006-2007 versus 8% in 1998-1999. Finally, 49% of patients with LS-SCLC received prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) in 2006-2007 (vs 21% in 1998-1999). CONCLUSIONS Although adherence to all quality indicators improved over time, brain imaging and recommended radiation doses for stage III NSCLC were used in <90% of cases. Use of full thoracic doses and PCI for LS-SCLC also requires improvement.

Shifting the Focus to Practice Quality Improvement in Radiation Oncology

Abstract To demonstrate how the American College of Radiology, Quality Research in Radiation Oncology (QRRO) process survey database can serve as an evidence base for assessing quality of care in radiation oncology. QRRO has drawn a stratified random sample of radiation oncology facilities in the USA and invited those facilities to participate in a Process Survey. Information from a prior QRRO Facilities Survey has been used along with data collected under the current National Process Survey to calculate national averages and make statistically valid inferences for national process measures for selected cancers in which radiation therapy plays a major role. These measures affect outcomes important to patients and providers and measure quality of care. QRROs survey data provides national benchmark data for numerous quality indicators. The Process Survey is “fully qualified” as a Practice Quality Improvement project by the American Board of Radiology under its Maintenance of Certification requirements for radiation oncology and radiation physics.

Quality Research in Radiation Oncology analysis of clinical performance measures in the management of gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND The specific aim was to determine national patterns of radiation therapy (RT) practice in patients treated for stage IB-IV (nonmetastatic) gastric cancer (GC). METHODS AND MATERIALS A national process survey of randomly selected US RT facilities was conducted which retrospectively assessed demographics, staging, geographic region, practice setting, and treatment by using on-site record review of eligible GC cases treated from 2005 to 2007. Three clinical performance measures (CPMs), (1) use of computed tomography (CT)-based treatment planning; (2) use of dose volume histograms (DVHs) to evaluate RT dose to the kidneys and liver; and (3) completion of RT within the prescribed time frame; and emerging quality indicators, (i) use of intensity modulated RT (IMRT); (ii) use of image-guided tools (IGRT) other than CT for RT target delineation; and (iii) use of preoperative RT, were assessed. RESULTS CPMs were computed for 250 eligible patients at 45 institutions (median age, 62 years; 66% male; 60% Caucasian). Using 2000 American Joint Committee on Cancer criteria, 13% of patients were stage I, 29% were stage II, 32% were stage IIIA, 10% were stage IIIB, and 12% were stage IV. Most patients (43%) were treated at academic centers, 32% were treated at large nonacademic centers, and 25% were treated at small to medium sized facilities. Almost all patients (99.5%) underwent CT-based planning, and 75% had DVHs to evaluate normal tissue doses to the kidneys and liver. Seventy percent of patients completed RT within the prescribed time frame. IMRT and IGRT were used in 22% and 17% of patients, respectively. IGRT techniques included positron emission tomography (n=20), magnetic resonance imaging (n=1), respiratory gating and 4-dimensional CT (n=22), and on-board imaging (n=10). Nineteen percent of patients received preoperative RT. CONCLUSIONS This analysis of radiation practice patterns for treating nonmetastatic GC indicates widespread adoption of CT-based planning with use of DVH to evaluate normal tissue doses. Most patients completed adjuvant RT in the prescribed time frame. IMRT and IGRT were not routinely incorporated into clinical practice during the 2005-2007 period. These data will be a benchmark for future Quality Research in Radiation Oncology GC surveys.

Results from the Quality Research in Radiation Oncology (QRRO) survey: Evaluation of dosimetric outcomes for low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy

PURPOSE We report on quality of dose delivery to target and normal tissues from low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy using postimplantation dosimetric evaluations from a random sample of U.S. patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS Nonmetastatic prostate cancer patients treated with external beam radiotherapy or brachytherapy in 2007 were randomly sampled from radiation oncology facilities nationwide. Of 414 prostate cancer cases from 45 institutions, 86 received low-dose-rate brachytherapy. We collected the 30-day postimplantation CT images of these patients and 10 test cases from two other institutions. Scans were downloaded into a treatment planning system and prostate/rectal contours were redrawn. Dosimetric outcomes were reanalyzed and compared with calculated outcomes from treating institutions. RESULTS Median prostate volume was 33.4cm(3). Reevaluated median V(100), D(90), and V(150) were 91.1% (range, 45.5-99.8%), 101.7% (range, 59.6-145.9%), and 53.9% (range, 15.7-88.4%), respectively. Low gland coverage included 27 patients (39%) with a D(90) lower than 100% of the prescription dose (PD), 12 of whom (17% of the entire group) had a D(90) lower than 80% of PD. There was no correlation between D(90) coverage and prostate volume, number of seeds, or implanted activity. The median V(100) for the rectum was 0.3cm(3) (range, 0-4.3cm(3)). No outcome differences were observed according to the institutional strata. Concordance between reported and reevaluated D(90) values (defined as within ±10%) was observed in 44 of 69 cases. CONCLUSIONS Central review of postimplantation CT scans to assess the quality of prostate brachytherapy is feasible. Most patients achieved excellent dosimetric outcomes, yet 17% had less than optimal target coverage by the PD. There was concordance between submitted target-coverage parameters and central dosimetric review in 64% of implants. These findings will require further validation in a larger cohort of patients.