Eric Gutierrez

A survey of radiation treatment planning peer-review activities in a provincial radiation oncology programme: current practice and future directions

Objectives To describe current patterns of practice of radiation oncology peer review within a provincial cancer system, identifying barriers and facilitators to its use with the ultimate aim of process improvement. Design A survey of radiation oncology programmes at provincial cancer centres. Setting All cancer centres within the province of Ontario, Canada (n=14). These are community-based outpatient facilities overseen by Cancer Care Ontario, the provincial cancer agency. Participants A delegate from each radiation oncology programme filled out a single survey based on input from their multidisciplinary team. Outcome measures Rated importance of peer review; current utilisation; format of the peer-review process; organisation and timing; case attributes; outcomes of the peer-review process and perceived barriers and facilitators to expanding peer-review processes. Results 14 (100%) centres responded. All rated the importance of peer review as at least 8/10 (10=extremely important). Detection of medical error and improvement of planning processes were the highest rated perceived benefits of peer review (each median 9/10). Six centres (43%) reviewed at least 50% of curative cases; four of these centres (29%) conducted peer review in more than 80% of cases treated with curative intent. Fewer than 20% of cases treated with palliative intent were reviewed in most centres. Five centres (36%) reported usually conducting peer review prior to the initiation of treatment. Five centres (36%) recorded the outcomes of peer review on the medical record. Thirteen centres (93%) planned to expand peer-review activities; a critical mass of radiation oncologists was the most important limiting factor (median 6/10). Conclusions Radiation oncology peer-review practices can vary even within a cancer system with provincial oversight. The application of guidelines and standards for peer-review processes, and monitoring of implementation and outcomes, will require effective knowledge translation activities.

Organisational standards for the delivery of intensity-modulated radiation therapy in Ontario.

By minimising the effect of irradiation on surrounding tissue, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) can deliver higher, more effective doses to the targeted tumour site, minimising treatment-related morbidity and possibly improving cancer control and cure. A multidisciplinary IMRT Expert Panel was convened to develop the organisational standards for the delivery of IMRT. The systematic literature search used MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database, the National Guidelines Clearing House and the Health Technology Assessment Database. An environmental scan of unpublished literature used the Google search engine to review the websites of key organisations, cancer agencies/centres and vendor sites in Canada, the USA, Australia and Europe. In total, 22 relevant guidance documents were identified; 12 from the published literature and 10 from the environmental scan. Professional and organisational standards for the provision of IMRT were developed through the analysis of this evidence and the consensus opinion of the IMRT Expert Panel. The resulting standards address the following domains: planning of new IMRT programmes, practice setting requirements, tools, devices and equipment requirements; professional training requirements; role of personnel; and requirements for quality assurance and safety. Here the IMRT Expert Panel offers organisational and professional standards for the delivery of IMRT, with the intent of promoting innovation, improving access and enhancing patient care.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing Conventional Versus Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Surgically Ineligible Stage I Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

INTRODUCTION In 25% to 35% of patients with early stage I non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), surgery is not feasible, and external-beam radiation becomes their standard treatment. Conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (CFRT) is the traditional radiation treatment standard; however, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is increasingly being adopted as an alternate radiation treatment. Our objective was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis, comparing SBRT with CFRT for stage I NSCLC in a public payer system. METHODS Consecutive patients were reviewed using 2010 Canadian dollars for direct medical costs from a public payer perspective. A subset of direct radiation treatment delivery costs, excluding physician billings and hospitalization, was also included. Health outcomes as life-years gained (LYGs) were computed using time-to-event methods. Sensitivity analyses identified critical factors influencing costs and benefits. RESULTS From January 2002 to June 2010, 168 patients (CFRT, n = 50; SBRT, n = 118) were included; median follow-up was 24 months. Mean overall survival was 2.83 years (95% CI, 1.8 to 4.1) for CFRT and 3.86 years (95% CI, 3.2 to not reached) for SBRT (P = .06). Mean costs for CFRT were

ReCAP: Improving the Quality of Radiation Treatment for Patients in Ontario: Increasing Peer Review Activities on a Jurisdictional Level Using a Change Management Approach

6,886 overall and

Delivery of Brachytherapy for Cervical Cancer: Organisational and Technical Advice to Facilitate High-quality Care

5,989 for radiation treatment delivery only versus

Estimating the costs of intensity-modulated and 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy in Ontario

8,042 and

Use of Continuous Infusion Pumps During Radiation Treatment

6,962, respectively, for SBRT. Incremental costs (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]) per LYG for SBRT versus CFRT were

Total quality culture in radiotherapy departments across Ontario

1,120 for the public payer and

Directly Improving the Quality of Radiation Treatment Through Peer Review: A Cross-sectional Analysis of Cancer Centers Across a Provincial Cancer Program

942 for radiation treatment alone. Varying survival and labor costs individually (± 20%) created the largest changes in the ICER, and simultaneous adjustment (± 5% to ± 30%) confirmed cost effectiveness of SBRT. CONCLUSION Using a threshold of

Improving radiotherapy utilization rates in Ontario.

50,000 per LYG, SBRT seems cost effective. Results require confirmation with randomized data.