Jesmin Shafiq

Role of radiotherapy in cancer control in low-income and middle-income countries

More than half the cases of cancer in the world arise in people in low-income and middle-income countries. This proportion will rise to 70% by 2020. These are regions where the annual gross national income per person is less than 9386 US dollars. Radiotherapy is an essential part of the treatment of cancer. In high-income countries, 52% of new cases of cancer should receive radiotherapy at least once and up to 25% might receive a second course. Because of the different distribution of tumour types worldwide and of the advanced stage at presentation, patients with cancer in low-income and middle-income regions could have a greater need for radiotherapy than those in high-income countries. Radiotherapy for cure or palliation has been shown to be cost effective. Many countries of low or middle income have limited access to radiotherapy, and 22 African and Asian countries have no service at all. In Africa in 2002, the actual supply of megavoltage radiotherapy machines (cobalt or linear accelerator) was only 155, 18% of the estimated need. In the Asia-Pacific region, nearly 4 million cases of cancer arose in 2002. In 12 countries with available data, 1147 megavoltage machines were available for an estimated demand of nearly 4000 megavoltage machines. Eastern Europe and Latin America showed similar shortages. Strategies for developing services need planning at a national level and substantial investment for staff training and equipment. Safe and effective development of services would benefit from: links with established facilities in other countries, particularly those within the same region; access to information, such as free online journal access; and better education of all medical staff about the roles and benefits of radiotherapy.

Estimating the demand for radiotherapy from the evidence: A review of changes from 2003 to 2012

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE In 2003 we estimated that 52.3% of new cases of cancer in Australia had an indication for external beam radiotherapy at least once at some time during the course of their illness. This update reviews the contemporary evidence to define the optimal proportion of new cancers that would benefit from radiotherapy as part of their treatment and estimates the changes to the optimal radiotherapy utilisation rate from 2003 to 2012. MATERIALS AND METHODS National and international guidelines were reviewed for external beam radiotherapy indications in the management of cancers. Epidemiological data on the proportion of new cases of cancer with each indication for radiotherapy were identified. Indications and epidemiological data were merged to develop an optimal radiotherapy utilisation tree. Univariate and Monte Carlo simulations were used in sensitivity analysis. RESULTS The overall optimal radiotherapy utilisation rate (external beam radiotherapy) for all registered cancers in Australia changed from 52.3% in 2003 to 48.3% in 2012. Overall 8.9% of all cancer patients in Australia have at least one indication for concurrent chemo-radiotherapy during the course of their illness. CONCLUSIONS The reduction in the radiotherapy utilisation rate was due to changes in epidemiological data, changes to radiotherapy indications and refinements of the model structure.

Do multidisciplinary team meetings make a difference in the management of lung cancer

There is limited evidence regarding the effectiveness of multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings in lung cancer. The objective of this study was to compare the patterns of care for patients with newly diagnosed lung cancer who were presented at a lung cancer MDT meeting with the patterns of care for patients who were not presented.

Management of skin toxicity during radiation therapy: a review of the evidence.

Acute skin toxicity occurs in the majority of the patients undergoing radical radiotherapy. While a variety of topical agents and dressing are used to ameliorate side effects, there is minimal evidence to support their use. The aims of this study were to systematically review evidence on acute skin toxicity management and to assess the current practices in ANZ. A systematic review of the literature was conducted on studies published between 1980 and 2008. A meta‐analysis was performed on articles on clinical trials reporting grade II or greater toxicity. Analyses were divided into breast (the most common site) and other sites. A survey of Radiation Oncology departments across ANZ was conducted to identify patterns of practices and compare these with the published evidence. Twenty‐nine articles were reviewed. Only seven articles demonstrated statistically significant results for management of side‐effects. These were for topical corticosteroids, hyaluronic acid, sucralfate, calendula, Cavilon cream (3M, St Paul, Minnesota, USA) and silver leaf dressing. Meta‐analysis demonstrated statistical significance for the prophylactic use of topical agents in the management acute toxicity. The survey of departments had a low response rate but demonstrated variation in skin care practices across ANZ. A considerable number of these practices were based only on anecdotal evidence. Lack of evidence in the literature for the care of radiation skin reactions was associated with variation in practice. Only a limited number of studies have demonstrated a significant benefit of specific topical agents. There is a need for objective and prospective recording of skin toxicity to collect meaningful comparative data on which to base recommendations for practice.

The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire for patients with bone metastases: the EORTC QLQ-BM22

AIM The aim of this study was to develop a bone metastases module to supplement the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) or the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL for patients with bone metastases. METHODS Phases 1-2 of module development were conducted in Canada, Australia and Germany according to EORTC QOL group guidelines. Phase 3 was conducted in nine countries in seven languages. RESULTS Sixty-one health-related quality of life (HRQOL) issues were generated from health care professionals (n=152) and patients (n=413). This resulted in a 22-item provisional module. Further testing in 170 patients from nine countries resulted in the EORTC QLQ-BM22 module, containing 22 items, conceptualised into both symptom scales, with five painful sites and three pain characteristics, and also functional scales, with eight functional interference and six psychosocial aspects. CONCLUSION This study provides a provisional comprehensive HRQOL measurement tool for future trials, which will continue to undergo further validation.

The population benefit of radiotherapy for cervical cancer: Local control and survival estimates for optimally utilized radiotherapy and chemoradiation

PURPOSE Population benefits of radiotherapy if evidence-based guidelines were routinely followed across the entire population are largely unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate population-based benefits for cervical cancer. METHODS Overall survival (OS) and local control (LC) benefits were investigated. XRT benefit was defined as the absolute benefit of radiotherapy, over no treatment, for radical indications and defined as the benefit of adjuvant radiation over surgery alone for adjuvant indications. The concurrent chemoradiation (CRT) benefit was the incremental benefit of CRT over XRT. Australian population benefits were modeled using decision trees. Citation databases were systematically queried. Meta-analysis was performed if multiple sources of the same evidence level existed. Robustness of the model assumptions was tested through sensitivity analysis. RESULTS 53% of all cervix patients had adjuvant or curative radiotherapy indications. 96% were for CRT. The estimated 5-year absolute benefits of optimally utilized radiotherapy alone were: LC: 31% (95% Confidence Interval 29%, 34%), OS: 17% (15%, 18%). These were over and above the contribution of other modalities to outcomes. The incremental 5-year absolute benefits of CRT were: LC 4% (2%, 5%), OS 3% (1%, 5%). In sensitivity analysis, the model was robust. CONCLUSIONS Optimally utilized radiotherapy provides substantial population OS and LC benefits for cervical cancer. Chemoradiation provides a modest population benefit over XRT. The population-based model was robust.

A comparison of surgical and radiotherapy breast cancer therapy utilization in Canada (British Columbia), Scotland (Dundee), and Australia (Western Australia) with models of “optimal” therapy

BACKGROUND Different jurisdictions report different breast cancer treatment rates. Evidence-based utilization models may be specific to derived populations. We compared predicted optimal with actual radiotherapy utilization in British Columbia, Canada; Dundee, Scotland; and Perth, Western Australia. DESIGN Data were analyzed for differences in demography, tumor, and treatment. Epidemiological data were fitted to published Australian optimal radiotherapy utilization trees and region-specific optimal treatment rates were calculated. Optimal and actual surgery/radiotherapy rates from 2 population-based and 1 institution-based registries were compared for patients diagnosed with breast cancer between 2000 and 2004, and 2002 for British Columbia. RESULTS Mastectomy rates differed between British Columbia (40%), Western Australia (44%), and Dundee (47%, p<0.01). Radiotherapy rates differed between British Columbia (60%), Western Australia (52%), and Dundee (49%, p<0.01). Actual radiotherapy utilization rates were lower than optimal estimates. Region-specific optimal utilization rates at diagnosis varied from 57% to 71% for radiotherapy and 62% to 64% when taking into account patient preference. Variation was attributed to local differences in demography and tumor stage. CONCLUSIONS Actual treatment rates varied, and were associated with patterns of care and guideline differences. Actual radiotherapy rates were lower than optimal rates. Differences between optimal and actual utilization may be due to access shortfalls, and patient preference.

Establishing treatment benchmarks for mammography-screened breast cancer population based on a review of evidence-based clinical guidelines.

No benchmarks exist in the screened breast cancer population to establish the optimal proportions of newly detected cancer patients who should receive the ideal treatment. The aim of the study was to estimate the optimal proportion of cases diagnosed in a breast‐screening program who should receive treatment according to evidence‐based cancer treatment guidelines and to compare these optimal rates with actual treatment rates.

A comparison of systemic breast cancer therapy utilization in Canada (British Columbia), Scotland (Dundee), and Australia (Western Australia) with models of “optimal” therapy

BACKGROUND Different jurisdictions report different breast cancer treatment rates. Evidence-based optimal utilization models may be specific to the derived population. We compared predicted optimal with actual endocrine and chemotherapy utilization in British Columbia, Canada; Dundee, Scotland; and Perth, Western Australia. DESIGN Data were analyzed for differences in demography, tumour, and treatment. Epidemiological data were fitted to published Australian optimal radiotherapy utilization trees and region-specific optimal treatment rates were calculated. Optimal and actual systemic therapy rates from 2 population-based and 1 institution-based cancer registries were compared for patients diagnosed with breast cancer between 2000-2004, and 2002 for British Columbia. RESULTS Chemotherapy rates differed between British Columbia (32%), Perth (29%), and Dundee (24%, p = 0.014). Endocrine therapy rates were similar between British Columbia (56%), Perth (59%), and Dundee (64%, p > 0.05). Actual utilization rates were lower than optimal estimates for chemotherapy, but higher for endocrine therapy. Region-specific optimal utilization rates at diagnosis varied between 50-56% for chemotherapy, and 49-54% for endocrine therapy. Variation was attributed to local differences in demographics, and tumour stage. CONCLUSION Actual treatment rates varied. There was lower than estimated optimal chemotherapy use but higher than expected use of endocrine therapy.

A Population-based Model of Local Control and Survival Benefit of Radiotherapy for Lung Cancer

AIMS To estimate the population-based locoregional control and overall survival benefits of radiotherapy for lung cancer if the whole population were treated according to evidence-based guidelines. These estimates were based on a published radiotherapy utilisation (RTU) model that has been used to estimate the demand and planning of radiotherapy services nationally and internationally. MATERIALS AND METHODS The lung cancer RTU model was extended to incorporate an estimate of benefits of radiotherapy alone, and of radiotherapy in conjunction with concurrent chemotherapy (CRT). Benefits were defined as the proportional gains in locoregional control and overall survival from radiotherapy over no radiotherapy for radical indications, and from postoperative radiotherapy over surgery alone for adjuvant indications. A literature review (1990-2015) was conducted to identify benefit estimates of individual radiotherapy indications and summed to estimate the population-based gains for these outcomes. Model robustness was tested through univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses. RESULTS If evidence-based radiotherapy recommendations are followed for the whole lung cancer population, the model estimated that radiotherapy alone would result in a gain of 8.3% (95% confidence interval 7.4-9.2%) in 5 year locoregional control, 11.4% (10.8-12.0%) in 2 year overall survival and 4.0% (3.6-4.4%) in 5 year overall survival. For the use of CRT over radiotherapy alone, estimated benefits would be: locoregional control 1.7% (0.8-2.4%), 2 year overall survival 1.7% (0.5-2.8%) and 5 year overall survival 1.2% (0.7-1.9%). CONCLUSIONS The model provided estimates of radiotherapy benefit that could be achieved if treatment guidelines are followed for all cancer patients. These can be used as a benchmark so that the effects of a shortfall in the utilisation of radiotherapy can be better understood and addressed. The model can be adapted to other populations with known epidemiological parameters to ensure the planning of equitable radiotherapy services.