K. Drinkwater

Substantial improvement in UK cervical cancer survival with chemoradiotherapy: results of a Royal College of Radiologists' audit.

Aims To compare survival and late complications between patients treated with chemoradiotherapy and radiotherapy for locally advanced cervix cancer. Materials and methods A Royal College of Radiologists’ audit of patients treated with radiotherapy in UK cancer centres in 2001–2002. Survival, recurrence and late complications were assessed for patients grouped according to radical treatment received (radiotherapy, chemoradiotherapy, postoperative radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy) and non-radical treatment. Late complication rates were assessed using the Franco-Italian glossary. Results Data were analysed for 1243 patients from 42 UK centres. Overall 5-year survival was 56% (any radical treatment); 44% (radical radiotherapy); 55% (chemoradiotherapy) and 71% (surgery with postoperative radiotherapy). Overall survival at 5 years was 59% (stage IB), 44% (stage IIB) and 24% (stage IIIB) for women treated with radiotherapy, and 65% (stage IB), 61% (stage IIB) and 44% (stage IIIB) for those receiving chemoradiotherapy. Cox regression showed that survival was significantly better for patients receiving chemoradiotherapy (hazard ratio = 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.60–0.98; P = 0.037) compared with those receiving radiotherapy taking age, stage, pelvic node involvement and treatment delay into account. The grade 3/4 late complication rate was 8% (radiotherapy) and 10% (chemoradiotherapy). Although complications continued to develop up to 7 years after treatment for those receiving chemoradiotherapy, there was no apparent increase in overall late complications compared with radiotherapy alone when other factors were taken into account (hazard ratio = 0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.71–1.245; P = 0.667). Discussion The addition of chemotherapy to radiotherapy seems to have improved survival compared with radiotherapy alone for women treated in 2001–2002, without an apparent rise in late treatment complications.

Geographical Variation in Radiotherapy Services Across the UK in 2007 and the Effect of Deprivation

AIMS Modelling of demand has shown substantial underprovision of radiotherapy in the UK. We used national audit data to study geographical differences in radiotherapy waiting times, access and dose fractionation across the four countries of the UK and between English strategic health authorities. MATERIALS AND METHODS We used a web-based tool to collect data on diagnosis, dose fractionation and waiting times on all National Health Service patients in the UK starting a course of radiotherapy in the week commencing 24 September 2007. Cancer incidence for the four countries of the UK and for England by primary care trust was used to model demand for radiotherapy aggregated by country and by strategic health authority. RESULTS Across the UK, excluding skin cancer, 2504 patients were prescribed 33 454 fractions in the audit week. Waits for radical radiotherapy exceeded the recommended 4 week maximum for 31% of patients (range 0-62%). Fractions per million per year ranged from 17 678 to 36 426 and radical fractions per incident cancer ranged from 3.0 to 6.7. Patients who were treated received similar treatment in terms of fractions per radical course of radiotherapy (18.2-23.0). Access rates ranged from 25.2 to 48.8%, nearing the modelled optimum of 50.7% in three regions. Fractions per million prescribed as a first course of treatment varied from 43.9 to 90.3% of modelled demand. The percentage of patients failing to meet the 4 week Joint Council for Clinical Oncology target for radical radiotherapy rose as activity rates increased (r=0.834), indicating a mismatch of demand and capacity. In England, a comparison between strategic health authorities showed that increasing deprivation was correlated with lower rates of access to radiotherapy (r=-0.820). CONCLUSIONS There are substantial differences across the UK in the radiotherapy provided to patients and its timeliness. Radiotherapy capacity does not reflect regional variations in cancer incidence across the UK (3618-5800 cases per million per year). In addition, deprivation is a major unrecognised influence on radiotherapy access rates. In regions with higher levels of deprivation, fewer patients with cancer receive radiotherapy and the proportion treated radically is lower. This probably reflects late presentation with advanced disease, poor performance status and co-morbid illness. To provide an equitable, evidence-based service, the needs of the local population should be assessed using demand modelling based on local cancer incidence. Ideally this should include data on deprivation, performance status and stage at presentation. The results should be compared with local radiotherapy activity data to understand waits, access and dose fractionation in order to plan adequate provision for the future. The development of a mandatory radiotherapy data set in England will facilitate this, but to assist change it is essential that the results are analysed and fed back to clinicians and commissioners.

Radiotherapy in England in 2007: Modelled Demand and Audited Activity

AIMS Modelling of demand has indicated substantial underprovision of radiotherapy in England. We have used national audit data to understand the differences between theory and practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS We used a web-based tool to collect data on all National Health Service patients in England starting a course of radiotherapy in the week commencing 24 September 2007. We also collected information on cancer site, so that patients could be triaged into the 22 categories used by the National Radiotherapy Advisory Group (NRAG). RESULTS In England, excluding skin cancer other than melanoma, 2114 patients were prescribed 27,420 fractions during that week. Comparison of the audit data with the NRAG model showed that the shortfall in provision was a mixture of a lack of access (67%) and reduced fractionation (33%). The largest contributions to the overall gap were seen in the treatment of cancers of the breast (6%) (modelled at 15 fractions), head and neck (10%), lung (28%) and prostate (14%), together accounting for 58% of the difference. Others (including sarcoma and unknown primary) accounted for 19% of the difference. Limited access to radiotherapy for patients with stomach and pancreatic cancer contributed 10% and reduced fractionation for oesophageal cancer accounted for 6% of the overall gap. Fewer patients than expected were treated for rectal cancer, but they received 25 fraction regimens rather than short-course preoperative treatment. Patients with leukaemia and cancers of the brain, colon, corpus uteri and ovary received radiotherapy more often than expected, but because they are relatively rare none of these had an overall impact exceeding 1.2% of the gap in provision. CONCLUSIONS This audit confirms the underprovision of radiotherapy in England and shows that it is largely accounted for by low access rates of 37% rather than the 50% accepted in the literature. In consequence we estimate that 33 881 patients (13.9%) of the 243 748 patients diagnosed with cancer in England during 2006/2007 did not receive the radiotherapy we would have expected. Some of this gap in provision may be accounted for by differences in stage and performance status, which limit treatment options, for example in lung cancer. The NRAG model should be updated to take account of new data from this and other national audits, to ensure that it describes the stage and performance status of English patients and is sensitive to the range of professional opinion about treatment options. This will be essential for long-term planning as cancer incidence increases over the next decade, but it does not weaken the conclusion that there is a substantial current shortfall to be addressed immediately to improve timely access to treatment and thus the outcomes of therapy. As more resource becomes available, it should be possible to consider changing dose fractionation to comply with evidence-based practice and national guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and other bodies without disadvantaging patients by increasing waiting times.

The Quality of Curative-intent Radiotherapy for Non-small Cell Lung Cancer in the UK.

AIMS Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the UK. The quality of curative-intent radiotherapy is associated with better outcomes. National quality standards from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) on patient work-up and treatment selection were used, with guidance from the Royal College of Radiologists on the technical delivery of radiotherapy, to assess the quality of curative-intent non-small cell lung cancer radiotherapy and to describe current UK practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS Radiotherapy departments completed one questionnaire for each patient started on curative-intent radiotherapy for 8 weeks in 2013. RESULTS Eighty-two per cent of centres returned a total of 317 proformas. Patient selection with positron emission tomography/computed tomography, performance status and Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 second (FEV1) was usually undertaken. Fifty-six per cent had pathological confirmation of mediastinal lymph nodes and 22% staging brain scans; 20% were treated with concurrent chemoradiation, 12% with Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy (SABR) and 8% with Continuous Hyperfractionated Accelerated Radiotherapy (CHART). Sixty-three per cent of patients received 55 Gy/20 fractions. Although respiratory compensation was routinely undertaken, only 33% used four-dimensional computed tomography. Seventy per cent of patients were verified with cone beam computed tomography. There was consistency of practice in dosimetric constraints for organs at risk and follow-up. CONCLUSIONS This audit has described current UK practice. The latest recommendations for patient selection with pathological confirmation of mediastinal lymph nodes, brain staging and respiratory function testing are not universally followed. Although there is evidence of increasing use of newer techniques such as four-dimensional computed tomography and cone beam image-guided radiotherapy, there is still variability in access. Efforts should be made to improve access to modern technologies and quality assurance of radiotherapy plans.

A Royal College of Radiologists National Audit of Radiotherapy in the Treatment of Metastatic Spinal Cord Compression and Implications for the Development of Acute Oncology Services

AIMS To audit the current use of radiotherapy in UK cancer centres for the treatment of metastatic spinal cord compression against national standards that seek to optimise functional and quality of life outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS A Royal College of Radiologists prospective national audit of patients treated with radiotherapy in UK cancer centres was carried out over a 3 month period between September and December 2008, with a repeat audit carried out in August 2012. RESULTS Five hundred and ninety-six cases were received from 42 cancer centres (74%) in 2008, with data from 323 cases received from 52 (90%) centres in 2012. Ninety-three per cent (358) of patients had a diagnostic magnetic resonance imaging scan carried out within 24 h of referral for radiotherapy in 2008 compared with 205 patients (97%) in 2012. One hundred and eleven (32%) good prognosis patients were discussed with spinal surgeons; only 10 good prognosis patients were recorded as proceeding to surgery in 2008. This improved in 2012, with 94 (41% of good prognosis patients recorded as having been discussed with nine proceeding to surgery). Sixty-nine per cent of paraplegic patients in 2008 received multiple fractions of radiotherapy, which was similar to 2012 when 62% received more than a single fraction. A metastatic spinal cord compression co-ordinator was available in just over 50% of cases (164/323) and was involved in patient management in 26% of cases in 2012. CONCLUSION Despite level 1 evidence of the superior functional outcome and survival benefit for surgery, few good prognosis patients were recorded as having been discussed with surgeons and even fewer proceeded to surgery.

Caseload and Outcome after Brachytherapy

Improved patient outcomes have been correlated with high caseload hospitals for a multitude of conditions, including cancer. Using avariety of end points this is true for the treatment of brain tumours, breast cancer and particularly colorectal cancer. The most definitive evidence comes from a Cochrane meta-analysis of the treatment of colorectal cancer between high-volume/specialist hospitals and surgeons and low-volume/specialist hospitals and surgeons. Overall 5 year survival was significantly improved for patients with colorectal cancer treated in high-volume hospitals (hazard ratio ¼ 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.5e0.96). The volume outcome relationship was somewhat stronger for the individual surgeon than the hospital as the hazard ratio for high-volume versus low-volume surgeons was hazard ratio ¼ 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.83e0.93 [1]. Data previously published in the west of Scotland had shown that survival was significantly better in both colorectal cancer [2] and breast cancer [3] when patients were treated by high caseload surgeons. Surgeons with a high throughput may have better individual skills and as a consequence carry out a more thorough and technically demanding operation. A study from Finland has shown that surgeons with a high caseload dissect more lymph nodes from the axilla than surgeons with a low caseload (mean number of lymph nodes 11.2 versus 9.4; P ¼� 0.001) [4]. High caseload surgeons were also more likely to carry out breast conservation rather than mastectomy (P � 0.001) and higher caseloads were related to better survival (P ¼ 0.031) [5]. A high caseload may be a surrogate for more subtle factors other than just individual surgical skill. A study that examined the 7 year survival of patients with breast cancer in Quebec [6] showed a survival advantage for women treated in centres seeing more than 100 new cases of breast cancer per year. Survival was better among those treated in high case volume hospitals, but the significance of caseload disappeared when other factors that were associated with improved survival, such as teaching status, research activity and onsite radiotherapy, were taken into account. There is far less in the literature about caseload volume and outcome after radiotherapy. External beam radiotherapy treatment for nasopharynx cancer is a technically demanding exercise. Therefore it is unsurprising that a group in Taiwan found that patients had a better 10 year survival when treated by physicians who treated more than 35 cases a year compared with those who treated less than 35 cases (75% versus 61%; P � 0.01) [7]. We could find no publications correlating caseload and outcome from

The Royal College of Radiologists' Audit of Prostate Brachytherapy in the Year 2012

AIMS This audit provides a comprehensive overview of UK prostate brachytherapy practice in the year 2012, measured against existing standards, immediately before the introduction of new Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) guidelines. This audit allows comparison with European and North American brachytherapy practice and for the impact of the RCR 2012 guidelines to be assessed in the future. MATERIALS AND METHODS A web-based data collection tool was developed by the RCR Clinical Audit Committee and sent to audit leads at all cancer centres in the UK. Standards were developed based on available guidelines in use at the start of 2012 covering case mix and dosimetry. Further questions were included to reflect areas of anticipated change with the implementation of the 2012 guidelines. Audit findings were compared with similar audits of practice in Europe, the USA and Latin America. RESULTS Forty-nine of 59 cancer centres submitted data. Twenty-nine centres reported carrying out prostate brachytherapy; of these, 25 (86%) provided data regarding the number of implants, staffing, dosimetry, medication and anaesthesia and follow-up. Audit standards achieved excellent compliance in most areas, although were low in post-implant dosimetry and in post-implant scanning at 30 days. CONCLUSION This audit provides a comprehensive picture of prostate brachytherapy in the UK in 2012. Patterns of care of prostate brachytherapy are similar to practice in the USA and Europe. The number of prostate brachytherapy implants carried out in the UK has grown significantly since a previous RCR audit in 2005 and it is important that centres maintain minimum numbers of cases to ensure that experience can be maintained and compliance to guidelines achieved.