Search

Introduction: Little data have been reported about the patient experience during curative radiotherapy for lung cancer in routine clinical practice, or how this relates to treatment toxicity reported by clinicians. The purpose of this study was to compare clinician-reported adverse events (AEs) with patient-reported outcomes (PROs) including both specific symptoms/side effects as well as overall quality of life (QOL) during and after definitive radiotherapy (RT) for locally advanced lung cancer (LALC) in a large statewide cohort. Methods and Materials: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were prospectively collected from patients treated with definitive radiotherapy for LALC at 24 institutions within the XXXX Radiation Oncology Quality Consortium between 2012-2018 using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Trial Outcome Index (FACT-TOI). Physicians prospectively recorded adverse events (AEs) using CTCAE version 4.0. Patient-reported quality of life (QOL) changes from baseline were assessed during and after radiotherapy using the FACT-TOI. Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated for AEs and similar PROs, and multivariable analysis was used to assess associations with QOL. Results: 1361 patients were included and 53% of respondents reported clinically meaningful declines in QOL at the end of RT. Correlation between clinician-reported esophagitis and patient-reported trouble swallowing was moderate (R=0.67) while correlations between clinician-reported pneumonitis and patient-reported shortness of breath (R=0.13) and cough (R=0.09) were weak. Clinician-reported AEs were significantly associated with clinically meaningful declines inpatient-reported QOL, with R=-0.46 for a summary AE-score. QOL was more strongly associated with fatigue (R=-0.41) than lung-specific AEs. Conclusions: AEs are associated with clinically meaningful declines in QOL during and after RT for LALC, but associations between AEs and QOL are only modest. This highlights the importance of PRO data, and future research should assess whether earlier detection of PRO changes could allow for interventions that reduce the frequency of treatment-related clinically meaningful declines in QOL.

Purpose/objective(s) Cardiac radiation exposure is associated with an increased rate of adverse cardiac events in patients receiving radiation therapy for locally advanced non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). Previous analysis of practice patterns within the statewide Michigan Radiation Oncology Quality Consortium (MROQC) revealed 1 in 4 patients received a mean heart dose > 20 Gy and significant heterogeneity existed among treatment centers in using cardiac dose constraints. The purpose of this study is to analyze the effect of education and initiation of standardized cardiac dose constraints on heart dose across a statewide consortium. Materials/methods From 2012 to 2020, 1604 patients from 27 academic and community centers who received radiation therapy for locally advanced NSCLC were included in this analysis. Dosimetric endpoints including mean heart dose (MHD), mean lung dose, and mean esophagus dose were calculated using data from dose-volume histograms. These dose metrics were grouped by year of treatment initiation for all patients. Education regarding data for cardiac dose constraints was discussed in small lung cancer working group meetings and consortium-wide starting in 2016. This was followed in 2018 by implementation of a quality metric requiring mean heart dose Results Following education and implementation of the heart dose performance metric, mean MHD declined from an average of 12.2 Gy pre-intervention to 10.4 Gy post-intervention, and the percentage of patients receiving MHD > 20 Gy reduced by half. (Table). Mean lung dose and mean esophagus dose did not increase, and tumor coverage remained unchanged. Conclusion Education and implementation of a standardized cardiac dose quality measure across a statewide consortium was associated with a reduction of mean heart dose in patients receiving radiation therapy for locally advanced NSCLC. These dose reductions were achieved without sacrificing tumor coverage, increasing mean lung dose or mean esophagus dose. Analysis of the clinical ramifications of the reduction in cardiac doses is ongoing.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S) Regional collaborative quality initiatives that incent participation through direct payment and streamlined reimbursement for high-performing sites have been shown to drive improvements in surgical outcomes. Numerous quality measures have been proposed in radiation oncology, and research has identified readily measurable indicators like dose to critical structures that predict for subsequent toxicity in patients. A decade ago, we initiated a voluntary statewide collaboration for quality improvement in radiation oncology and now describe its impact on care delivery. MATERIALS/METHODS Following SQUIRE guidelines, we describe the approach and measures that the program has implemented. To evaluate impact, we describe compliance at baseline and now with active measures among participating practices. RESULTS Since beginning data collection in 2012, radiation oncologists, physicists, data abstractors, and practice administrators from sites in one state (currently numbering 27) have convened thrice yearly. At these meetings, experts have spoken regarding trends within the field and inspired discussions regarding potential targets for quality improvement within the consortium. Blinded data on practices at various sites have also been regularly presented, and the group has iteratively developed new initiatives and consensus-based benchmarks to improve radiation oncology care delivery, patient experiences, and outcomes. An observational dataset with detailed information from over 20,000 patients has been assembled to evaluate quality. Compliance with select measures is described in the table, including use of guideline-concordant hypofractionated radiotherapy, motion management, doses to targets/normal tissues, and consistency in delineating and naming contoured structures (a precondition for quality evaluation). CONCLUSION Although observational analysis cannot fully exclude secular trends, contextual data revealing slow uptake of best practices elsewhere in the US suggests that this initiative has improved the consistency, efficiency, and quality of radiation oncology care in its member practices and may be a model for other regions.