Search

Background: Preoperative long-course chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and short-course radiotherapy (SCR) for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) were found to have equivalent outcomes in 3 randomized trials. SCR has not been widely adopted in the United States (US). Three-dimensional (3D) treatment planning is standard, whereas intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is controversial. In this study, we assessed the economic impact of fractionation scheme and planning method for payers in the US., Materials and Methods: We performed a population-based analysis of the total cost of radiotherapy for LARC in the US annually. The national annual target population was calculated using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Radiotherapy costs were based on billing codes and 2018 pricing by Medicare's Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System., Results: We estimate that 12,945 patients with LARC are treated with radiotherapy annually in the US. The cost of CRT with 3D or IMRT is US $15,882 and $23,745 per patient, respectively. With SCR, the cost with 3D or IMRT is $5,458 and $7,323 per patient, respectively. The use of SCR would lead to 53% to 77% annual savings of $106,168,871 to $232,105,727 compared with CRT. IMRT increases the total cost of treatment by 34% to 50%, and if adopted widely, would lead to an excess cost of $24,152,134 and $101,784,723 annually with SCR and CRT, respectively., Conclusions: SCR may have the potential to save approximately US $106 to t232 million annually in the US, likely without impacting outcomes. Lack of evidence showing benefit with costly IMRT should limit its use to clinical trials. It would be reasonable for public and private payers to consider which type of radiation is most suited to reimbursement., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This article is a continuation of the "Do You Know Your Guidelines" series, an initiative of the American Head and Neck Society's Education Committee to increase awareness of current best practices pertaining to head and neck cancer. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for the management of nasopharyngeal cancer are reviewed here in a systematic fashion. These guidelines outline the workup, treatment and surveillance of patients with nasopharyngeal cancer. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 39: 201-205, 2017., (© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to summarize the findings of anthropomorphic proton phantom irradiations analyzed by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Houston QA Center (IROC Houston)., Methods and Materials: A total of 103 phantoms were irradiated by proton therapy centers participating in clinical trials. The anthropomorphic phantoms simulated heterogeneous anatomy of a head, liver, lung, prostate, and spine. Treatment plans included those for scattered, uniform scanning, and pencil beam scanning beam delivery modalities using 5 different treatment planning systems. For every phantom irradiation, point doses and planar doses were measured using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD) and film, respectively. Differences between measured and planned doses were studied as a function of phantom, beam delivery modality, motion, repeat attempt, treatment planning system, and date of irradiation., Results: The phantom pass rate (overall, 79%) was high for simple phantoms and lower for phantoms that introduced higher levels of difficulty, such as motion, multiple targets, or increased heterogeneity. All treatment planning systems overestimated dose to the target, compared to TLD measurements. Errors in range calculation resulted in several failed phantoms. There was no correlation between treatment planning system and pass rate. The pass rates for each individual phantom are not improving over time, but when individual institutions received feedback about failed phantom irradiations, pass rates did improve., Conclusions: The proton phantom pass rates are not as high as desired and emphasize potential deficiencies in proton therapy planning and/or delivery. There are many areas for improvement with the proton phantom irradiations, such as treatment planning system dose agreement, range calculations, accounting for motion, and irradiation of multiple targets., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: Over the past decade, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has replaced conventional radiation techniques in the management of head-and-neck cancers (HNCs). We conducted this population-based study to evaluate the influence of radiation oncologist experience on outcomes in patients with HNC treated with IMRT compared with patients with HNC treated with conventional radiation therapy., Methods: We identified radiation providers from Medicare claims of 6,212 Medicare beneficiaries with HNC treated between 2000 and 2009. We analyzed the impact of provider volume on all-cause mortality, HNC mortality, and toxicity end points after treatment with either conventional radiation therapy or IMRT. All analyses were performed by using either multivariable Cox proportional hazards or Fine-Gray regression models controlling for potential confounding variables., Results: Among patients treated with conventional radiation, we found no significant relationship between provider volume and patient survival or any toxicity end point. Among patients receiving IMRT, those treated by higher-volume radiation oncologists had improved survival compared with those treated by low-volume providers. The risk of all-cause mortality decreased by 21% for every additional five patients treated per provider per year (hazard ratio [HR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.94). Patients treated with IMRT by higher-volume providers had decreased HNC-specific mortality (subdistribution HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.91) and decreased risk of aspiration pneumonia (subdistribution HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.99)., Conclusion: Patients receiving IMRT for HNC had improved outcomes when treated by higher-volume providers. These findings will better inform patients and providers when making decisions about treatment, and emphasize the critical importance of high-quality radiation therapy for optimal treatment of HNC., (© 2016 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Purpose: High-quality treatment for intact cervical cancer requires external radiation therapy, brachytherapy, and chemotherapy, carefully sequenced and completed without delays. We sought to determine how frequently current treatment meets quality benchmarks and whether new technologies have influenced patterns of care., Methods and Materials: By searching diagnosis and procedure claims in MarketScan, an employment-based health care claims database, we identified 1508 patients with nonmetastatic, intact cervical cancer treated from 1999 to 2011, who were <65 years of age and received >10 fractions of radiation. Treatments received were identified using procedure codes and compared with 3 quality benchmarks: receipt of brachytherapy, receipt of chemotherapy, and radiation treatment duration not exceeding 63 days. The Cochran-Armitage test was used to evaluate temporal trends., Results: Seventy-eight percent of patients (n=1182) received brachytherapy, with brachytherapy receipt stable over time (Cochran-Armitage Ptrend=.15). Among patients who received brachytherapy, 66% had high-dose rate and 34% had low-dose rate treatment, although use of high-dose rate brachytherapy steadily increased to 75% by 2011 (Ptrend<.001). Eighteen percent of patients (n=278) received intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and IMRT receipt increased to 37% by 2011 (Ptrend<.001). Only 2.5% of patients (n=38) received IMRT in the setting of brachytherapy omission. Overall, 79% of patients (n=1185) received chemotherapy, and chemotherapy receipt increased to 84% by 2011 (Ptrend<.001). Median radiation treatment duration was 56 days (interquartile range, 47-65 days); however, duration exceeded 63 days in 36% of patients (n=543). Although 98% of patients received at least 1 benchmark treatment, only 44% received treatment that met all 3 benchmarks. With more stringent indicators (brachytherapy, ≥4 chemotherapy cycles, and duration not exceeding 56 days), only 25% of patients received treatment that met all benchmarks., Conclusion: In this cohort, most cervical cancer patients received treatment that did not comply with all 3 benchmarks for quality treatment. In contrast to increasing receipt of newer radiation technologies, there was little improvement in receipt of essential treatment benchmarks., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The purpose of this study was to determine the reproducibility of patient-specific, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA) results in a clinical setting. Six clinical patient plans were delivered to a variety of devices and analyses, including 1) radiographic film; 2) ion chamber; 3) 2D diode array delivered and analyzed in three different configurations (AP delivery with field-by-field analysis, AP delivery with composite analysis, and planned gantry angle delivery); 4) helical diode array; and 5) in-house-designed multiple ion chamber phantom. The six clinical plans were selected from a range of treatment sites and were of various levels of complexity. Of note, three of the plans had failed at least preliminary evaluation with our in-house IMRT QA; the other three plans had passed QA. These plans were delivered three times sequentially without changing the setup, and then delivered two more times after breaking down and rebuilding the setup between each. This allowed for an investigation of reproducibility (in terms of dose, dose difference or percent of pixels passing gamma) of both the delivery and the physical setup. This study showed that the variability introduced from the setup was generally higher than the variability from redelivering the plan. Radiographic film showed the poorest reproducibility of the dosimeters investigated. In conclusion, the various IMRT QA systems demonstrated varying abilities to reproduce QA results consistently. All dosimetric devices demonstrated a reproducibility (coefficient of variation) of less than 4% in their QA results for all plans, with an average reproducibility of less than 2%. This work provides some quantification for the variability that may be seen for IMRT QA dosimeters.

The purpose of this study is to investigate an effect of angular dependence and calibration field size of MapCHECK 2 on RapidArc QA for 6, 8, 10, and 15 MV. The angular dependence was investigated by comparing MapCHECK 2 measurements in MapPHAN-MC2 to the corresponding Eclipse calculations every 10° using 10× 10 cm2 and 3 × 3 cm2 fields. Fourteen patients were selected to make RapidArc plans using the four energies, and verification plans were delivered to two phantom setups: MapCHECK 2/MapPHAN phantom (MapPHAN QA) and MapCHECK 2 on an isocentric mounting fixture (IMF QA). Migration of MapCHECK 2 on IMF was simulated by splitting arcs every 10° and displacing an isocenter of each partial arc in the Eclipse system (IMFACTUAL QA). To investigate the effect of calibration field size, MapCHECK 2 was calibrated by two field sizes (10 × 10 cm2 and 3 × 3 cm2) and applied to all QA measurements. The γ test was implemented using criteria of 1%/1 mm, 2%/2 mm, and 3%/3 mm. A mean dose of all compared points for each plan was compared with respect to a mean effective field size of the RapidArc plan. The angular dependence was considerably high at gantry angles of 90° ± 10° and 270° ± 10° (for 10 × 10/3 × 3 cm2 at 90°, 30.6% ± 6.6%/33.4%± 5.8% (6 MV), 17.3% ± 5.3%/15.0% ± 6.8% (8 MV), 8.9%± 2.9%/7.8% ± 3.2% (10 MV), and 2.2% ± 2.3%/-1.3% ± 2.6% (15 MV)). For 6 MV, the angular dependence significantly deteriorated the γ passing rate for plans of large field size in MapPHAN QA (&lt; 90% using 3%/3 mm); however, these plans passed the γ test in IMFACTUAL QA (&gt; 95%). The different calibration field sizes did not make any significant dose difference for both MapPHAN QA and IMFACTUAL QA. For 8, 10, and 15 MV, the angular dependence does not make any clinically meaningful impact on MapPHAN QA. Both MapPHAN QA and IMFACTUAL QA presented clinically acceptable γ passing rates using 3%/3 mm. MapPHAN QA showed better passing rates than IMFACTUAL QA for the tighter criteria. The 10 × 10 cm2 calibration showed better agreement for plans of small effective field size (&lt; 5 × 5 cm2) in MapPHAN QA. There was no statistical difference between IMF QA and IMFACTUAL QA. In conclusion, MapPHAN QA is not recommended for plans of large field size, especially for 6 MV, and MapCHECK2 should be calibrated using a field size similar to a mean effective field size of a RapidArc plan for better agreement for IMF QA.

The objective of this study is to validate the capabilities of a cylindrical diode array system for volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment quality assurance (QA). The VMAT plans were generated by the Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) with the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) for dose calculation. An in-house Monte Carlo (MC) code was utilized as a validation tool for the TPS calculations and the ArcCHECK measurements. The megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) of the ArcCHECK system was adopted for the geometry reconstruction in the TPS and for MC simulations. A 10 × 10 cm2 open field validation was performed for both the 6 and 10 MV photon beams to validate the absolute dose calibration of the ArcCHECK system and also the TPS dose calculations for this system. The impact of the angular dependency on noncoplanar deliveries was investigated with a series of 10 × 10 cm2 fields delivered with couch rotation 0° to 40°. The sensitivity of detecting the translational (1 to 10 mm) and the rotational (1° to 3°) misalignments was tested with a breast VMAT case. Ten VMAT plans (six prostate, H&N, pelvis, liver, and breast) were investigated to evaluate the agreement of the target dose and the peripheral dose among ArcCHECK measurements, and TPS and MC dose calculations. A customized acrylic plug holding an ion chamber was used to measure the dose at the center of the ArcCHECK phantom. Both the entrance and the exit doses measured by the ArcCHECK system with and without the plug agreed with the MC simulation to 1.0%. The TPS dose calculation with a 2.5 mm grid overestimated the exit dose by up to 7.2% when the plug was removed. The agreement between the MC and TPS calculations for the ArcCHECK without the plug improved significantly when a 1 mm dose calculation grid was used in the TPS. The noncoplanar delivery test demonstrated that the angular dependency has limited impact on the gamma passing rate (&lt; 1.2% drop) for the 2%-3% dose and 2mm-3 mm DTA criteria. A 1° rotational misalignment introduces 11.3% (3%/3mm) to 21.3% (1%/1 mm) and 0.2% (3%/3 mm) to 0.8% (1%/1 mm) Gamma passing rate drop for ArcCHECK system and MatriXX system, respectively. Both systems have comparable sensitivity to the AP misalignments. However, a 2 mm RL misalignment introduces gamma passing rate drop ranging from 0.9% (3%/3 mm) to 4.0% (1%/1 mm) and 5.0% (3%/3 mm) to 12.0% (1%/1 mm) for ArcCHECK and MatriXX measurements, respectively. For VMAT plan QA, the gamma analysis passing rates ranged from 96.1% (H&N case) to 99.9% (prostate case), when using the 3%/3 mm DTA criteria for the peripheral dose validation between the TPS and ArcCHCEK measurements. The peripheral dose validation between the MC simulation and ArcCHECK measurements showed at least 97.9% gamma passing rates. The central dose validation also showed an agreement within 2.2% between TPS/MC calculations and ArcCHECK measurements. The worst discrepancy was found in the H&N case, which is the most complex VMAT case. The ArcCHECK system is suitable for VMAT QA evaluation based on the sensitivity to detecting misalignments, the clinical impact of the angular dependency, and the correlation between the dose agreements in the peripheral region and the central region. This work also demonstrated the importance of carrying out a thorough validation of both the TPS and the dosimetry system prior to utilizing it for QA, and the value of having an independent dose calculation tool, such as the MC method, in clinical practice.

Purpose: In light of concerns regarding the quality of radiation treatment delivery, we surveyed the practice of quality assurance peer review chart rounds at American academic institutions., Methods and Materials: An anonymous web-based survey was sent to the chief resident of each institution across the United States., Results: The response rate was 80% (57/71). The median amount of time spent per patient was 2.7 minutes (range, 0.6-14.4). The mean attendance by senior physicians and residents was 73% and 93%, respectively. A physicist was consistently present at peer review rounds in 66% of departments. There was a close association between attendance by senior physicians and departmental organization: in departments with protected time policies, good attendance was 81% vs. 31% without protected time (p = 0.001), and in departments that documented attendance, attending presence was 69% vs. 29% in departments without documentation (p < 0.05). More than 80% of institutions peer review all external beam therapy courses; however, rates were much lower for other modalities (radiosurgery 58%, brachytherapy 40%-47%). Patient history, chart documentation, and dose prescription were always peer reviewed in >75% of institutions, whereas dosimetric details (beams, wedges), isodose coverage, intensity-modulated radiation therapy constraints, and dose-volume histograms were always peer reviewed in 63%, 59%, 42%, and 50% of cases, respectively. Chart rounds led to both minor (defined as a small multileaf collimator change/repeated port film) and major (change to dose prescription or replan with dosimetry) treatment changes. Whereas at the majority of institutions changes were rare (<10% of cases), 39% and 11% of institutions reported that minor and major changes, respectively, were made to more than 10% of cases., Conclusion: The implementation of peer review chart rounds seems inconsistent across American academic institutions. Brachytherapy and radiosurgical procedures are rarely reviewed. Attendance by senior physicians is variable, but it improves when scheduling clashes are avoided. The potential effect of a more thorough quality assurance peer review on patient outcomes is not known., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: We sought to determine motivating factors for radiation oncologists to form joint ventures with urologists to provide intensity modulated radiation treatment (IMRT) to prostate cancer patients that the urologists diagnose., Methods: The American College of Radiation Oncology developed a survey and requested responses from radiation oncologists who had professional relationships with urologists to deliver prostate cancer intensity modulated radiation treatment in a combined practice. Daily patient treatment totals and practice characteristics were queried. To date, there is no actual data to elucidate the motivation of radiation oncologists to form such an association., Results: All 75 respondents indicated that their practice model was a multispecialty group, in which the radiation oncologist has an employment agreement to receive the professional component for radiation treatment services, and was also a financial partner in the technical component. All respondents were economically displaced in a geographic region by existing radiation oncology groups, hospital-based radiation oncology practice, or both. All radiation oncologist respondents stated that they were unable to achieve professional partnership status within a radiation oncology group, and 98.6% were unable to obtain a share of the technical component for radiation treatment. Eighty-six percent of respondents treated patients with nonprostate malignancies in their facility, at a rate of 1.9 times more nonprostate patients than prostate patients., Conclusion: This data may indicate that radiation oncologists combine with urologists in a geographic area where the radiation oncologist has been economically displaced, has existing referral patterns, and continues to treat other patients with nonprostate malignancies.

Despite the widespread use of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for approximately a decade, a lack of adequate guidelines for documenting these treatments persists. Proper IMRT treatment documentation is necessary for accurate reconstruction of prior treatments when a patient presents with a marginal recurrence. This is especially crucial when the follow-up care is managed at a second treatment facility not involved in the initial IMRT treatment. To address this issue, an American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) workgroup within the American ASTRO Radiation Physics Committee was formed at the request of the ASTRO Research Council to develop a set of recommendations for documenting IMRT treatments. This document provides a set of comprehensive recommendations for documenting IMRT treatments, as well as image-guidance procedures, with example forms provided.

The Radiological Physics Center (RPC) has functioned continuously for 38 years to assure the National Cancer Institute and the cooperative groups that institutions participating in multi-institutional trials can be expected to deliver radiation treatments that are clinically comparable to those delivered by other institutions in the cooperative groups. To accomplish this, the RPC monitors the machine output, the dosimetry data used by the institutions, the calculation algorithms used for treatment planning, and the institutions' quality control procedures. The methods of monitoring include on-site dosimetry review by an RPC physicist and a variety of remote audit tools. The introduction of advanced technology clinical trials has prompted several study groups to require participating institutions and personnel to become credentialed, to ensure their familiarity and capability with techniques such as three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy, stereotactic body radiotherapy, and brachytherapy. The RPC conducts a variety of credentialing activities, beginning with questionnaires to evaluate an institution's understanding of the protocol and their capabilities. Treatment-planning benchmarks are used to allow the institution to demonstrate their planning ability and to facilitate a review of the accuracy of treatment-planning systems under relevant conditions. The RPC also provides mailable anthropomorphic phantoms to verify tumor dose delivery for special treatment techniques. While conducting these reviews, the RPC has amassed a large amount of data describing the dosimetry at participating institutions. Representative data from the monitoring programs are discussed, and examples are presented of specific instances in which the RPC contributed to the discovery and resolution of dosimetry errors.

Radiographic image guidance has emerged as the new paradigm for patient positioning, target localization, and external beam alignment in radiotherapy. Although widely varied in modality and method, all radiographic guidance techniques have one thing in common--they can give a significant radiation dose to the patient. As with all medical uses of ionizing radiation, the general view is that this exposure should be carefully managed. The philosophy for dose management adopted by the diagnostic imaging community is summarized by the acronym ALARA, i.e., as low as reasonably achievable. But unlike the general situation with diagnostic imaging and image-guided surgery, image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) adds the imaging dose to an already high level of therapeutic radiation. There is furthermore an interplay between increased imaging and improved therapeutic dose conformity that suggests the possibility of optimizing rather than simply minimizing the imaging dose. For this reason, the management of imaging dose during radiotherapy is a different problem than its management during routine diagnostic or image-guided surgical procedures. The imaging dose received as part of a radiotherapy treatment has long been regarded as negligible and thus has been quantified in a fairly loose manner. On the other hand, radiation oncologists examine the therapy dose distribution in minute detail. The introduction of more intensive imaging procedures for IGRT now obligates the clinician to evaluate therapeutic and imaging doses in a more balanced manner. This task group is charged with addressing the issue of radiation dose delivered via image guidance techniques during radiotherapy. The group has developed this charge into three objectives: (1) Compile an overview of image-guidance techniques and their associated radiation dose levels, to provide the clinician using a particular set of image guidance techniques with enough data to estimate the total diagnostic dose for a specific treatment scenario, (2) identify ways to reduce the total imaging dose without sacrificing essential imaging information, and (3) recommend optimization strategies to trade off imaging dose with improvements in therapeutic dose delivery. The end goal is to enable the design of image guidance regimens that are as effective and efficient as possible.