No abstract

Purpose Our purpose was to report outcomes of a novel palliative radiation therapy protocol that omits computed tomography simulation and prospectively collects electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs). Methods and Materials Patients receiving extracranial, nonstereotactic, linear accelerator-based palliative radiation therapy who met inclusion criteria (no mask-based immobilization and a diagnostic computed tomography within 4 weeks) were eligible. Global pain was scored with the 11-point numerical pain rating scale (NPRS). Patients were coded as having osseous or soft tissue metastases and no/mild versus severe baseline pain (NPRS ≥ 5). Pain response at 4 weeks was measured according to the international consensus (no analgesia adjustment). Transition to ePRO questionnaires was completed in 3 phases. Initially, pain assessments were collected on paper for 11 months, then pilot ePROs for 1 month and then, after adjustments, revised ePROs from 1 year onwards. ePRO feasibility criteria were established with reference to the paper-based process and published evidence. Results Between May 2018 and November 2019, 542 consecutive patients were screened, of whom 163 were eligible (30%), and 160 patients were successfully treated. The proportion of patients eligible for the study improved from approximately 20% to 50% by study end. Routine care pain monitoring via ePROs was feasible. One hundred twenty-seven patients had a baseline NPRS recording. Ninety-five patients had osseous (61% severe pain) and 32 had soft tissue (25% severe pain) metastases. Eighty-four patients (66%) were assessable for pain response at 4 weeks. In the 41 patients with severe osseous pain, overall and complete pain response was 78% and 22%, respectively. Conclusions By study completion, 50% of patients receiving palliative extracranial radiation therapy avoided simulation, streamlining the treatment process and maximizing patient convenience. Pain response for patients with severe pain from osseous lesions was equivalent to published evidence.

PurposeRadiotherapy for oncologic emergencies is an important aspect of the management of cancer patients. These emergencies—which include malignant spinal cord compression, brain metastases, superior vena cava obstruction, and uncontrolled tumour hemorrhage —may require treatment outside of hospital hours, particularly on weekends and hospital holidays. To date, there remains no consensus among radiation oncologists regarding the indications and appropriateness of radiotherapy treatment on weekends, and treatment decisions remain largely subjective. The main aim of the present study was to document the incidence and indications for patients receiving emergency treatment on weekends or scheduled hospital holidays at a single institution. The secondary aim was to investigate the compliance of such treatment with the institution’s quality assurance policies, both local and provincial.MethodsFrom September 1, 2002, to September 30, 2004, patients being treated over weekends (defined as commencing at 6 pm on a Friday and concluding at 8 am of the next scheduled workday) and hospital holidays were retrospectively identified using the Oncology Patient Information System scheduling module. Relevant patient data—including patient age, sex, primary cancer site, specific radiation field, rationale for treatment, referring hospital, total treatment dose, radiation dose fractionation, inpatient or outpatient status, and duration of treatment—were collected and subsequently analyzed. Comparison to local policy was performed subjectively.ResultsOver the 2-year period, 161 patients were prescribed urgent radiotherapy over a weekend or on a hospital holiday. Of this cohort, 68% were treated on both Saturday and Sunday, 22% on Saturday alone, and 10% on Sunday alone. Most patients presented with lung (31%), prostate (18%), and breast cancer (17%). The top reasons for referral for emergency weekend treatment included spinal cord compression (56%), brain metastases (15%), and superior vena cava obstruction (6%). Most of the indications for treatment generally followed the quality assurance policies implemented both locally and provincially.ConclusionsPatients treated over a weekend or on a hospital holiday were generally found to be treated with appropriate intent. Most treatment indications within this study both complied with provincial policy and showed a pattern of care similar to that seen in other studies in the literature. Local policy appears to be robust; however, policy improvements may allow for more cohesiveness across radiation oncologists in patterns of care in this important group of patients. Comparisons with practice at other institutions would be valuable and also a key step in developing sound guidelines for all members of the radiotherapy community to follow.