Dataset Information

Initial Results from the Royal College of Radiologists' UK National Audit of Anal Cancer Radiotherapy 2015.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

UK guidance was recently developed for the treatment of anal cancer using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). We audited the current use of radiotherapy in UK cancer centres for the treatment of anal cancer against such guidance. We describe the acute toxicity of IMRT in comparison with patient population in the audit treated with two-phase conformal radiotherapy and the previous published data from two-phase conformal radiotherapy, in the UK ACT2 trial.

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 6 month period between February and July 2015.

Results

Two hundred and forty-two cases were received from 40/56 cancer centres (71%). In total, 231 (95%) underwent full dose radiotherapy with prophylactic nodal irradiation. Of these, 180 (78%) received IMRT or equivalent, 52 (22%) two-phase conformal (ACT2) technique. The number of interruptions in radiotherapy treatment in the ACT2 trial was 15%. Interruptions were noted in 7% (95% confidence interval 0-14%) of courses receiving two-phase conformal and 4% (95% confidence interval 1-7%) of those receiving IMRT. The percentage of patients completing the planned radiotherapy dose, irrelevant of gaps, was 90% (95% confidence interval 82-98%) and 96% (95% confidence interval 93-99%), in two-phase conformal and IMRT respectively. The toxicity reported in the ACT2 trial, in patients receiving two-phase conformal in the audit and in patients receiving IMRT in the audit was: any toxic effect 71%, 54%, 48%, non-haematological 62%, 49%, 40% and haematological 26%, 13%, 18%, respectively.

Conclusions

IMRT implementation for anal cancer is well underway in the UK with most patients receiving IMRT delivery, although its usage is not yet universal. This audit confirms that IMRT results in reduced acute toxicity and minimised treatment interruptions in comparison with previous two-phase conformal techniques.

SUBMITTER: Muirhead R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5304408 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Initial Results from the Royal College of Radiologists' UK National Audit of Anal Cancer Radiotherapy 2015.

Muirhead R R Drinkwater K K O'Cathail S M SM Adams R R Glynne-Jones R R Harrison M M Hawkins M A MA Sebag-Montefiore D D Gilbert D C DC

Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)) 20161031 3

<h4>Aims</h4>UK guidance was recently developed for the treatment of anal cancer using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). We audited the current use of radiotherapy in UK cancer centres for the treatment of anal cancer against such guidance. We describe the acute toxicity of IMRT in comparison with patient population in the audit treated with two-phase conformal radiotherapy and the previous published data from two-phase conformal radiotherapy, in the UK ACT2 trial.<h4>Materials and method ...[more]

PMID: 27810119

Similar Datasets

Project description:To determine whether an artificial intelligence candidate could pass the rapid (radiographic) reporting component of the Fellowship of the Royal College of Radiologists (FRCR) examination. Prospective multi-reader diagnostic accuracy study. United Kingdom. One artificial intelligence candidate (Smarturgences, Milvue) and 26 radiologists who had passed the FRCR examination in the preceding 12 months. Accuracy and pass rate of the artificial intelligence compared with radiologists across 10 mock FRCR rapid reporting examinations (each examination containing 30 radiographs, requiring 90% accuracy rate to pass). When non-interpretable images were excluded from the analysis, the artificial intelligence candidate achieved an average overall accuracy of 79.5% (95% confidence interval 74.1% to 84.3%) and passed two of 10 mock FRCR examinations. The average radiologist achieved an average accuracy of 84.8% (76.1-91.9%) and passed four of 10 mock examinations. The sensitivity for the artificial intelligence was 83.6% (95% confidence interval 76.2% to 89.4%) and the specificity was 75.2% (66.7% to 82.5%), compared with summary estimates across all radiologists of 84.1% (81.0% to 87.0%) and 87.3% (85.0% to 89.3%). Across 148/300 radiographs that were correctly interpreted by >90% of radiologists, the artificial intelligence candidate was incorrect in 14/148 (9%). In 20/300 radiographs that most (>50%) radiologists interpreted incorrectly, the artificial intelligence candidate was correct in 10/20 (50%). Most imaging pitfalls related to interpretation of musculoskeletal rather than chest radiographs. When special dispensation for the artificial intelligence candidate was provided (that is, exclusion of non-interpretable images), the artificial intelligence candidate was able to pass two of 10 mock examinations. Potential exists for the artificial intelligence candidate to improve its radiographic interpretation skills by focusing on musculoskeletal cases and learning to interpret radiographs of the axial skeleton and abdomen that are currently considered "non-interpretable."

Dataset Information

Initial Results from the Royal College of Radiologists' UK National Audit of Anal Cancer Radiotherapy 2015.

Aims

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Initial Results from the Royal College of Radiologists' UK National Audit of Anal Cancer Radiotherapy 2015.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets