Dataset Information

Hypofractionated radiotherapy in the real-world setting: An international ESTRO-GIRO survey.

ABSTRACT:

Background and purpose

Multiple large trials have established the non-inferiority of hypofractionated radiotherapy compared to conventional fractionation. This study will determine real-world hypofractionation adoption across different geographic regions for breast, prostate, cervical cancer, and bone metastases, and identify barriers and facilitators to its use.

Materials and methods

An anonymous, electronic survey was distributed from January 2018 through January 2019 to radiation oncologists through the ESTRO-GIRO initiative. Predictors of hypofractionation were identified in univariable and multivariable regression analyses.

Results

2316 radiation oncologists responded. Hypofractionation was preferred in node-negative breast cancer following lumpectomy (82·2% vs. 46·7% for node-positive; p < 0.001), and in low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer (57·5% and 54·5%, respectively, versus 41·2% for high-risk (p < 0.001)). Hypofractionation was used in 32·3% of cervix cases in Africa, but <10% in other regions (p < 0.001). For palliative indications, hypofractionation was preferred by the majority of respondents. Lack of long-term data and concerns about local control and toxicity were the most commonly cited barriers. In adjusted analyses, hypofractionation was least common for curative indications amongst low- and lower-middle-income countries, Asia-Pacific, female respondents, small catchment areas, and in centres without access to intensity modulated radiotherapy.

Conclusion

Significant variation was observed in hypofractionation across curative indications and between regions, with greater concordance in palliation. Using inadequate fractionation schedules may impede the delivery of affordable and accessible radiotherapy. Greater regionally-targeted and disease-specific education on evidence-based fractionation schedules is needed to improve utilization, along with best-case examples addressing practice barriers and supporting policy reform.

SUBMITTER: Rodin D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8053676 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Early-stage breast cancer patients comprise a large proportion of patients treated with radiotherapy in Canada. Proponents have suggested that five-fraction hypofractionated radiotherapy for these patients would result in significant cost savings. An assessment of this argument is thus warranted. The FAST-Forward and UK FAST clinical trials each demonstrated that their respective hypofractionated regimens provided equivalent outcomes compared with standard regimens. Thus, a cost-minimization analysis was performed to quantify the potential savings associated with these regimens, which were designated as FAST-Forward 1 (26 Gy/5 fractions/1 week) and FAST-Forward 2 (27 Gy/5 fractions/1 week), and UK FAST 1 (28.5 Gy/5 fractions/5 weeks) and UK FAST 2 (30 Gy/5 fractions/5 weeks). A standard regimen of 42.5 Gy/16 fractions/5 weeks was also included. A comprehensive model of radiotherapy costs for a Canadian cancer centre was created. Time, labour costs, and capital costs were calculated for each regimen and applied using established measures. The total costs per patient for the FAST-Forward trials were $851.77 for FAST-Forward 1 and $874.77 for FAST-Forward 2, providing a total savings of $487.99 and $464.99, respectively. Similarly, the total costs per patient for the FAST trials were $979.75 for UK FAST 1 and $1017.70 for UK FAST 2, providing savings of $360.01 and $322.06, respectively. Following the FAST-Forward 1 regimen results in the greatest reduction of infrastructure and human resources costs at 36.42% compared with the standard. Sensitivity analysis shows a maximum per-patient costs savings ranging from $474.60 to $508.53 for the FAST-Forward 1 trial, which translates to an annual savings of $174,700/year locally and $2.06 million/year province-wide, based on a moderate-to-large size department workload. Compared with a standard radiotherapy regimen, all FAST-Forward and UK FAST hypofractionated regimens provide cost savings for the treatment of early-stage breast cancer. The cost savings associated with each of these equivalent regimens can be directly calculated; activities in this model can easily be adjusted to account for cost variations, allowing other centres to calculate cost impacts specific to their own centres.

Project description:IntroductionMuch drug development and published analysis for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) focuses on early-line treatment. Full sequences of treatment from diagnosis to death and the impact of later lines of therapy are rarely studied. We describe the establishment of an international network of cancer centers configured to compare real-world treatment pathways in UK, Portugal, Germany, South Korea, France and Romania (the Ovarian Real-World International Consortium; ORWIC).Methods3344 patients diagnosed with EOC (2012-2018) were analysed using a common data model and hub and spoke programming approach applied to existing electronic medical records. Consistent definition of line of therapy between sites and an efficient approach to analysis within the limitations of local information governance was achieved.ResultsMedian age of participants was 53-67 years old and 5-29% were ECOG >1. Between 62% and 84% of patients were diagnosed with late-stage disease (FIGO III-IV). Sites treating younger and fitter patients had higher rates of debulking surgery for those diagnosed at late stage than sites with older, more frail patients. At least 21% of patients treated with systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) had recurrent disease following second-line therapy (2L); up to 11 lines of SACT treatment were recorded for some patients. Platinum-based SACT was consistently used across sites at 1L, but choices at 2L varied, with hormone therapies commonly used in the UK and Portugal. The use (and type) of maintenance therapy following 1L also varied. Beyond 2L, there was little consensus between sites on treatment choice: trial compounds and unspecified combinations of other agents were common.DiscussionSpecific treatment sequences are reported up to 4L and the establishment of this network facilitates future analysis of comparative outcomes per line of treatment with the aim of optimizing available options for patients with recurrent EOC. In particular, this real-world network can be used to assess the growing use of PARP inhibitors. The real-world optimization of advanced line treatment will be especially important for patients not usually eligible for involvement with clinical trials. The resources to enable this analysis to be implemented elsewhere are supplied and the network will seek to grow in coverage of further sites.

Project description:IntroductionWith the introduction of tyrosine kinase inhibitors and systemic antibodies, including immune checkpoint inhibitors, the survival of advanced-stage cancer patients has improved for many tumor types. These patients are increasingly referred for radiotherapy, but it is unclear whether radiotherapy combined with these drugs is safe. No international guidelines exist on whether or how to combine these drugs with radiotherapy. Therefore, we investigated the current clinical practice in the Netherlands regarding hypofractionated radiotherapy in patients using targeted drugs and immunotherapy.Materials and methodsWe sent a survey to all 21 Dutch radiotherapy institutes. Dedicated radiation oncologists, medical oncologists and pulmonologists were asked to fill out the survey. The questions explored their familiarity with the combination of targeted drugs and immunotherapy with radiotherapy, the encountered clinical difficulties and factors influencing treatment decisions.ResultsThe survey was filled out by 54 respondents from 19 different institutes. The median annual number of patients per radiation oncologist referred for radiotherapy when using targeted drugs or immunotherapy was 10 and 15, respectively. Despite this high number, only 11% of the radiation oncologists stated that they had sufficient information (resources) for adequate treatment decision making. Among all physicians, 44% stated that there was insufficient knowledge within their institute regarding this topic. Only 17% stated that there was a multidisciplinary protocol available. The application of radiotherapy treatment adaptations (technique, dose, fractionation, field size) varied widely. Generally, there seemed to be no consensus regarding the expected toxicity of combined drug-radiotherapy treatments and the expected risk of tumor flare upon temporary drug discontinuation.ConclusionThere is no consensus amongst involved medical specialties on expected toxicity. Consequently, it is necessary to perform clinical studies examining the safety of combined drug-radiotherapy treatments, to add radiotherapy to phase I-III clinical trials for new drugs and to incorporate outcomes into multidisciplinary, evidence-based guidelines.