Quality indicators for radiation oncology.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Harden SV
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9310822 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Quality indicators for radiation oncology.
Harden Susan V SV Chiew Kim-Lin KL Millar Jeremy J Vinod Shalini K SK
Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology 20220301 2
Quality Indicators, based on clinical practice guidelines, have been used in medicine and within oncology to measure quality of care for over twenty years. However, radiation oncology quality indicators are sparse. This article describes the background to the development of current national and international, general and tumour site-specific radiation oncology quality indicators in use. We explore challenges and opportunities to expand their routine prospective collection and feedback to help dr ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundMeasurement and reporting of quality indicators at the hospital level has been shown to improve outcomes and support patient choice. Although there are many studies validating individual quality indicators, there has been no systematic approach to understanding what quality indicators exist for surgical oncology and no standardization for their use. The aim of this study was to review quality indicators used to assess variation in quality in surgical oncology care across hospitals or regions. It also sought to describe the aims of these studies and what, if any, feedback was offered to the analysed groups.MethodsA literature search was performed to identify studies published between 1 January 2000 and 23 October 2023 that applied surgical quality indicators to detect variation in cancer care at the hospital or regional level.ResultsA total of 89 studies assessed 91 unique quality indicators that fell into the following Donabedian domains: process indicators (58; 64%); outcome indicators (26; 29%); structure indicators (6; 7%); and structure and outcome indicators (1; 1%). Purposes of evaluating variation included: identifying outliers (43; 48%); comparing centres with a benchmark (14; 16%); and supplying evidence of practice variation (29; 33%). Only 23 studies (26%) reported providing the results of their analyses back to those supplying data.ConclusionComparisons of quality in surgical oncology within and among hospitals and regions have been undertaken in high-income countries. Quality indicators tended to be process measures and reporting focused on identifying outlying hospitals. Few studies offered feedback to data suppliers.
| S-EPMC10957165 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceArtificial intelligence (AI) large language models (LLMs) demonstrate potential in simulating human-like dialogue. Their efficacy in accurate patient-clinician communication within radiation oncology has yet to be explored.ObjectiveTo determine an LLM's quality of responses to radiation oncology patient care questions using both domain-specific expertise and domain-agnostic metrics.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study retrieved questions and answers from websites (accessed February 1 to March 20, 2023) affiliated with the National Cancer Institute and the Radiological Society of North America. These questions were used as queries for an AI LLM, ChatGPT version 3.5 (accessed February 20 to April 20, 2023), to prompt LLM-generated responses. Three radiation oncologists and 3 radiation physicists ranked the LLM-generated responses for relative factual correctness, relative completeness, and relative conciseness compared with online expert answers. Statistical analysis was performed from July to October 2023.Main outcomes and measuresThe LLM's responses were ranked by experts using domain-specific metrics such as relative correctness, conciseness, completeness, and potential harm compared with online expert answers on a 5-point Likert scale. Domain-agnostic metrics encompassing cosine similarity scores, readability scores, word count, lexicon, and syllable counts were computed as independent quality checks for LLM-generated responses.ResultsOf the 115 radiation oncology questions retrieved from 4 professional society websites, the LLM performed the same or better in 108 responses (94%) for relative correctness, 89 responses (77%) for completeness, and 105 responses (91%) for conciseness compared with expert answers. Only 2 LLM responses were ranked as having potential harm. The mean (SD) readability consensus score for expert answers was 10.63 (3.17) vs 13.64 (2.22) for LLM answers (P < .001), indicating 10th grade and college reading levels, respectively. The mean (SD) number of syllables was 327.35 (277.15) for expert vs 376.21 (107.89) for LLM answers (P = .07), the mean (SD) word count was 226.33 (191.92) for expert vs 246.26 (69.36) for LLM answers (P = .27), and the mean (SD) lexicon score was 200.15 (171.28) for expert vs 219.10 (61.59) for LLM answers (P = .24).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study, the LLM generated accurate, comprehensive, and concise responses with minimal risk of harm, using language similar to human experts but at a higher reading level. These findings suggest the LLM's potential, with some retraining, as a valuable resource for patient queries in radiation oncology and other medical fields.
| S-EPMC10988356 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Radiation therapy is a critical component in the curative management of many solid tumor types, and advances in radiation delivery techniques during the past decade have led to improved disease control and quality of life for patients. During the same period, remarkable advances have also been made in understanding the genomic landscape of tumors; however, treatment decisions in radiation oncology continue to depend primarily on clinical and histopathologic characteristics rather than on the genetic features of the tumor or the patient. With the development of novel genomic techniques and their increasing use in clinical practice, radiation oncology is uniquely positioned to leverage these advances to identify novel biomarkers that could inform radiation dose, field, and the use of concurrent systemic agents. Here, we summarize efforts to use genomic techniques to guide radiation decisions, and we highlight some of the current opportunities and challenges that exist in attempting to apply precision oncology principles in radiation oncology.
| S-EPMC7446508 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Leveraging Electronic Health Records (EHR) and Oncology Information Systems (OIS) has great potential to generate hypotheses for cancer treatment, since they directly provide medical data on a large scale. In order to gather a significant amount of patients with a high level of clinical details, multicenter studies are necessary. A challenge in creating high quality Big Data studies involving several treatment centers is the lack of semantic interoperability between data sources. We present the ontology we developed to address this issue.Radiation Oncology anatomical and target volumes were categorized in anatomical and treatment planning classes. International delineation guidelines specific to radiation oncology were used for lymph nodes areas and target volumes. Hierarchical classes were created to generate The Radiation Oncology Structures (ROS) Ontology. The ROS was then applied to the data from our institution.Four hundred and seventeen classes were created with a maximum of 14 children classes (average = 5). The ontology was then converted into a Web Ontology Language (.owl) format and made available online on Bioportal and GitHub under an Apache 2.0 License. We extracted all structures delineated in our department since the opening in 2001. 20,758 structures were exported from our "record-and-verify" system, demonstrating a significant heterogeneity within a single center. All structures were matched to the ROS ontology before integration into our clinical data warehouse (CDW).In this study we describe a new ontology, specific to radiation oncology, that reports all anatomical and treatment planning structures that can be delineated. This ontology will be used to integrate dosimetric data in the Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris CDW that stores data from 6.5 million patients (as of February 2017).
| S-EPMC5774757 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE:To use knowledge-based planning (KBP) as a method of producing high-quality, consistent, protocol-compliant treatment plans in a complex setting of spine stereotactic body radiation therapy on NRG Oncology Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0631. METHODS AND MATERIALS:An internally developed KBP model was applied to an external validation cohort of 22 anonymized cases submitted under NRG Oncology RTOG 0631. The original and KBP plans were compared via their protocol compliance, target conformity and gradient index, dose to critical structures, and dose to surrounding normal tissues. RESULTS:The KBP model generated plans meeting all protocol objectives in a single optimization when tested on both internal and protocol-submitted NRG Oncology RTOG 0631 cases. Two submitted plans that were considered to have a protocol-unacceptable deviation were made protocol compliant through the use of the model. There were no statistically significant differences in protocol spinal cord metrics (D10% and D0.03cc) between the manually optimized plans and the KBP plans. The volume of planning target volume receiving prescription dose increased from 93.3% ± 3.2% to 98.3% ± 1.4% (P = .01) when using KBP. High-dose spillage to surrounding normal tissues (V105%) showed no significant differences (2.1 ± 7.3 cm3 for manual plans to 1.8 ± 0.6 cm3 with KBP), and dosimetric outliers with large amounts of spillage were eliminated through the use of KBP. Knowledge-based planning plans were also found to be significantly more consistent in several metrics, including target coverage and high dose outside of the target. CONCLUSION:Incorporation of KBP models into the clinical trial setting may have a profound impact on the quality of trial results, owing to the increase in consistency and standardization of planning, especially for treatment sites or techniques that are nonstandard.
| S-EPMC5915303 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHospitalized pediatric hematology-oncology (PHO) patients are at high risk for critical illness, especially in resource-limited settings. Unfortunately, there are no established quality indicators to guide institutional improvement for these patients. The objective of this study was to identify quality indicators to include in PROACTIVE (PediatRic Oncology cApaCity assessment Tool for IntensiVe carE), an assessment tool to evaluate the capacity and quality of pediatric critical care services offered to PHO patients.MethodsA comprehensive literature review identified relevant indicators in the areas of structure, performance, and outcomes. An international focus group sorted potential indicators using the framework of domains and subdomains. A modified, three-round Delphi was conducted among 36 international experts with diverse experience in PHO and critical care in high-resource and resource-limited settings. Quality indicators were ranked on relevance and actionability via electronically distributed surveys.ResultsPROACTIVE contains 119 indicators among eight domains and 22 subdomains, with high-median importance (≥7) in both relevance and actionability, and ≥80% evaluator agreement. The top five indicators were: (a) A designated PICU area; (b) Availability of a pediatric intensivist; (c) A PHO physician as part of the primary team caring for critically ill PHO patients; (d) Trained nursing staff in pediatric critical care; and (e) Timely PICU transfer of hospitalized PHO patients requiring escalation of care.ConclusionsPROACTIVE is a consensus-derived tool to assess the capacity and quality of pediatric onco-critical care in resource-limited settings. Future endeavors include validation of PROACTIVE by correlating the proposed indicators to clinical outcomes and its implementation to identify service delivery gaps amenable to improvement.
| S-EPMC7541142 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Radiation technique for prostate cancer has continuously evolved over the past several decades. The aim of the present study was to describe the effects of implementing modern prostate intensity-modulated radiation therapy (M-IMRT) on dosimetry and outcome. Between January 2010 and April 2012, 48 consecutive patients were treated with conventional prostate IMRT (C-IMRT) to a dose of 81 Gy. Between May 2012 and April 2015, 50 consecutive patients were treated with M-IMRT to the entire prostate to a dose of 75.6-79.2 Gy, while using prostate magnetic resonance imaging fusion, dose-volume constraints prioritizing normal tissue avoidance above planning target volume coverage, and boosting any dominant intraprostatic masses to 79.2-81 Gy. Rectal Dmax, V75, V60, V65 and V50, bladder Dmax, V75, V70 and V65, and acute and late toxicities were compared between the C-IMRT and M-IMRT groups. The median follow-up for the C-IMRT and M-IMRT groups was 61 vs. 26 months, respectively (P<0.001). M-IMRT resulted in a significant reduction in median rectal Dmax, rectal V75, rectal V70, rectal V65, bladder Dmax, bladder V75, bladder V70 and bladder V65 (P<0.01 for all). There was no significant difference in rectal V50. The 2-year rate of late grade ≥2 rectal bleeding was 13% with C-IMRT vs. 3% with M-IMRT (P=0.03). The 2-year rate of late grade ≥2 genitourinary toxicity was 11% for C-IMRT vs. 5% for M-IMRT (P=0.21). There were no significant differences in acute toxicity, biochemical control or overall survival. Therefore, compared with C-IMRT, M-IMRT was associated with reduced rectal toxicity without compromising disease control.
| S-EPMC5532702 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has transformed cancer care with the rapid expansion of telemedicine, but given the limited use of telemedicine in oncology, concerns have been raised about the quality of care being delivered. We assessed the patient experience with telemedicine in routine radiation oncology practice to determine satisfaction, quality of care, and opportunities for optimization.Patients and methodsPatients seen within a multistate comprehensive cancer center for prepandemic office visits and intrapandemic telemedicine visits in December 2019 through June 2020 who completed patient experience questionnaires were evaluated. Patient satisfaction between office and telemedicine consultations were compared, patient visit-type preferences were assessed, and factors associated with an office visit preference were determined.ResultsIn total, 1,077 patients were assessed (office visit, n=726; telemedicine, n=351). The telemedicine-consult survey response rate was 40%. No significant differences were seen in satisfaction scores between office and telemedicine consultations, including the appointment experience versus expectation, quality of physician's explanation, and level of physician concern and friendliness. Among telemedicine survey respondents, 45% and 34% preferred telemedicine and office visits, respectively, and 21% had no preference for their visit type. Most respondents found their confidence in their physician (90%), understanding of the treatment plan (88%), and confidence in their treatment (87%) to be better or no different than with an office visit. Patients with better performance status and who were married/partnered were more likely to prefer in-person office visit consultations (odds ratio [OR], 1.04 [95% CI, 1.00-1.08]; P=.047, and 2.41 [95% CI, 1.14-5.47]; P=.009, respectively). Patients with telephone-only encounters were more likely to report better treatment plan understanding with an office visit (OR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.00-4.77; P=.04).ConclusionsThis study is the first to assess telemedicine in routine radiation oncology practice, and found high patient satisfaction and confidence in their care. Optimization of telemedicine in oncology should be a priority, specifically access to audiovisual capabilities that can improve patient-oncologist communication.
| S-EPMC8254817 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Nanotechnology, the manipulation of matter on atomic and molecular scales, is a relatively new branch of science. It has already made a significant impact on clinical medicine, especially in oncology. Nanomaterial has several characteristics that are ideal for oncology applications, including preferential accumulation in tumors, low distribution in normal tissues, biodistribution, pharmacokinetics, and clearance, that differ from those of small molecules. Because these properties are also well suited for applications in radiation oncology, nanomaterials have been used in many different areas of radiation oncology for imaging and treatment planning, as well as for radiosensitization to improve the therapeutic ratio. In this article, we review the unique properties of nanomaterials that are favorable for oncology applications and examine the various applications of nanotechnology in radiation oncology. We also discuss the future directions of nanotechnology within the context of radiation oncology.
| S-EPMC4152716 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite the promising efficacy of immunotherapy in some patients, many other patients are resistant. The synergistic effect of radiotherapy (RT) in combination with immunotherapy reported in case reports and clinical trials has piqued the interest of radiologists in investigating the underlying mechanisms and efficacy of the combination in preclinical and clinical trials. To date, the reported data are limited to small-sized samples, trials lacking a comparison arm, and trials using diverse immunotherapies, various radiation doses, and fractionations. There are just a few studies comparing the efficacy of immunotherapy and radiotherapy to that of conventional therapies or different combinations. Radiologists should design and conduct clinical trials wisely to confirm the efficacy of the combination, particularly the abscopal effect, identify the best combination of various immunotherapeutic drugs and different radiation models for patients, identify the best sequence of the combination, determine the optimal timing of the combination, select the target site and volume, lower adverse effects, and explore predictive models to identify patients who may benefit from the combination therapy. We expect that these clinical trials performed by radiologists will offer definitive evidence for the wide use of the combination of RT and immunotherapy in clinical practice. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This review will provide an update on the use of a combination of radiotherapy and immunotherapy, a cautious interpretation of preliminary results, and future directions for radiologists to perform well-designed clinical trials.
| S-EPMC6394774 | biostudies-literature