Consensus Quality Measures and Dose Constraints for Rectal Cancer From the Veterans Affairs Radiation Oncology Quality Surveillance Program and American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Expert Panel

PurposeEnsuring high quality, evidence-based radiation therapy for patients with cancer is of the upmost importance. To address this need, the Veterans Affairs (VA) Radiation Oncology Program partnered with the American Society for Radiation Oncology and established the VA Radiation Oncology Quality Surveillance program. As part of this ongoing effort to provide the highest quality of care for patients with rectal cancer, a blue-ribbon panel comprised of rectal cancer experts was formed to develop clinical quality measures.Methods and MaterialsThe Rectal Cancer Blue Ribbon panel developed quality, surveillance, and aspirational measures for (a) initial consultation and workup, (b) simulation, treatment planning, and treatment, and (c) follow-up. Twenty-two rectal cancer specific measures were developed (19 quality, 1 aspirational, and 2 surveillance). In addition, dose-volume histogram constraints for conventional and hypofractionated radiation therapy were created.ConclusionsThe quality measures and dose-volume histogram for rectal cancer serves as a guideline to assess the quality of care for patients with rectal cancer receiving radiation therapy. These quality measures will be used for quality surveillance for veterans receiving care both inside and outside the VA system to improve the quality of care for these patients.     

Consensus Quality Measures and Dose Constraints for Prostate Cancer From the Veterans Affairs Radiation Oncology Quality Surveillance Program and American Society for Radiation Oncology Expert Panel

PurposeThere are no agreed upon measures to comprehensively determine the quality of radiation oncology (RO) care delivered for prostate cancer. Consequently, it is difficult to assess the implementation of scientific advances and adherence to best practices in routine clinical practice. To address this need, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) National Radiation Oncology Program established the VA Radiation Oncology Quality Surveillance (VA ROQS) Program to develop clinical quality measures to assess the quality of RO care delivered to Veterans with cancer. This article reports the prostate cancer consensus measures.Methods and MaterialsThe VA ROQS Program contracted with the American Society for Radiation Oncology to commission a Blue Ribbon Panel of prostate cancer experts to develop a set of evidence-based measures and performance expectations. From February to June 2021, the panel developed quality, aspirational, and surveillance measures for (1) initial consultation and workup, (2) simulation, treatment planning, and delivery, and (3) follow-up. Dose-volume histogram (DVH) constraints to be used as quality measures for definitive and post-prostatectomy radiation therapy were selected. The panel also identified the optimal Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 5.0 (CTCAE V5.0), toxicity terms to assess in follow-up.ResultsEighteen prostate-specific measures were developed (13 quality, 2 aspirational, and 3 surveillance). DVH metrics tailored to conventional, moderately hypofractionated, and ultrahypofractionated regimens were identified. Decision trees to determine performance for each measure were developed. Eighteen CTCAE V5.0 terms were selected in the sexual, urinary, and gastrointestinal domains as highest priority for assessment during follow-up.ConclusionsThis set of measures and DVH constraints serves as a tool for assessing the comprehensive quality of RO care for prostate cancer. These measures will be used for ongoing quality surveillance and improvement among veterans receiving care across VA and community sites. These measures can also be applied to clinical settings outside of those serving veterans.     

Consensus Quality Measures and Dose Constraints for Head and Neck Cancer with an emphasis on Oropharyngeal and Laryngeal Cancer from the Veterans Affairs Radiation Oncology Quality Surveillance Program and American Society for Radiation Oncology Expert Panel

PurposeSafeguarding high-quality care using evidence-based radiation therapy for patients with head and neck cancer is crucial to improving oncologic outcomes, including survival and quality of life.Methods and MaterialsThe Veterans Administration (VA) National Radiation Oncology Program established the VA Radiation Oncology Quality Surveillance Program (VAROQS) to develop clinical quality measures (QM) in head and neck cancer. As part of the development of QM, the VA commissioned, along with the American Society for Radiation Oncology, a blue-ribbon panel comprising experts in head and neck cancer, to develop QM.ResultsWe describe the methods used to develop QM and the final consensus QM, as well as aspirational and surveillance QM, which capture all aspects of the continuum of patient care from initial patient work-up, radiation treatment planning and delivery, and follow-up care, as well as dose volume constraints.ConclusionThese QM are intended for use as part of ongoing quality surveillance for veterans receiving radiation therapy throughout the VA as well as outside the VA. They may also be used by the non-VA community as a basic measure of quality care for head and neck cancer patients receiving radiation.     

Veterans Affairs Radiation Oncology Quality Surveillance Program and American Society for Radiation Oncology Quality Measures Initiative

PurposeEnsuring high quality, evidence-based radiation therapy for patients is of the upmost importance. As a part of the largest integrated health system in America, the Department of Veterans Affairs National Radiation Oncology Program (VA-NROP) established a quality surveillance initiative to address the challenge and necessity of providing the highest quality of care for veterans treated for cancer.Methods and MaterialsAs part of this initiative, the VA-NROP contracted with the American Society for Radiation Oncology to commission 5 Blue Ribbon Panels for lung, prostate, rectal, breast, and head and neck cancers experts. This group worked collaboratively with the VA-NROP to develop consensus quality measures. In addition to the site-specific measures, an additional Blue Ribbon Panel comprised of the chairs and other members of the disease sites was formed to create 18 harmonized quality measures for all 5 sites (13 quality, 4 surveillance, and 1 aspirational).ConclusionsThe VA-NROP and American Society for Radiation Oncology collaboration have created quality measures spanning 5 disease sites to help improve patient outcomes. These will be used for the ongoing quality surveillance of veterans receiving radiation therapy through the VA and its community partners.     

Active Surveillance for Low and Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer: Opinions of North American Genitourinary Oncology Expert Radiation Oncologists

Introduction

The ProtecT trial has provided level 1 evidence supporting active surveillance for prostate cancer patients with low-risk and intermediate-risk disease. The effect of these findings on the opinions of North American genitourinary (GU) experts regarding the role of active surveillance for these patients has not been previously examined.

Effect of Education and Standardization of Cardiac Dose Constraints on Heart Dose in Patients With Lung Cancer Receiving Definitive Radiation Therapy Across a Statewide Consortium

PurposeCardiac radiation exposure is associated with an increased rate of adverse cardiac events in patients receiving radiation therapy for locally advanced non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). Previous analysis of practice patterns within the Michigan Radiation Oncology Quality Consortium (MROQC) revealed 1 in 4 patients received a mean heart dose >20 Gy and significant heterogeneity existed among treatment centers in using cardiac dose constraints. The purpose of this study is to analyze the effect of education and initiation of standardized cardiac dose constraints on heart dose across a statewide consortium.Methods and MaterialsFrom 2012 to 2020, 1681 patients from 27 academic and community centers who received radiation therapy for locally advanced NSCLC were included in this analysis. Dosimetric endpoints including mean heart dose (MHD), mean lung dose, and mean esophagus dose were calculated using data from dose-volume histograms. These dose metrics were grouped by year of treatment initiation for all patients. Education regarding data for cardiac dose constraints first occurred in small lung cancer working group meetings and then consortium-wide starting in 2016. In 2018, a quality metric requiring mean heart dose <20 Gy while maintaining dose coverage (D95) to the target was implemented. Dose metrics were compared before (2012-2016) versus after (2017-2020) initiation of interventions targeting cardiac constraints. Statistical analysis was performed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.ResultsAfter education and implementation of the heart dose performance metric, mean MHD declined from an average of 12.2 Gy preintervention to 10.4 Gy postintervention (P < .0001), and the percentage of patients receiving MHD >20 Gy was reduced from 21.1% to 10.3% (P < .0001). Mean lung dose and mean esophagus dose did not increase, and target coverage remained unchanged.ConclusionsEducation and implementation of a standardized cardiac dose quality measure across a statewide consortium was associated with a reduction of mean heart dose in patients receiving radiation therapy for locally advanced NSCLC. These dose reductions were achieved without sacrificing target coverage, increasing mean lung dose, or increasing mean esophagus dose. Analysis of the clinical ramifications of the reduction in cardiac doses is ongoing.     

Radiation Dose and Fractionation for Limited-stage Small-cell Lung Cancer: Survey of US Radiation Oncologists on Practice Patterns

Background

Thoracic radiotherapy (TRT) with concurrent chemotherapy is standard for limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC). However, the optimal dosing and fractionation remain unclear. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines have recommended either 45 Gy delivered twice daily (BID) or 60 to 70 Gy delivered once daily (QD). However, the current practice patterns among US radiation oncologists are unknown.

The Final Report of the Expert Panel for the Radiation Oncology Bone Metastasis Work Group of the American College of Radiology

Background: In the United States, at least half of the patients who are irradiated are done so with palliative intent. The most common presentation is the patient with bone metastasis. However, because current scientific outcome and technology techniques are insufficient for the creation of guidelines, the American College of Radiology created a work group of experts to formulate appropriateness criteria for the irradiation of bone metastasis.Method: A MEDLINE search to help review the community practices was initiated. Twenty-five clinical vignettes were reviewed by a panel of experts. Recommendations for each vignette were prioritized and selected based on choices proposed by panel members.Result: Doses in the range of 20 Gy in 5 fractions, 30 Gy in 10 fractions, or 35 Gy in 14 fractions are acceptable in most circumstances. Daily doses > 4.0 Gy were not commonly suggested.Circumstances: To determine optimal dose fractionation schemes, more emphasis needs to be put on the life expectancy of the patients. Rapid schedules are acceptable in patients with short life expectancy (i.e., <3 months), but this hypothesis needs to be tested. Further research to better define the clinical indications of hemibody irradiation and strontium-89 is recommended.     

Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Mutational Testing and Erlotinib Treatment Among Veterans Diagnosed With Lung Cancer in the United States Department of Veterans Affairs

Introduction

We examined mutational testing of the epidermal growth factor gene (EGFR) and erlotinib treatment among veterans diagnosed with non–small-cell lung cancer in the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Our objectives were to identify the prevalence of clinically actionable EGFR mutations, to determine whether testing and treatment were guideline concordant, to evaluate the impact of testing and treatment on survival, and to estimate the rate of testing.