Estimation of an optimal radiotherapy utilization rate for gastrointestinal carcinoma: a review of the evidence

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy utilization rates for cancer vary widely, both within and between countries. The optimal proportion of patients with gastrointestinal malignancies who should receive at least one course of radiotherapy at some time during their illness is an important benchmark. METHODS: The authors studied treatment guidelines and treatment reviews to identify the indications for radiotherapy for patients with gastrointestinal malignancies. Optimal radiotherapy utilization trees were constructed to show the clinical attributes of patients with gastrointestinal carcinomas who will benefit from radiotherapy. Epidemiologic incidence data for each of these clinical attributes were obtained to calculate the optimal proportion of all patients with gastrointestinal malignancies for whom radiotherapy was considered appropriate. Optimal rates of radiotherapy use were compared with actual rates in population-based studies to assess any discrepancies between actual and optimal radiotherapy utilization rates. RESULTS: Radiotherapy was indicated in 80% of patients with esophageal carcinoma, 68% of patients with gastric carcinoma, 57% of patients with pancreatic carcinoma, 13% of patients with carcinoma of the gallbladder, 0% of patients with hepatic carcinoma, 14% of patients with colon carcinoma, and 61% of patients with rectal carcinoma. The actual radiotherapy utilization rates for most of these gastrointestinal malignancies fell well short of optimal rates, which were derived from evidence-based treatment guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to model optimal radiotherapy utilization using published treatment guidelines and existing incidence data. There was a discrepancy between the optimal and actual rates of radiotherapy utilization for patients with carcinomas of the esophagus, stomach, pancreas, and rectum. Strategies to implement evidence-based clinical guidelines are recommended.     

Estimating the optimal radiotherapy utilization for carcinoma of the central nervous system, thyroid carcinoma, and carcinoma of unknown primary origin from evidence-based clinical guidelines

BACKGROUND: In this one in a series of articles, the objective was to estimate the ideal proportion of patients with cancer who should receive radiotherapy at least once during the course of their illness based on the best available evidence. This estimate should be useful in planning for future radiotherapy facilities. Optimal rates of radiotherapy for patients with central nervous system (CNS) carcinoma, thyroid carcinoma, or carcinoma of unknown primary site (CUP) have not been studied previously. METHODS: A systematic review of evidence-based treatment guidelines for the treatment of CNS carcinoma, CUP, and thyroid carcinoma was undertaken. An optimal radiotherapy utilization tree was constructed for each of these malignancies depicting the indications for radiotherapy at various stages of disease. The proportion of patients who had clinical attributes that indicated a possible benefit from radiotherapy was calculated by adding epidemiological data to the radiotherapy utilization tree. The optimal proportion of patients who should receive radiotherapy was then calculated using specialized decision-analysis software. Sensitivity analyses using univariate analysis and Monte Carlo simulations were performed. RESULTS: The optimal rates of radiotherapy utilization for carcinoma of the CNS, thyroid carcinoma, and CUP were 92%, 10%, and 61%, respectively. Comparison with actual rates of utilization in South Australia, Sweden, and the U.S. suggested an under-utilization of radiotherapy for CNS carcinoma and CUP. However, the actual rates of radiotherapy for thyroid carcinoma exceeded the optimal rate for some jurisdictions, although some data may have included radioactive iodine, which was not included in the current project. CONCLUSIONS: It was possible to estimate optimal radiotherapy utilization rates based on evidence. This methodology allowed a comparison of optimal rates with actual rates to identify areas in which improvements in the evidence-based use of radiotherapy can be made, and it may provide valuable data for future radiotherapy service planning.     

Estimating the optimal external-beam radiotherapy utilization rate for genitourinary malignancies

BACKGROUND: Benchmark radiotherapy utilization rates for genitourinary malignancies are largely unknown, despite the finding that genitourinary cancers comprise approximately 19% of all registered malignancies in Australia. METHODS: To develop an evidence-based benchmark of the optimal proportion of patients with genitourinary malignancies who should receive at least one course of radiotherapy at some time during their illness, the authors studied treatment guidelines and treatment reviews regarding genitourinary malignancies. Optimal radiotherapy utilization trees were constructed to show the clinical attributes that indicated possible benefit from radiotherapy based on evidence. Epidemiologic incidence data for each of these clinical attributes were obtained to calculate the optimal proportion of all patients with genitourinary cancer for whom radiotherapy was considered appropriate. RESULTS: The proportion of patients with genitourinary malignancies for whom radiotherapy was indicated at some point in their illness, according to the best available evidence, was estimated to be 27% of patients with renal cancer, 58% of patients with bladder cancer, 60% of patients with prostate cancer, and 49% of patients with testicular cancer. The occurrence of ureteric and penile cancers among patients was too rare, and, therefore, these patients were not included in the current study. CONCLUSIONS: There was a large discrepancy between actual radiotherapy utilization and the evidence-based optimal rate. The authors recommended strategies to implement the evidence-based guidelines. Evidence-based benchmarks for radiotherapy utilization rates such as the ones described in the current study were important in the evaluation of the appropriate use of radiotherapy.     

Estimation of an optimal radiotherapy utilization rate for gynecologic carcinoma: part II--carcinoma of the endometrium

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy utilization rates for cancer vary widely, both within and between countries. Current estimates of the proportion of cancer patients who should optimally receive radiotherapy are based either on expert opinion or on the measurement of actual utilization rates, rather than on the best scientific evidence. METHODS: Evidence-based treatment guidelines regarding endometrial carcinoma were reviewed to develop an evidence-based benchmark for radiotherapy utilization. An optimal radiotherapy utilization tree was constructed and the proportions of endometrial carcinoma patients with clinical indications for radiotherapy were obtained from epidemiologic data. The ideal utilization rates were compared with actual radiotherapy utilization rates for endometrial carcinoma both in Australia and internationally. RESULTS: According to the best available evidence, radiotherapy is indicated at least once in 46% of all patients with endometrial carcinoma. A review of the limited data available concerning actual radiotherapy utilization rates revealed that the actual rates are approximately 10% lower than the optimal rates. CONCLUSIONS: Further research into the patterns of actual treatment and the development of optimal chemotherapy and surgery utilization rates for endometrial carcinoma is recommended. The difference between the optimal and the actual utilization rates warrants investigation into the reasons for the low radiotherapy utilization rates encountered in clinical practice.     

Estimation of an optimal radiotherapy utilization rate for melanoma: a review of the evidence

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy is not used commonly in the treatment of patients with malignant melanoma. The benchmark optimal radiotherapy utilization rates for melanoma are largely unknown, despite the fact that melanoma is a very common cancer. METHODS: To develop an evidence-based benchmark for the optimal proportion of patients with melanoma who should receive radiotherapy, the authors reviewed major treatment guidelines for melanoma. A radiotherapy decision tree was constructed showing the clinical features of melanoma patients for whom radiotherapy was indicated based on evidence. The proportions of melanoma patients with indications for radiotherapy were obtained from epidemiologic data and were used to calculate the optimal proportion of melanoma patients who should receive radiotherapy. RESULTS: The proportion of patients with melanoma for whom radiotherapy is indicated at some point in their illness, according to the best available evidence, was calculated at 23% of all melanoma patients. The utilization rates of radiotherapy for melanoma recorded in actual practice were 13% in New South Wales, 6% in data from the American College of Surgeons, and 1% according to Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies for implementing the evidence-based guidelines are recommended to overcome the shortfall in the use of radiotherapy in the treatment of patients with melanoma.     

Estimation of an optimal external beam radiotherapy utilization rate for head and neck carcinoma

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy is used commonly in the treatment of patients with head and neck carcinoma. The benchmark radiotherapy utilization rates for head and neck carcinoma largely are unknown. The objective of the current study was to determine the optimal radiotherapy utilization rate for patients with head and neck carcinoma and to compare this optimal rate with actual utilization rates where actual utilization data were available. METHODS: An optimal radiotherapy utilization tree was constructed that depicted all patients with head and neck carcinoma in whom radiotherapy was indicated according to evidence-based treatment guidelines. The proportions of patients with clinical attributes that indicated possible benefit from radiotherapy were obtained from epidemiological data and were inserted into the utilization tree. The optimal proportion of patients with carcinoma of the head and neck who should receive radiotherapy was calculated by merging the evidence-based recommendations with the epidemiological data in the tree. Optimal rates of radiotherapy utilization were compared with actual rates obtained from population-based studies. RESULTS: Radiotherapy was indicated at some point during their illness in 74% of all patients with head and neck carcinoma. By subsite, the optimal radiotherapy utilization rates were oral cavity, 74%; lip, 20%; larynx, 100%; oropharynx, 100%; salivary gland, 87%; hypopharynx, 100%; nasopharynx, 100%; paranasal sinuses, 100%; and unknown squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, 90%. All treatment recommendations were based on Level III or IV evidence. Assessment of actual radiotherapy utilization rates indicated an increased use of radiotherapy over time for head and neck carcinoma. However, there also were some decreases in the use of radiotherapy for some carcinoma subsites over the past 20 years, despite the lower actual rates compared with the optimal rates. The reasons for these reductions in use were not identified. CONCLUSIONS: The actual radiotherapy utilization rate for patients with head and neck carcinoma corresponded reasonably closely to the optimal rate for some populations but also identified some shortfalls for other patient groups. The results of this study provide a way of assessing shortfalls in radiotherapy.     

Establishing treatment benchmarks for mammography-screened breast cancer population based on a review of evidence-based clinical guidelines

BACKGROUND: No benchmarks exist in the screened breast cancer population to establish the optimal proportions of newly detected cancer patients who should receive the ideal treatment. The aim of the study was to estimate the optimal proportion of cases diagnosed in a breast-screening program who should receive treatment according to evidence-based cancer treatment guidelines and to compare these optimal rates with actual treatment rates. METHOD.: Optimal surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and hormone therapy utilization trees were constructed based on indications from evidence-based treatment guidelines. The proportions with clinical attributes that indicated a possible benefit from a particular treatment were obtained from epidemiologic data from BreastScreen Victoria. The optimal proportions of screen-detected breast cancer patients who should receive various therapies were then calculated using TreeAge software and compared with the actual proportions obtained from the epidemiologic data. RESULTS: According to the best available evidence, the proportion of screen-detected breast cancer patients who have attributes suitable for various treatments are: breast-conserving surgery (BCS) 85%, mastectomy 15%, radiotherapy 87%, chemotherapy 34%, and hormonal therapy 68%. The actual BCS utilization rate in Victoria was similar to the optimal rate (79% vs 85%), whereas there appeared to be underuse of radiotherapy (62% vs 87%), chemotherapy (19% vs 34%), and hormonal therapy (49% vs 68%) when compared with guideline recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: This research provided optimal treatment utilization rates for screen-detected breast cancer and a comparison of best practice evidence and actual treatment. The results showed comparable rates for surgery but suggested underutilization of radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and hormone therapy.     

The role of radiotherapy in cancer treatment: estimating optimal utilization from a review of evidence-based clinical guidelines

Radiotherapy utilization rates for cancer vary widely internationally. It has previously been suggested that approximately 50% of all cancer patients should receive radiation. However, this estimate was not evidence-based. The aim of this study was to estimate the ideal proportion of new cases of cancer that should receive radiotherapy at least once during the course of their illness based on the best available evidence. An optimal radiotherapy utilization tree was constructed for each cancer based upon indications for radiotherapy taken from evidence-based treatment guidelines. The proportion of patients with clinical attributes that indicated a possible benefit from radiotherapy was obtained by adding epidemiologic data to the radiotherapy utilization tree. The optimal proportion of patients with cancer that should receive radiotherapy was then calculated using TreeAge (TreeAge Software, Williamstown, MA) software. Sensitivity analyses using univariate analysis and Monte Carlo simulations were performed. The proportion of patients with cancer in whom external beam radiotherapy is indicated according to the best available evidence was calculated to be 52%. Monte Carlo analysis indicated that the 95% confidence limits were from 51.7% to 53.1%. The tightness of the confidence interval suggests that the overall estimate is robust. Comparison with actual radiotherapy utilization data suggests a shortfall in actual radiotherapy delivery. This methodology allows comparison of optimal rates with actual rates to identify areas where improvements in the evidence-based use of radiotherapy can be made. It provides valuable data for radiotherapy service planning. Actual rates need to be addressed to ensure better radiotherapy utilization.     

A model for decision making for the use of radiotherapy in lung cancer

To develop an evidence-based benchmark for the use of radiotherapy in lung cancer, we did a systematic review of treatment guidelines on radiotherapy for lung cancer. We then constructed an optimum use of radiotherapy "tree" from epidemiological data, which shows the proportion of patients with clinical attributes indicating that they would benefit from radiotherapy. We calculated that the proportion of patients with lung cancer in whom radiotherapy is indicated (according to the best available evidence) is 76%. We then compared this ideal rate with the actual rates of use of radiotherapy for lung cancer in Australia, and internationally, in the past decade. A substantial discrepancy was found between the evidence-based recommended rate of use and the actual rates reported in clinical practice. We hope this model will be used to plan efficient and cost-effective radiotherapy services.     

Estimation of an optimal radiotherapy utilization rate for breast carcinoma: a review of the evidence

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy utilization rates for breast carcinoma vary widely, both within and between countries. Current estimates of the proportion of patients with carcinoma who optimally should receive radiotherapy are based either on expert opinion or on the measurement of actual utilization rates, and not on the best scientific evidence. METHODS: To develop an evidence-based benchmark for radiotherapy utilization in patients with breast carcinoma, the authors undertook a systematic review of treatment guidelines on the use of radiotherapy for breast carcinoma. A decision tree was constructed, and the proportions of patients with clinical features that lead to a decision for radiotherapy were obtained from epidemiological data. This ideal utilization rate was compared with the utilization rates of radiotherapy over the last decade for breast carcinoma in Australia and internationally. RESULTS: The proportion of patients with breast carcinoma in whom radiotherapy would be recommended according to the best available evidence was calculated at 83% (95% confidence interval, 82-85%) of all patients with breast carcinoma. A review of actual radiotherapy utilization rates for breast carcinoma revealed that, in clinical practice, actual utilization rates varied between 24% and 71%. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial difference was found between the recommended optimal utilization of radiotherapy based on evidence and the actual rates reported in clinical practice. The reasons for these differences need to be examined, and a plan for addressing the suboptimal use of radiotherapy needs to be implemented. Cancer 2003.     

Estimating the optimal utilization rates of radiotherapy for hematologic malignancies from a review of the evidence: part I-lymphoma

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to estimate the ideal proportion of new patients with lymphoma who should receive radiotherapy at some time during the course of their illness, based on the best evidence. METHODS: Available evidence of the efficacy of radiotherapy in most clinical situations for lymphoma were identified through extensive literature reviews and treatment guideline searches. Epidemiologic data concerning the distribution of histologic type, disease stage, and other factors that influence the use of radiotherapy were identified. Decision trees were constructed to merge the evidence-based recommendations with the epidemiologic data to calculate the optimal proportion of patients who should receive radiotherapy according to the best available evidence. Actual radiotherapy utilization rates also were identified. RESULTS: The proportion of patients with lymphoma in Australia that should receive radiotherapy at some point in their management, according to the best available evidence, was calculated at 65.0%. Multivariate analysis with a Monte Carlo simulation yielded a radiotherapy utilization rate of 64.4%. The actual utilization rates of radiotherapy for lymphoma reported in clinical practice were 22-29%, substantially lower than the optimal rate calculated in this project. CONCLUSIONS: Further research will be required to identify why more patients who are diagnosed with lymphoma are not treated with radiotherapy.     

Estimating the optimal utilization rates of radiotherapy for hematologic malignancies from a review of the evidence: part II-leukemia and myeloma

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to estimate the ideal proportion of new patients with leukemia and myeloma who should receive radiotherapy at some time during the course of their illness based on the best evidence. METHODS: Available evidence of the efficacy of radiotherapy in most clinical situations for leukemia and myeloma was identified through extensive literature reviews and treatment guideline searches. Epidemiologic data concerning the distribution of types, disease stages, and other factors that influence the use of radiotherapy were identified. Decision trees were constructed to merge the evidence-based recommendations with the epidemiological data to calculate the optimal proportion of patients who should receive radiotherapy according to the best available evidence. Actual radiotherapy utilization rates also were identified. RESULTS: The proportion of patients diagnosed with myeloma in Australia who should receive radiotherapy based on the evidence was 38%. There was wide variation in the proportion of patients who actually received radiotherapy for myeloma from 24% up to 55%. The recommended proportion of patients diagnosed with myeloma in Australia who, according to the best available evidence, should receive at least a single course of radiotherapy was 38%. The proportion of patients diagnosed in Australia with leukemia who should receive radiotherapy at some point in their management, according to the best available evidence, was calculated at 4%, which corresponded with actual practice. CONCLUSIONS: Further research will be required to determine why more patients who are diagnosed with myeloma are not treated with radiotherapy.     

Estimation of the optimal brachytherapy utilization rate in the treatment of carcinoma of the uterine cervix: review of clinical practice guidelines and primary evidence

BACKGROUND: Brachytherapy (BT) is an integral part of cervical carcinoma treatment. There have been no attempts to estimate the optimal proportion of new cervical carcinoma cases that should be treated with BT, that is, the optimal rate of brachytherapy utilization (BTU). METHODS: Evidence-based guidelines and primary evidence were used to construct a BTU tree for carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Searches were performed of the epidemiological literature to ascertain the proportion of patients who fulfilled criteria for BT. The robustness of the model was tested by sensitivity analyses and by peer review. A patterns of care study of BT in New South Wales for 2003 was conducted, and actual BTU for cervical carcinoma determined. The differences between optimal and actual rates of BTU were assessed. RESULTS: The optimal cervical carcinoma BTU was 49% (range, 42% to 50%). In New South Wales in 2003, actual BTU was only 30% of 256 cervical carcinoma patients. The major discrepancy was for FIGO stage IB-IIA disease, where there was an underutilization of BT, estimated to be 15% actual use compared with 47% optimal use. In Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) areas, there was underutilization for stage IB-IIA (22% actual BTU versus 47% optimal BTU) and for stage IIB-IVA (54% actual BTU versus 100% optimal BTU). CONCLUSIONS: BT for cervical carcinoma is underutilized in New South Wales and in SEER areas. The authors' model of optimal BTU can be used as a quality assurance tool to provide an evidence-based benchmark against which actual patterns of practice can be measured. The model can also be used to help determine adequacy of BT resource allocation.     

Estimation of an optimal chemotherapy utilisation rate for head and neck carcinoma: Setting an evidence-based benchmark for the best-quality cancer care

BackgroundWe estimated the optimal chemotherapy utilisation rate for head and neck cancer as a benchmark for measuring and improving the quality of cancer care.MethodsAn optimal chemotherapy utilisation tree was constructed using indications for chemotherapy that were identified from evidence-based treatment guidelines. Data on the proportion of patient and tumour-related attributes for which chemotherapy was indicated were obtained and merged with the treatment indications to calculate the optimal utilisation rate. The robustness of the model was tested with sensitivity analysis and Monte Carlo simulation. The optimal chemotherapy utilisation rate was compared with actual utilisation rates reported.ResultsChemotherapy is indicated at least once in 36% (95% CI, 33–38%) of all patients with head and neck carcinoma. The optimal utilisation rates by subsites were as follows: lip, 8%; oral cavity, 40%; nasopharynx, 69%; oropharynx, 66%; hypopharynx, 74%; larynx, 43%; salivary gland, 48% and paranasal sinus with nasal cavity, 38%.ConclusionsThe optimal proportion of patients who should receive chemotherapy in the head and neck carcinoma population has risen significantly over the past 20 years. This temporal rise does not appear to be reflected in the limited actual utilisation rates that are available for comparison. Large population-based studies are recommended to further assess the current practice and compliance to guideline recommended care.     

Radiation therapy for gynecologic malignancies

In the last century, radiation has been successfully used as primary and adjuvant treatment in the management of gynecologic malignancies. It is anticipated that radiation will continue as an integral component in the treatment of cervical,endometrial, vulvar, and vaginal carcinoma. Current efforts are directed at im-proving control rates while minimizing treatment-related toxicities through the use of more conformal external beam radiotherapy techniques, refinement of brachytherapy techniques, and the integration of chemotherapy.     

中国小细胞肺癌放射治疗临床指南(2020版)

小细胞肺癌(SCLC)是严重威胁患者生命的常见恶性肿瘤之一。为了充分发挥好放疗在SCLC综合治疗中的重要作用,为患者带来生存获益,中华医学会放射肿瘤治疗学分会、中国医师协会放射肿瘤治疗医师分会、中国抗癌协会放射治疗专业委员会和中国临床肿瘤学会肿瘤放疗专家委员会,组织相关专家,在SCLC现有临床研究证据的基础上,结合专家意见,制订了本指南。内容主要包括概述、诊断、不同分期SCLC的放疗和综合治疗原则、放疗技术等方面,以期为我国临床医生和患者提供针对SCLC放疗的循证医学指南,指导临床实践。     

Intraoperative radiation therapy in the management of gynecologic and genitourinary malignancies

Women with locally advanced primary or recurrent gynecologic malignancies have a poor prognosis. The doses of external radiation necessary to treat gross or microscopic recurrent disease in patients previously irradiated exceed the doses tolerated by normal tissue [1,3-5]. IORT has been added to the treatment armamentarium in this group of patients to maximize local control and minimize the radiation exposure to dose-limiting surrounding structures. In addition, IORT may improve the long-term local control and the overall survival rates in women with pelvic sidewall or para-aortic nodal recurrence [1,4,5]. The most encouraging results are seen in cases of microscopic residual disease following surgical debulking [4,6]. In gynecologic malignancies, IORT has served to reiterate the importance of optimal surgical resection. Higher 5-year disease-free and overall survival rates have been documented in women who have microscopic residual disease, compared with those who have gross residual disease [1,3-6]. IORT in the management of GU malignancies has not been used extensively. In RCC, where surgery alone often results in suboptimal treatment results, IORT seems to be well tolerated and controls local disease [2,27,29,30]. Because of the chemoresistant nature of RCC, IORT may play an important role in the future in the management of locally advanced and recurrent RCC. In bladder cancer, IORT had been used in combination with chemotherapy and EBRT, as part of bladder-sparing protocols. The data suggest that IORT in this patient population is also well tolerated, and may become more widely used as less radical surgical procedures gain clinical importance. IORT in the treatment of prostate and testicular cancers has not been used frequently, given the highly efficacious treatment modalities currently available to treat these malignancies. A review of institutional experiences with IORT may allow the establishment of guidelines for patient selection. These criteria, in turn, may be useful in the design of clinical trials. The construction, execution, and evaluation of clinical trials are mandatory to adequately assess the role of IORT in the treatment of patients with gynecologic and GU malignancies.     

The management of early breast carcinoma before and after the introduction of clinical practice guidelines

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines for the management of breast carcinoma were introduced in Australia in October, 1995. This article describes the management of early-stage breast carcinoma both before and after the introduction of these guidelines. METHODS: All cases of early breast carcinoma that were diagnosed over the same 6-month period in 1995 and 1999 and registered with a state-based cancer registry were identified. Treating surgeons completed a survey assessing tumor characteristics and primary treatment. In 1995, 95% of 188 surgeons who were approached participated and 96% of the surveys were returned. In 1999, 92% of 159 surgeons who were approached participated and 91% of the surveys were returned. Analyses are based on 1066 cases from 1995 and 1001 cases from 1999. RESULTS: The pathologic disease stage of the patients was similar in both study years. The proportion of patients who underwent breast-conserving therapy (BCT) increased from 54% in 1995 to 69% in 1999. This increase was noted across most levels of disease characteristics but was not evident among those patients treated by the least active surgeons. The proportion of patients treated with BCT who received radiotherapy increased from 59% in 1995 to 80% in 1999. This trend was observed across most levels of tumor characteristics and surgeon caseload. The proportion of women with receptor-positive tumors who were treated with endocrine therapy increased, whereas the proportion of patients with receptor-negative tumors who received this therapy decreased from 39% in 1995 to 17% in 1999. CONCLUSIONS: The management of early breast carcinoma in the state of Victoria appeared to change between 1995 and 1999 in the direction expected if the national guidelines had been incorporated into the practice patterns of surgeons treating breast carcinoma patients.     

Estimation of an optimal chemotherapy utilisation rate for colon cancer: An evidence-based benchmark for cancer care

BackgroundOptimal chemotherapy (CT) utilisation rates can serve as benchmarks to assess the quality of cancer care. This study aims to determine the optimal proportion of patients with colon cancer that should receive chemotherapy at least once.MethodsAn optimal chemotherapy utilisation tree was constructed using indications for chemotherapy identified from evidence-based treatment guidelines. Data on the proportion of patient and tumour-related attributes for which chemotherapy was indicated were obtained and merged with the treatment indications to calculate an optimal chemotherapy utilisation rate (CTU rate). This optimal rate was compared with reported actual rates of chemotherapy utilisation.ResultsChemotherapy is indicated at least once in 55% of patients with colon cancer. While 89% of colon cancer patients presenting with Stage IV disease should optimally receive chemotherapy, 38–52% actually received chemotherapy as part of their initial treatment.ConclusionThe optimal chemotherapy utilisation rate can serve as an evidence-based benchmark in the planning and evaluation of chemotherapy services. Chemotherapy may be under-utilised in the initial management of patients presenting with metastatic colon cancer.     

Treatment of the elderly colorectal cancer patient: SIOG expert recommendations

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the commonest malignancies of Western countries, with approximately half the incidence occurring in patients >70 years of age. Elderly CRC patients, however, are understaged, undertreated and underrepresented in clinical trials. The International Society of Geriatric Oncology created a task force with a view to assessing the potential for developing guidelines for the treatment of elderly (geriatric) CRC patients. A review of the evidence presented by the task force members confirmed the paucity of clinical trial data in elderly people and the lack of evidence-based guidelines. However, recommendations have been proposed on the basis of the available data and on the emerging evidence that treatment outcomes for fit, elderly CRC patients can be similar to those of younger patients. It is hoped that these will pave the way for formal treatment guidelines based upon solid scientific evidence in the future.