Anne M Walling1,2,3, Phillip J Beron4, Tania Kaprealian4, Patrick A Kupelian4, Neil S Wenger2,3, Susan A McCloskey4, Christopher R King4, Michael Steinberg4. 1. VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California. 2. Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, California. 3. RAND Health, Santa Monica, California. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, California.
Abstract
Background: There is an increasing need for evidence-based efficiency in providing a growing amount of cancer care. One example of a quality gap is the use of multiple-fraction palliative radiation for patients with advanced cancer who have uncomplicated bone metastases; evidence suggests similar pain outcomes for treatment regimens with a lower burden of treatments. Methods: During the first phase of quality improvement work, we used RAND/UCLA appropriateness methodology to understand how radiation oncologists at one academic medical center rate the appropriateness of different treatment regimens for painful uncomplicated bone metastases. We compared radiation oncologist appropriateness ratings for radiation treatments with radiation therapy provided by these oncologists to patients with painful bone metastases between July 2012 and June 2013. Results: Appropriateness ratings showed that single-fraction (8 Gy) treatment (a low burden treatment) was consistently considered an appropriate option to treat a variety of uncomplicated bone metastases. The use of >10 fractions was consistently rated as inappropriate regardless of other factors. Eighty-one patients receiving radiation therapy for painful bone metastases during the study period had an available medical record for chart abstraction. Almost one-third of metastases were considered complicated because of a concern of spinal cord compression, a history of prior irradiation, or an associated pathological fracture. Among uncomplicated bone metastases, 25% were treated with stereotactic body radiation treatment (SBRT). Among the 54 uncomplicated bone metastases treated with conformal radiation, only one was treated with single-fraction treatment and 32% were treated with greater than 10 fractions. Conclusions: Treatment at the study site demonstrates room for improvement in providing low-burden radiation oncology treatments for patients with painful bone metastases. Choosing a radiation treatment schedule for patients with advanced cancer and painful bone metastases requires consideration of many medical and patient-centered factors. Our experience suggests that it will take more than the existence of guidelines to change practice in this area.
Background: There is an increasing need for evidence-based efficiency in providing a growing amount of cancer care. One example of a quality gap is the use of multiple-fraction palliative radiation for patients with advanced cancer who have uncomplicated bone metastases; evidence suggests similar pain outcomes for treatment regimens with a lower burden of treatments. Methods: During the first phase of quality improvement work, we used RAND/UCLA appropriateness methodology to understand how radiation oncologists at one academic medical center rate the appropriateness of different treatment regimens for painful uncomplicated bone metastases. We compared radiation oncologist appropriateness ratings for radiation treatments with radiation therapy provided by these oncologists to patients with painful bone metastases between July 2012 and June 2013. Results: Appropriateness ratings showed that single-fraction (8 Gy) treatment (a low burden treatment) was consistently considered an appropriate option to treat a variety of uncomplicated bone metastases. The use of >10 fractions was consistently rated as inappropriate regardless of other factors. Eighty-one patients receiving radiation therapy for painful bone metastases during the study period had an available medical record for chart abstraction. Almost one-third of metastases were considered complicated because of a concern of spinal cord compression, a history of prior irradiation, or an associated pathological fracture. Among uncomplicated bone metastases, 25% were treated with stereotactic body radiation treatment (SBRT). Among the 54 uncomplicated bone metastases treated with conformal radiation, only one was treated with single-fraction treatment and 32% were treated with greater than 10 fractions. Conclusions: Treatment at the study site demonstrates room for improvement in providing low-burden radiation oncology treatments for patients with painful bone metastases. Choosing a radiation treatment schedule for patients with advanced cancer and painful bone metastases requires consideration of many medical and patient-centered factors. Our experience suggests that it will take more than the existence of guidelines to change practice in this area.
Entities:
Keywords:
advanced cancer; bone metastases; palliative care; quality of care; radiation oncology
Authors: William F Hartsell; Charles B Scott; Deborah Watkins Bruner; Charles W Scarantino; Robert A Ivker; Mack Roach; John H Suh; William F Demas; Benjamin Movsas; Ivy A Petersen; Andre A Konski; Charles S Cleeland; Nora A Janjan; Michelle DeSilvio Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2005-06-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Simon Shek-Man Lo; Stephen T Lutz; Eric L Chang; Nicholas Galanopoulos; David D Howell; Edward Y Kim; Andre A Konski; Neeta D Pandit-Taskar; Peter S Rose; Samuel Ryu; Larry N Silverman; Andrew E Sloan; Catherine Van Poznak Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2012-11-20 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Anne M Walling; Steven M Asch; Karl A Lorenz; Jennifer Malin; Carol P Roth; Tod Barry; Neil S Wenger Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2012-04-29 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Sydney M Dy; Steven M Asch; Arash Naeim; Homayoon Sanati; Anne Walling; Karl A Lorenz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-08-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Alexi A Wright; Baohui Zhang; Alaka Ray; Jennifer W Mack; Elizabeth Trice; Tracy Balboni; Susan L Mitchell; Vicki A Jackson; Susan D Block; Paul K Maciejewski; Holly G Prigerson Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-10-08 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jackson Sai-Yiu Wu; Rebecca K S Wong; Nancy S Lloyd; Mary Johnston; Andrea Bezjak; Timothy Whelan Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2004-10-04 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Jennifer K Logan; Jing Jiang; Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Xiudong Lei; Ying Xu; Karen E Hoffman; Sharon H Giordano; Benjamin D Smith Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2019-03-08 Impact factor: 3.840