Improving patient outcomes and radiotherapy systems: A pan-Canadian approach to patient-reported outcome use

Conducting a National RT-QI Project - Challenges and Opportunities

Over the past decade, there has been an increased interest in defining and monitoring quality indicators (QI) in the field of oncology including the field of radiation oncology. The comprehensive gathering and analysis of QIs on a multicentric scale offer valuable insights into identifying gaps in clinical practice and fostering continuous improvement. This article delineates the evolution and results of the Belgian national project dedicated to radiotherapy-specific QIs while also exploring the challenges and opportunities inherent in implementing such a multi-centric initiative.

Global Workforce and Access: Demand, Education, Quality

There has long existed a substantial disparity in access to radiotherapy globally. This issue has only been exacerbated as the growing disparity of cancer incidence between high-income countries (HIC) and low and middle-income countries (LMICs) widens, with a pronounced increase in cancer cases in LMICs. Even within HICs, iniquities within local communities may lead to a lack of access to care. Due to these trends, it is imperative to find solutions to narrow global disparities. This requires the engagement of a diverse cohort of stakeholders, including working professionals, non-governmental organizations, nonprofits, professional societies, academic and training institutions, and industry. This review brings together a diverse group of experts to highlight critical areas that could help reduce the current global disparities in radiation oncology. Advancements in technology and treatment, such as artificial intelligence, brachytherapy, hypofractionation, and digital networks, in combination with implementation science and novel funding mechanisms, offer means for increasing access to care and education globally. Common themes across sections reveal how utilizing these new innovations and strengthening collaborative efforts among stakeholders can help improve access to care globally while setting the framework for the next generation of innovations.

Prospective Longitudinal Assessment of Quality of Life After Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy for Oligometastases: Analysis of the Population-based SABR-5 Phase II Trial

AIMS

To evaluate longitudinal patient-reported quality of life (QoL) in patients treated with stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) for oligometastases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The SABR-5 trial was a population-based single-arm phase II study of SABR to up to five sites of oligometastases, conducted in six regional cancer centres in British Columbia, Canada from 2016 to 2020. Prospective QoL was measured using treatment site-specific QoL questionnaires at pre-treatment baseline and at 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 30 and 36 months after treatment. Patients with bone metastases were assessed with the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). Patients with liver, adrenal and abdominopelvic lymph node metastases were assessed with the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Abdominal Discomfort (FACIT-AD). Patients with lung and intrathoracic lymph node metastases were assessed with the Prospective Outcomes and Support Initiative (POSI) lung questionnaire. The two one-sided test procedure was used to assess equivalence between the worst QoL score and the baseline score of individual patients. The mean QoL at all time points was used to determine the trajectory of QoL response after SABR. The proportion of patients with 'stable', 'improved' or 'worsened' QoL was determined for all time points based on standard minimal clinically important differences (MCID; BPI worst pain = 2, BPI functional interference score [FIS] = 0.5, FACIT-AD Trial Outcome Index [TOI] = 8, POSI = 3).

RESULTS

All enrolled patients with baseline QoL assessment and at least one follow-up assessment were analysed (n = 133). On equivalence testing, the patients' worst QoL scores were clinically different from baseline scores and met MCID (BPI worst pain mean difference: 1.8, 90% confidence interval 1.19 to 2.42]; BPI FIS mean difference: 1.68, 90% confidence interval 1.15 to 2.21; FACIT-AD TOI mean difference: -8.76, 90% confidence interval -11.29 to -6.24; POSI mean difference: -4.61, 90% confidence interval -6.09 to -3.14). However, the mean FIS transiently worsened at 9, 18 and 21 months but eventually returned to stable levels. The mean FACIT and POSI scores also worsened at 36 months, albeit with a limited number of responses (n = 4 and 8, respectively). Most patients reported stable QoL at all time points (range: BPI worst pain 71-82%, BPI FIS 45-78%, FACIT-AD TOI 50-100%, POSI 25-73%). Clinically significant stability, worsening and improvement were seen in 70%/13%/18% of patients at 3 months, 53%/28%/19% at 18 months and 63%/25%/13% at 36 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Transient decreases in QoL that met MCID were seen between patients' worst QoL scores and baseline scores. However, most patients experienced stable QoL relative to pre-treatment levels on long-term follow-up. Further studies are needed to characterise patients at greatest risk for decreased QoL.

Operational Ontology for Oncology (O3): A Professional Society-Based, Multistakeholder, Consensus-Driven Informatics Standard Supporting Clinical and Research Use of Real-World Data From Patients Treated for Cancer

PURPOSE

The ongoing lack of data standardization severely undermines the potential for automated learning from the vast amount of information routinely archived in electronic health records (EHRs), radiation oncology information systems, treatment planning systems, and other cancer care and outcomes databases. We sought to create a standardized ontology for clinical data, social determinants of health, and other radiation oncology concepts and interrelationships.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine's Big Data Science Committee was initiated in July 2019 to explore common ground from the stakeholders' collective experience of issues that typically compromise the formation of large inter- and intra-institutional databases from EHRs. The Big Data Science Committee adopted an iterative, cyclical approach to engaging stakeholders beyond its membership to optimize the integration of diverse perspectives from the community.

RESULTS

We developed the Operational Ontology for Oncology (O3), which identified 42 key elements, 359 attributes, 144 value sets, and 155 relationships ranked in relative importance of clinical significance, likelihood of availability in EHRs, and the ability to modify routine clinical processes to permit aggregation. Recommendations are provided for best use and development of the O3 to 4 constituencies: device manufacturers, centers of clinical care, researchers, and professional societies.

CONCLUSIONS

O3 is designed to extend and interoperate with existing global infrastructure and data science standards. The implementation of these recommendations will lower the barriers for aggregation of information that could be used to create large, representative, findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable data sets to support the scientific objectives of grant programs. The construction of comprehensive "real-world" data sets and application of advanced analytical techniques, including artificial intelligence, holds the potential to revolutionize patient management and improve outcomes by leveraging increased access to information derived from larger, more representative data sets.

Radiotherapy-specific quality indicators at national level: How to make it happen

PURPOSE /OBJECTIVE

To promote best practice and quality of care, the Belgian College of Physicians for Radiotherapy Centers established a set of radiotherapy specific quality indicators for benchmarking on a national level. This paper describes the development, the collected QIs, the observed trends and the departments' evaluation of this initiative.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The Donabedian approach was used, focussing on structural, process and outcome QIs. The criteria for QI selection were availability, required for low-threshold regular collection, and applicability to guidelines and good practice. The QIs were collected yearly and individualized reports were sent out to all RT departments. In 2021, a national survey was held to evaluate the ease of data collection and submission, and the perceived importance and validity of the collected QIs.

RESULTS

18 structural QI and 37 process and outcome parameters (n = 25 patients/pathology/department) were collected. The participation rate amounted to 95 % overall. The analysis gave a national overview of RT activity, resources, clinical practice and reported acute toxicities. The individualized reports allowed departments to benchmark their performance. The 2021 survey indicated that the QIs were overall easy to collect, relevant and reliable. The collection of acute recorded toxicities was deemed a weak point due to inter-observer variabilities and lack of follow-up time.

CONCLUSION

QI collection on a national level is a valuable process in steering quality improvement initiatives. The feasibility and relevance was demonstrated with a high level of participation. The national initiative will continue to evolve as a quality monitoring and improvement tool.

Patient Engagement: an Assessment of Canadian Radiotherapy Programs' Current Practices, Perceived Barriers, and Facilitators

Patient engagement and education have been mandated across Canadian radiation oncology programs (ROP). Guidance documents include the 2014 Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology (CARO) Radiation Therapy Patient Charter, the 2016 Canadian Partnership for Quality Radiotherapy (CPQR) Patient Engagement Guidelines (PEG) for Canadian Radiation Treatment Programs, and Accreditation Canada's 2017 refresh of Cancer Care Standards. Since little is known regarding uptake of these guidance statements, Canadian ROP were surveyed to assess current patient engagement and education practices. An e-survey was sent to Canadian ROP (n = 44). The survey focused on awareness and uptake of the CARO Patient Charter, CPQR PEG, and patient education practices. Survey development was guided by these documents and expert consensus, including CARO's Quality and Standards Patient Education/Engagement working group. Many (71%) responding ROP were familiar with the CARO Patient Charter, while 24% reported use. More than half (53%) of ROP were aware of the CPQR PEG, but approximately third (37%) had previously completed a self-audit. Most (88%) ROP view a pan-Canadian, evidence-based approach to educational materials beneficial and feasible (80%), with the majority (89%) willing to share their best practices across the radiotherapy community. Patient engagement and education are nationally mandated and supported by guidance documents. However, gaps have been identified across ROP for awareness and use of available tools, as well as uptake of their processes critical to quality of care. Understanding current practices will inform CPQR/CARO-supported pan-Canadian initiatives to optimize uptake, including development of CPQR Patient Education Guidance for Canadian Radiation Treatment Programs.

Striving to Fill in Gaps between Clinical Practice and Standards: The Evolution of a Pan-Canadian Approach to Patient-Reported Outcomes Use

Despite the known importance and necessity of the standardized collection and use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), there remain challenges to successful clinical implementation. Facilitated through a quality improvement initiative spearheaded by the Canadian Partnership for Quality Radiotherapy (CPQR), and now guided by the Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology (CARO)’s Quality and Standards Committee, patient representatives and early-adopter radiation treatment programs continue to champion the expansion of PROs initiatives across the country. The current review discusses the evolution of a pan-Canadian approach to PROs use, striving to fill in gaps between clinical practice and guideline recommendations through multi-centre and multidisciplinary collaboration.

Validation of the BC-Brain Patient-Reported Outcome Questionnaire for Patients with Central Nervous System Tumours Treated with Radiotherapy

The BC-brain questionnaire was developed by BC Cancer to detect health problems in patients with central nervous system (CNS) tumours in routine clinical care, treated with radiotherapy (RT), as part of the Prospective Outcomes and Support Initiative (POSI). This study aimed to present and validate the BC-brain questionnaire in patients with brain metastases (BrM) treated with RT. The BC-brain questionnaire was constructed with three subscales: mobility, thinking and CNS symptoms. Patients with BrM from five BC Cancer centres completed this questionnaire at first visit and subsequent follow-up appointments. A total of 365 patients finished the first and 105 finished the follow-up questionnaire. Summary scores of each subscale were calculated. Mobility, thinking and subtotal score showed good reliability with Cronbach’s α > 0.7. Multitrait scaling analysis showed good convergent and divergent validity. The correlations between subscales ranged from 0.262 to 0.456 for baseline and from 0.378 to 0.597 for follow-up. Patients on dexamethasone had worse performance. Patients with a KPS of </=70 had worse performance than patients with a KPS of >70. In general, this BC-brain questionnaire has good reliability and validity, and is proper to use as an option for a patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument to measure the quality of life in BrM patients treated with RT.

[Evaluation of quality of life: Clinical relevance for patient]

The quality of life of patients and its evaluation remains one of the primordial objectives in oncology. Different methods and tools of evaluation of quality of life have been developed with the objective of having a global evaluation, throughout different aspects, be it physical, emotional, psychological or social. The quality of life questionnaires improve and simplify the reevaluation and follow-up of patients during clinical trials. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are an evaluation of the quality of life as experienced by the patients (patient-reported-outcomes [PROs]) and allow for physicians a personalized treatment approach. In radiotherapy, PROMs are a useful tool for the follow-up of patients during or after treatment. The technological advances, notably in data collecting, but also in their integration and treatment with regard to artificial intelligence will allow integrating these evaluation tools in the management of patients in oncology.