ABSTRACT
Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has been increasingly used for the ablation of liver tumours. CyberKnife and proton beam therapy (PBT) are two advanced treatment technologies suitable to deliver SBRT with high dose conformity and steep dose gradients. However, there is very limited data comparing the dosimetric characteristics of CyberKnife to PBT for liver SBRT. PBT and CyberKnife plans were retrospectively generated using 4DCT datasets of ten patients who were previously treated for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC, N = 5) and liver metastasis (N = 5). Dose volume histogram data was assessed and compared against selected criteria; given a dose prescription of 54 Gy in 3 fractions for liver metastases and 45 Gy in 3 fractions for HCC, with previously published consensus-based normal tissue dose constraints. Comparison of evaluation parameters showed a statistically significant difference for target volume coverage and liver, lungs and spinal cord (p < 0.05) dose, while chest wall and skin did not indicate a significant difference between the two modalities. A number of optimal normal tissue constraints was violated by both the CyberKnife and proton plans for the same patients due to proximity of tumour to chest wall. PBT resulted in greater organ sparing, the extent of which was mainly dependent on tumour location. Tumours located on the liver periphery experienced the largest increase in organ sparing. Organ sparing for CyberKnife was comparable with PBT for small target volumes.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Referral management centres (RMC) for elective referrals are designed to facilitate the primary to secondary care referral path, by improving quality of referrals and easing pressures on finite secondary care services, without inadvertently compromising patient care.This study aimed to evaluate whether the introduction of a RMC which includes triage and feedback improved the quality of elective outpatient referral letters. METHODS: Retrospective, time-series, cross-sectional review involving 47 general practices in one primary care trust (PCT) in South-East England. Comparison of a random sample of referral letters at baseline (n = 301) and after seven months of referral management (n = 280). Letters were assessed for inclusion of four core pieces of information which are used locally to monitor referral quality (blood pressure, body mass index, past medical history, medication history) and against research-based quality criteria for referral letters (provision of clinical information and clarity of reason for referral). RESULTS: Following introduction of the RMC, the proportion of letters containing each of the core items increased compared to baseline. Statistically significant increases in the recording of 'past medical history' (from 71% to 84%, p < 0.001) and 'medication history' (78% to 87%, p = 0.006) were observed. Forty four percent of letters met the research-based quality criteria at baseline but there was no significant change in quality of referral letters judged on these criteria across the two time periods. CONCLUSION: Introduction of RMC has improved the inclusion of past medical history and medication history in referral letters, but not other measures of quality. In approximately half of letters there remains room for further improvement.
