Guidelines for treatment naming in radiation oncology.

Safety concerns may arise from a lack of standardization and ambiguity during the treatment planning and delivery process in radiation therapy. A standardized target and organ-at-risk naming convention in radiation therapy was developed by a task force comprised of several Radiation Oncology Societies. We present a nested-survey approach in a community setting to determine the methodology for radiation oncology departments to standardize their practice. Our Institution's continuous quality improvement (CQI) committee recognized that, due to growth from one to three centers, significant variability existed within plan parameters specific to patients' treatment. A multidiscipline, multiclinical site consortium was established to create a guideline for standard naming. Input was gathered using anonymous, electronic surveys from physicians, physicists, dosimetrists, chief therapists, and nurse managers. Surveys consisted of several primary areas of interest: anatomical sites, course naming, treatment plan naming, and treatment field naming. Additional concepts included capitalization, specification of laterality, course naming in the event of multiple sites being treated within the same course of treatment, primary versus boost planning, the use of bolus, revisions for plans, image-guidance field naming, forbidden characters, and standard units for commonly used physical quantities in radiation oncology practice. Guidelines for standard treatment naming were developed that could be readily adopted. This multidisciplinary study provides a clear, straightforward, and easily implemented protocol for the radiotherapy treatment process. Standard nomenclature facilitates the safe means of communication between team members in radiation oncology. The guidelines presented in this work serve as a model for radiation oncology clinics to standardize their practices.

Hepatectomy after hepatic arterial therapy with either yttrium-90 or drug-eluting bead chemotherapy: is it safe?

BACKGROUND: The use of hepatic arterial therapy (HAT) with either yttrium-90 or drug-eluting bead therapy for initially unresectable hepatic malignancies has risen significantly. The safety of hepatic resection after hepatic arterial therapy (HAT) is not established. OBJECTIVE: The present study evaluates the safety profile for hepatic resection after HAT. METHODS: We identified 840 patients undergoing hepatectomy for primary or metastatic lesions. Forty patients underwent HAT before hepatectomy (pre-HAT). A 1:4 case-matched analysis compared three groups: (i) pre-HAT and pre-operative chemotherapy (n=40); (ii) pre-operative chemotherapy (n=160); and (iii) no pre-operative therapy (n=640). Controls were matched for age, resection type, maximal tumour size and magnitude of resection. Morbidity and mortality among groups were compared using a graded complication scale. RESULTS: There were no differences in post-operative complications, grade of complication or liver-specific complications among the groups. A proportional hazards model for all patients did not demonstrate any association between increased complications and either pre-HAT or pre-operative chemotherapy when compared with patients without pre-operative therapy (P=0.7). CONCLUSIONS: Pre-HAT demonstrated similar morbidity, liver-specific morbidity and intra-operative complications when compared with patients undergoing pre-operative chemotherapy alone or without pre-operative chemotherapy. These results suggest that pre-HAT is safe and should not preclude hepatectomy in carefully selected patients.

Is selective internal radioembolization safe and effective for patients with inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma and venous thrombosis?

BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to examine the safety and efficacy of selective internal radioembolization (SIR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with portal vein or caval thrombosis (VT), or both. Recent reports have demonstrated that SIR is safe for patients with HCC, but the impact on efficacy of venous thrombosis is unknown. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective single-arm study of the use of Therasphere in patients with unresectable HCC enrolled from January 2004 to June 2007. Patients were categorized into three groups based on VT status and therapy. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients were enrolled: 20 patients without VT who received SIR, 15 patients with VT who were treated, and 17 patients (10 with VT) who were not treated because of preprocedure screening failure. Fifty-eight treatments were administered, with a median of two treatments per patient (range of one to three treatments). Child's score was different between groups. Of the VT patients treated, 67% had portal VT, 7% had cava VT, and 26% had both. There were no treatment-related deaths. There was no difference in complications among groups (p = 0.34). Treated patients without thrombosis had a median overall survival of 13.9 months versus 2.7 months for those treated with thrombosis and 5.2 months for the untreated group given best supportive care only (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: SIR is safe in patients with HCC. Although SIR can be delivered with minimal morbidity, there might be no benefit for patients with VT. Continued emphasis on multimodality therapy in this population is needed to improve survival.