Development and testing of a cancer appetite and symptom questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: Poor appetite and weight loss are common in patients with cancer, contributing to an increase in morbidity and mortality. Early identification of those at greatest risk is problematic. The Council on Nutrition Appetite Questionnaire (CNAQ) is short and easy to use, although it is not specific to cancer populations. The present study aimed to build on the CNAQ to develop a cancer appetite and symptom questionnaire (CASQ) for predicting weight loss in patients with cancer. METHODS: The content validity of the CNAQ was assessed by an expert panel (n = 41) using the content validity index (CVI). The resulting CASQ was tested for reliability among patients receiving radiotherapy (n = 34). Predictive validity of the CASQ was determined in patients with lung or upper gastrointestinal cancer (n = 185), comparing CASQ scores (possible range 0-48) recorded at baseline with percentage weight change after 12 weeks. RESULTS: In all but one CNAQ item, the CVI was above the minimum level of agreement (>0.70). Comments from expert panel members led to minor modifications and the introduction of new items resulting in the 12-item CASQ. The intraclass correlation coefficient of the CASQ was 0.80 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.68-0.92] and the difference between total scores at two time points was -0.20 (95% CI = -1.21 to 0.80). The optimum cut-off point of the instrument to predict >10% weight loss was 29/30 (area under curve = 0.75; sensitivity 71%, specificity 66%, positive predictive value 19%, negative predictive value 95%) [Correction added on 30 April 2012, after first online publication: in the preceding sentence, <10% was corrected to >10%]. CONCLUSIONS: The CASQ can predict weight loss among patients with lung and upper gastrointestinal cancer. Acknowledgment of the low positive predictive value is needed if the instrument is to be used within clinical practice.

Randomised, placebo controlled trial of nebulised furosemide for breathlessness in patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Breathlessness is a common and difficult symptom to treat in patients with cancer. Case reports suggest that nebulised furosemide can relieve breathlessness in such patients but few data are available. METHOD: Patients with primary or secondary lung cancer and a Dyspnoea Exertion Scale score of >or=3 were recruited. Following familiarisation, patients received either nebulised furosemide 40 mg or nebulised 0.9% saline under double blind conditions or no treatment, in random order on 3 consecutive days. Patients undertook number reading and arm exercise tests to assess breathlessness and its impact, and were asked to report subjective benefit and any preference between nebulised treatments. RESULTS: 15 patients took part. There were no differences between furosemide, saline and no treatment in the outcomes of the number reading test (eg, mean number read per breath was 6.7, 6.4 and 6.7, respectively) or arm exercise test (eg, mean Borg score at maximum equivalent workload was 2.3, 2.5 and 2.7, respectively). No adverse effects were reported, although there was a small fall in forced expiratory volume in 1 s and forced vital capacity following saline. Six patients considered that their breathlessness improved with nebulised treatment, three preferring saline, one furosemide and two reporting they were of equal benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings do not support a beneficial effect from nebulised furosemide in patients with cancer related breathlessness. Listed on the National Research Register (N0170118249) and the UK Clinical Research Network Portfolio Database (1428).

Cost-minimization analysis: radiation treatment with and without a multi-leaf collimator.

PURPOSE: To compare the costs of radiation treatment on a linear accelerator with a multileaf collimator (MLC) versus treatment on a linear accelerator without an MLC. The study was designed to determine whether the increased throughput of fields and decreased block cutting made the MLC cost effective from an institutional perspective. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The number of fields, basic treatment equivalent, equivalent simple treatment visits, and blocks were prospectively collected for the four linear accelerators. Building, equipment, staffing, and service costs were all obtained in 1999 Australian dollars from the manufacturers and hospital department heads. The Joint Radiation Oncology Centre at Westmead and Nepean Hospitals, which are Australian public hospitals, runs as one unit, with the same staff, and currently operates five linear accelerators. Currently, four of the linear accelerators are used for general radiotherapy, operating for exactly the same hours; the final machine operates more limited hours and is used for specialized radiotherapy techniques and emergency cases. RESULTS: The two machines with MLCs, on average, treated 5,169 fields each, while the two machines without MLCs treated 4,543 fields in a 3-month period, a 12% increase in throughput. The two non-MLC machines required 155 premounted trays (PMTs) in total, while the MLC machines required 17 PMTs. Linear accelerators with MLCs were demonstrably more efficient, and while their capital costs were higher, the reduction in labor costs associated with block cutting and, particularly the increased throughput, more than offset these initial costs. The total cost of a radiation field with an MLC was found to be $A101.69 compared to $A106.98 without an MLC. A multiway sensitivity analysis showed the results to be robust. The worst-case scenario was a departmental savings of $A168,000 per year; the best-case scenario was a savings of $A680,000 per year. CONCLUSION: Under the conditions pertaining to the radiation oncology department in this group of hospitals, and in similar departments, the use of an MLC can be justified.

Basic Treatment Equivalent (BTE): a new measure of linear accelerator workload.

The measurement of linear accelerator workload in radiation oncology departments is usually based on the number of fields treated per unit time. However, this approach ignores variations in treatment complexity. This prospective study, was designed to measure treatment workload directly, taking into account the variations in complexity of different treatment techniques. From this, a model was to be developed, which would be simple to apply and reproducible, both within and between radiation oncology departments in Australasia. It would provide a realistic basis for assessing treatment costs and enable the comparison of patient throughput between departments. This paper describes the derivation of the model. Over a 4-week period in the Radiation Oncology Department of Westmead Hospital, all fractions of radiotherapy were timed. The data collected included: tumour site; treatment intent; number of fields; number of wedges, compensators and shielding blocks; fraction number; patient age; performance status; and need for general anaesthesia. Multivariate modelling was performed to identify factors that significantly affected fraction duration, so that these could be used to develop a model of resource utilization. The durations of 2371 fractions were measured in 219 patients. Seventy-five per cent of fractions were given with radical intent. The factors found to influence fraction duration on multivariate modelling were: number of fields; number of shielding blocks; first treatment fraction; need for anaesthesia; and performance status. The number of wedges and compensators were also found to be significant but were not included in the model in order to maintain simplicity. This was felt to be necessary if the model is to be applied to the widest possible variety of machines. A model of resources utilization called 'Basic Treatment Equivalent' (BTE) was derived, which incorporated these factors. When tested at Westmead Hospital, this model accurately reflected the predicted BTE value over a further 1-week study period. This model of linear accelerator use, which incorporates complexity has been derived and evaluated in one radiation oncology department. This requires further prospective testing before its widespread use. The model appears to reflect linear accelerator workload better than previous measures. An Australasian study to validate the model further will be undertaken. If adopted, this model has implications for comparative workload reports, diagnostic-related groups, waiting list calculations, and patient scheduling.

An assessment of the Basic Treatment Equivalent (BTE) model as measure of radiotherapy workload.

Current methods of linear accelerator workload analysis in radiation oncology use patients per hour or fields per hour as the basic unit of measurement but fail to take account of the variations in complexity of different treatment techniques. The Basic Treatment Equivalent (BTE) model of productivity assessment has been derived as a potentially better measure of workload because it includes a complexity factor. This model has now been tested prospectively in ten radiation oncology departments in New South Wales and compared with the numbers of fields and patients per hour. Over a 4-week period there were 50,115 fields administrated in 18,466 fractions in 441 hours of machine time in ten radiation oncology departments. The average productivity results for all departments were 4.18 patients, 11.25 fields and 5.66 BTE per hour. When compared with patients per hour and fields per hour, there was less variability of BTE per patient per hour in all departments, suggesting that most departments deliver radiation therapy in a consistent way, which is not appropriately reflected in the numbers of fields or patients per hour. Departments that were able to treat a high number of patients or fields per hour were able to do so because they used less complicated techniques or had a less complicated casemix of patients. The BTE model allows for variations in the complexity of treatment techniques, is simple to apply, and is reproducible under different conditions in different departments. Following revision of the model, an Australasian study is now proposed. The confirmation of our findings will have significant implications for resource utilization comparisons, patient time allocations, waiting list estimates and cost-benefit analysis.

The equivalent simple treatment visit (ESTV) model does not measure radiation oncology productivity under Australian conditions.

The measurement of workload in radiation oncology departments has been based on the number of patients treated per linear accelerator per unit time, or on the number of fields treated per linear accelerator per unit time. The Equivalent Simple Treatment Visit (ESTV) model was proposed to allow for the incorporation of a factor for complexity of treatment techniques, to permit more detailed comparisons than those offered by previous measures. This prospective study was designed to assess the suitability of the ESTV model as a measure of radiation oncology productivity within an Australian radiation oncology department. A calculated ESTV value was assigned to all treatment fractions delivered in our department over a 4-week period. Treatment fractions were then timed using a stopwatch, and average treatment times for simple, intermediate and complex techniques were calculated and analysed by multiple t-tests for statistical significance. Average treatment times were 8.1 minutes (standard deviation (SD) = 4.2) for 'simple' techniques, 14.1 minutes (SD = 4.4) for 'intermediate' techniques, and 11.8 minutes (SD = 5.6) for 'complex' techniques. These times were significantly different from each other (P < 0.05). Although ESTV attempts to allow for the incorporation of a complexity factor into productivity reporting, a revision of the model is necessary, given the inconsistency by which a 'complex' technique takes significantly less time than an 'intermediate' technique.

Radiation therapy: are we getting value for money?

The aim of this study was to examine the long term cost effectiveness of radiotherapy (RT) in the treatment of cancer at the Department of Radiation Oncology, Westmead Hospital, from its inception in 1980 to December 1993. A Kaplan-Meier survival curve was constructed for all patients treated by RT during the study period. The area under this curve represented the average survival. The total number of life years was calculated by multiplying the number of patients by the average survival. Costing for one RT treatment field had previously been derived. The cost included capital costs, building costs and overheads as well as labour, goods and services, and operating costs. The cost per field was multiplied by the total number of fields given each year and the yearly total summed to give the total cost. The total cost was divided by the number of life years to give a cost per life year. An overall percentage survival gain was estimated from departmental results and the literature. Cost per life year gained (LYG) was derived by dividing the cost per life year by the percentage survival gain. Sensitivity analysis was performed with best- and worst-case survival scenarios, and high and low cost per field estimates. A total of 9868 patients were treated by radiotherapy between January 1980 and December 1993. Median follow-up was 4.2 years. Median survival was 2 years. The 5- and 10-year survival rates were 35% and 22%, respectively. The area under the survival curve (the average survival) was 4.75 years. The total number of life years of survival was thus 4.75 x 9868 = 46,873. In 1993, the cost per field was $71.52 (Australian dollars). The total number of fields treated in the study period was 758,097. Hence, the total cost in 1993 dollars was $54,219,097. The survival gain (excluding skin cancer) with RT was 16.1% and the cost/LYG was $7186. Sensitivity analysis of best and worst case scenarios gave costs/LYG of $3920 and $15,632 respectively. Efficient resource allocation can be aided by examining the relative cost-effectiveness of different prevention and treatment strategies. RT is shown to have a lower cost/LYG than other accepted treatments in current practice. Other major treatment modalities should be subjected to the same scrutiny of cost effectiveness as has been applied to RT.