Austrian breast cancer patterns-of-care studies PCS93 and PCS01 versus PCS85 to identify changes in national practice.

PURPOSE: To determine the patterns of evaluation and treatment in Austrian breast cancer patients treated with surgery and radiotherapy in 1993 (PCS93) and 2001 (PCS01), and to compare these with the results of PCS85. MATERIAL AND METHODS: According to the evaluation process of the Austrian PCS85, ten randomly selected patient charts from every Austrian radiotherapy center from 1993 (n=100) as well as 2001 (n=120) were reviewed. The work-up included surgical and (histo)pathologic information, systemic therapy and detailed information on radiation therapy. RESULTS: Availability of histopathologic core data improved distinctly between 1985 and 2001. In 1985, treatment planning included fluoroscopic simulation and/or computed tomography in 55% of the cases as compared to 100% in 2001. The technical equipment in Austria changed distinctly. In 2001, 84% of the breast/chest wall fields and all regional node fields (+/- electrons) were treated by photons. Radiotherapy of the supraclavicular (77% vs. 28%), internal mammary (62% vs. 7.5%) and axillary nodes (51% vs. 5%) diminished from 1985 to 2001. A tumor bed boost was given in 34% of the patients in 1985 compared to 73% in 2001. The use of wedges (21% vs. 97%) and the number of port films (26% vs. 90%) increased substantially. CONCLUSION: Comparing both recent Austrian Patterns-of-Care surveys to the results obtained in 1985, an obvious increase in the quality level of histopathologic reporting as well as radiation treatment planning and delivery was found.

Epidemiological aspects of hadron therapy: a prospective nationwide study of the Austrian project MedAustron and the Austrian Society of Radiooncology (OEGRO).

BACKGROUND: The planned MedAustron hadron therapy facility is designed to compare proton and carbon ion beam therapy under the same technical conditions. For the calculation of the number of potential patients for hadron therapy so far, only epidemiological estimations on cancer incidence are available without inclusion of the percentage of patients routinely referred to conventional radiotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nationwide prospective survey to collect disease and treatment related data on patients receiving conventional radiotherapy at all 12 treatment facilities. Epidemiological cancer incidence (Statistic Austria 1999) were correlated with the number of patients receiving conventional radiotherapy. Based on published clinical and experimental results on proton and carbon ion therapy, a calculation of patient's subgroups suitable for hadron therapy was performed at five European University hospitals involved in the HICAT, CNAO, ETOILE and MEDAustron project. Using the mean values of the University specific percentages per tumour site, the number of potential patients was estimated. RESULTS: In Austria, a total of 3783 patients started radiotherapy during the study period of 3 months resulting in an approximated number of 15132 patients per year. The number of potential patients was estimated to 2044 per year, representing 5.6% of all newly diagnosed cancer patients and 13.5% of all irradiated cancer patients. CONCLUSION: There is a clear place for a hadron therapy facility in Austria, based on pattern of care in radiotherapy, cancer incidence and indications.

The med AUSTRON/OGRO patterns of care study on radiotherapy indications in Austria.

PURPOSE: In Austria a national survey was conducted by Med AUSTRON/Osterreichische Gesellschaft for Radio--Onkologie, Radiobiologie und Medizinische Radiophysik (OGRO) in order to estimate the indications, patient numbers and radiotherapy treatment planning procedures and performances at all Austrian radiotherapy institutes. Results were correlated with incidence rates (Austrian cancer registry) to determine patterns of radiotherapy practice in Austria. MATERIAL AND METHODS: At 12 radiotherapy departments of Austria data of all patients receiving irradiation within a 3 months (2002/2003) period were assessed. On the basis of a questionnaire number of treated patients, indications, and parameters of disease (stage, histology) and treatment modalities were evaluated. Results were analysed with regard to different tumour groups, according to academic and non academic hospitals, and correlated with epidemiological data on cancer incidence. RESULTS: In total, 3783 patients were registered within this period. According to the different tumour entities percentages of patients receiving radiotherapy within initial treatment varied from 3% to 90 % (e.g. brain tumours: 77%, breast cancer: 90%, prostate cancer: 35%). The most frequent indications to radiotherapy per radiotherapy department were breast cancer (range 22%-35%; mean 26%), urological tumours (range 6%-27%; mean 12%) and bone metastases (mean 10%, range 3%-17%). CONCLUSION: In Austria breast cancer, urological tumours and bone metastases are representing the most common indications to radiotherapy. Among the different departments variations in indications to radiotherapy were observed. Our study is the first evaluation of radiotherapeutic management in Austria.