12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      An analysis of appropriate delivery of postoperative radiation therapy for endometrial cancer using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method: Executive summary

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          To summarize the results of American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO)’s analysis of appropriate delivery of postoperative radiation therapy (RT) for endometrial cancer using the RAND/University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Method, outline areas of convergence and divergence with the 2014 ASTRO endometrial Guideline, and highlight where this analysis provides new information or perspective.

          Methods and materials

          The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to combine available evidence with expert opinion. A comprehensive literature review was conducted and a multidisciplinary panel rated the appropriateness of RT options for different clinical scenarios. Treatments were categorized by the median rating as Appropriate, Uncertain, or Inappropriate.

          Results

          The ASTRO endometrial Guideline and this analysis using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method did not recommend adjuvant RT for early-stage, low-risk endometrioid cancers and largely agree regarding use of vaginal brachytherapy for low-intermediate and high-intermediate risk patients. For more advanced endometrioid cancer, chemotherapy with RT is supported by both documents. The Guideline and the RAND/UCLA analysis diverged regarding use of pelvic radiation. For stages II and III, this analysis rated external beam RT plus vaginal brachytherapy Appropriate, whereas the Guideline preferred external beam alone. In addition, this analysis offers insight on the role of histology, extent of nodal dissection, and para-aortic nodal irradiation; the use of intensity modulated RT; and management of stage IVA.

          Conclusions

          This analysis based on the RAND/UCLA Method shows significant agreement with the 2014 endometrial Guideline. Areas of divergence, often in scenarios with low-level evidence, included use of external beam RT plus vaginal brachytherapy in stages II and III and external beam RT alone in early-stage patients. Furthermore, the analysis explores other important questions regarding management of this disease site.

          Related collections

          Most cited references8

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The role of postoperative radiation therapy for endometrial cancer: Executive summary of an American Society for Radiation Oncology evidence-based guideline.

          To present evidence-based guidelines for adjuvant radiation in the treatment of endometrial cancer.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Rare uterine cancers.

            The most common malignant tumour of the uterus is endometrioid endometrial cancer. However, many less common malignant diseases also develop in the uterus, including both carcinomas and sarcomas. Most notable of these tumours are papillary serous carcinomas, clear-cell carcinomas, carcinosarcomas, stromal sarcomas, and leiomyosarcomas. These less common cancers can be aggressive, and account for a greatly disproportionate amount of deaths from uterine cancers. Because they are uncommon, physicians will usually have seen only a few cases, and randomised data to guide treatment often do not exist. This review summarises the epidemiology, clinical characteristics, and prognoses of the less common malignant diseases of the uterus, and presents the information available to guide the clinician about treatment options.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Variations by specialty in physician ratings of the appropriateness and necessity of indications for procedures.

              The authors compare the appropriateness ratings and mutual influence of panelists from different specialties rating a comprehensive set of indications for six surgical procedures. Nine-member panels rated each procedure: abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery, carotid endarterectomy, cataract surgery, coronary angiography, and coronary artery bypass graft surgery/percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (common panel). Panelists individually rated the appropriateness of indications at home and then discussed and re-rated the indications during a 2-day meeting. Subsequently, they rated the necessity of those indications scored by the group as appropriate. There were 45 panelists, including specialists (either performers of the procedure or members of a related specialty) and primary care providers, all drawn from nominations by their respective specialty societies. Main outcome measures included: individual panelists' mean ratings over all indications, mean change and conformity scores between rounds of ratings, and the percentage of audited actual procedures rated appropriate or necessary. Performers had the highest mean ratings, followed by physicians in related specialties, trailed by primary care providers. One fifth of all actual procedures were for indications rated appropriate by performers and less than appropriate by primary care providers. At the panel meetings, primary care providers and related specialists showed no greater tendency to be influenced by other panelists than did performers. Multispecialty panels provide more divergent viewpoints than panels composed entirely of performers. This divergence means that fewer actual procedures are deemed performed for appropriate or necessary indications.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Adv Radiat Oncol
                Adv Radiat Oncol
                Advances in Radiation Oncology
                Elsevier
                2452-1094
                17 December 2015
                Jan-Mar 2016
                17 December 2015
                : 1
                : 1
                : 26-34
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, North Carolina
                [b ]Department of Radiation Oncology, UPMC Cancer Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
                [c ]Arizona Oncology Services, Scottsdale, Arizona
                [d ]Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
                [e ]Department of Radiation Oncology, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
                [f ]Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
                [g ]Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri
                [h ]Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California, San Diego, California
                [i ]American Society for Radiation Oncology, Fairfax, Virginia
                [j ]Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
                [k ]Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami, Miami, Florida
                [l ]Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, California
                Author notes
                []Corresponding author. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina, Campus Box 7512, Chapel Hill, NC 27599. ellen_jones@ 123456med.unc.edu
                Article
                S2452-1094(15)00002-0
                10.1016/j.adro.2015.10.001
                5506720
                7175d07e-b4a2-4cd3-ae6a-8c8a01fb0d76
                © 2016 The Authors on behalf of the American Society for Radiation Oncology

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                : 12 November 2015
                : 12 November 2015
                Categories
                Scientific Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article