8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Survey on use of palliative radiotherapy in hospice care.

      Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology
      Attitude of Health Personnel, Bone Neoplasms, radiotherapy, secondary, Health Care Surveys, Health Services Accessibility, Hospice Care, Humans, Neoplasms, Palliative Care, utilization, Quality of Life, Questionnaires, Radiation Oncology, Radiotherapy, economics, methods, Terminal Care

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      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

          Radiation oncologists and hospice professionals both provide end-of-life care for oncology patients, and little has been written about the interface between these two groups of specialists. Hospice professionals were surveyed to assess the perceived need for palliative radiotherapy in the hospice setting, to investigate factors that limit the access of hospice patients to radiotherapy, and to suggest areas of future collaboration on education, research, and patient advocacy. Members of the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization (NHPCO) and American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology jointly authored a questionnaire to investigate the beliefs of hospice professionals toward the use of radiotherapy for oncology patients in hospice. The questionnaire was distributed to all NHPCO member institutions, and the results were compiled and statistically analyzed. Four hundred eighty of more than 1,800 surveyed facilities responded to the questionnaire. The findings suggest that the majority of hospice professionals feel that radiotherapy is important in palliative oncology and that radiotherapy is widely available in the United States. Yet less than 3% on average of hospice patients served by hospices responding to the survey actually received radiotherapy in 2002. The most common barriers to radiotherapy in hospice care include radiotherapy expense, transportation difficulties, short life expectancy, and educational deficiencies between the specialties. Multiple barriers act to limit the use of palliative radiotherapy in hospice care. Finding ways to surmount these obstacles will provide opportunity for improvement in the end-of-life care of cancer patients.

          Related collections

          Most cited references16

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

          Meta-analysis of dose-fractionation radiotherapy trials for the palliation of painful bone metastases.

          To compare pain relief among various dose-fractionation schedules of localized radiotherapy (RT) in the treatment of painful bone metastases. A systematic search for randomized trials of localized RT on bone metastases using different dose fractionations was performed using Medline (1966 to February 2001) and other sources. The primary outcomes of interest were complete and overall pain relief. The studies were divided into three groups: comparisons of doses given as a single fraction, single vs. multiple fractions, and comparisons of doses given as multiple fractions. The complete and overall pain responses for studies comparing single vs. multiple fractions were pooled. Exploratory analyses of the dose-response relationship, using the biologic effective dose (alpha/beta = 10), were performed using results from all three groups of trials. Two trials comparing single vs. single, eight trials comparing single vs. multiple, and six trials comparing multiple vs. multiple fractions were included. The complete and overall response rates from studies comparing single-fraction RT (median 8 Gy, range 8-10 Gy) against multifraction RT (median 20 Gy in 5 fractions, range 20 Gy in 5 fractions to 30 Gy in 10 fractions) were homogeneous and allowed pooling of data. Of 3260 randomized patients in seven studies, 539 (33.4%) of 1613 and 523 (32.3%) of 1618 patients achieved a complete response after single and multifraction RT, respectively, giving a risk ratio of 1.03 (95% confidence interval 0.94-1.14; p = 0.5). The overall response rate was in favor of single-fraction RT (1011 [62.1%] of 1629) compared with multifraction (958 [58.7%] of 1631; risk ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 1.00-1.11, p = 0.04), reaching statistical significance. However, when the analysis was restricted to evaluated patients alone, the overall response rates were similar for single fraction and multifraction RT, at 1011 (72.7%) of 1391 and 958 (72.5%) of 1321, respectively (risk ratio 1.00; p = 0.9). Exploratory analyses by biologic effective dose did not reveal any dose-response relationship among the fractionation schedules used (single 8 Gy to 40 Gy in 15 fractions). Of the other results and observations reported in the trials, only the re-irradiation rates were consistently different between the treatment arms (more frequent re-irradiation in lower dose arms among trials reporting re-irradiation rates). Meta-analysis of reported randomized trials shows no significant difference in complete and overall pain relief between single and multifraction palliative RT for bone metastases. No dose-response relationship could be detected by including data from the multifraction vs. multifraction trials. Additional data are needed to evaluate the role of re-irradiation and the impact of RT on other treatment end points such as quality of life.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            External beam radiotherapy of choroidal metastases--final results of a prospective study of the German Cancer Society (ARO 95-08).

            In 1994 a prospective study of the 'Arbeitsgemeinschaft Radiologische Onkologie' of the German Cancer Society was initiated to examine the results of a standardized radiation therapy for choroidal metastases with 40 Gy. Recommendations in the literature vary from 21 to 50 Gy of total dose and from 2 to 5 Gy per single fraction. To date, no larger series treated with both a standardized technique and dose has been reported. Between 1994 and 1998, 56 patients were enrolled and 50 patients with 65 involved eyes were available for analysis. Thirty-five patients (70%) had unilateral and 15 patients (30%) had bilateral choroidal metastases. Fifty eyes (77%) were symptomatic and 15 eyes (23%) were asymptomatic. Thirty-one patients (62%) had breast cancer and 13 patients (26%) lung cancer as the primary tumor. Patients were treated with 40 Gy in 20 fractions with bilateral asymmetric fields for bilateral or a unilateral field for unilateral choroidal metastasis. Seventeen patients had additional chemotherapy after radiotherapy for general tumor progression. With a median follow-up of 5.8 months (1-44 months) 41 out of 50 patients were dead. The median survival of all patients was 7 months and for patients with breast cancer 10 months. Of the 50 symptomatic eyes visual acuity increased for two or more lines in 36% (18/50), was stabilized in 50% (25/50 eyes), and decreased in 14% (7/50). No patient with asymptomatic metastasis (n = 15 eyes) developed ocular symptoms during follow-up. No patient with unilateral tumor and unilateral irradiation developed contralateral metastasis. Severe side effects, possibly related to tumor progression, occurred in three eyes (5%). Radiation therapy with 40 Gy is an effective and safe palliative treatment for symptomatic and asymptomatic choroidal metastases to preserve vision in the majority of the patients. A unilateral field for unilateral metastasis seems to be sufficient to prevent contralateral disease. Side effects of radiotherapy are acceptable: 50% of patients developed a mild skin erythema and conjunctivitis (RTOG I). Late side effects were seen in three eyes (5%). Copyright 2002 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Single- versus multiple-fraction radiotherapy in patients with painful bone metastases: cost-utility analysis based on a randomized trial.

              Radiotherapy is an effective palliative treatment for cancer patients with painful bone metastases. Although single- and multiple-fraction radiotherapy are thought to provide equal palliation, which treatment schedule provides better value for the money is unknown. We compared quality-adjusted life expectancy (the overall valuation of the health of the patients) and societal costs for patients receiving either single- or multiple-fraction radiotherapy. A societal cost-utility analysis was performed on a Dutch randomized, controlled trial of 1157 patients with painful bone metastases that compared pain responses and quality of life from a single-fraction treatment schedule of 8 Gy with a treatment schedule of six fractions of 4 Gy each. The societal values of life expectancies were assessed with the EuroQol classification system (EQ-5D) questionnaire. A subset of 166 patients also answered additional questionnaires to estimate nonradiotherapy and nonmedical costs. Statistical tests were two-sided. Comparing the single- and multiple-fraction radiotherapy schedules, no differences were found in life expectancy (43.0 versus 40.4 weeks, P =.20) or quality-adjusted life expectancy (17.7 versus 16.0 weeks, P =.21). The estimated cost of radiotherapy, including retreatments and nonmedical costs, was statistically significantly lower for the single-fraction schedule than for the multiple-fraction schedule ($2438 versus $3311, difference = $873, 95% confidence interval [CI] on the difference = $449 to $1297; P<.001). The estimated difference in total societal costs was larger, also in favor of the single-fraction schedule, but it was not statistically significant ($4700 versus $6453, difference = $1753, 95% CI on the difference = -$99 to $3604; P =.06). For willingness-to-pay between $5000 and $40 000 per quality-adjusted life year, the single-fraction schedule was statistically significantly more cost-effective than the multiple-fraction schedule (P< or =.05). Compared with multiple-fraction radiotherapy, single-fraction radiotherapy provides equal palliation and quality of life and has lower medical and societal costs, at least in The Netherlands. Therefore, single-fraction radiotherapy should be considered as the palliative treatment of choice for cancer patients with painful bone metastases.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Comments

                Comment on this article