Alysa Fairchild

Background. Patients with malignant or benign central nervous system (CNS) tumours are evaluated for suitability of treatment modality based on multiple clinical and tumour-related factors. To obtain multidisciplinary consensus, a patient’s file and imaging are commonly reviewed by a tumour board (TB). There are three relevant weekly TB venues at our institute—gamma knife stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) intake rounds, CNS rounds, and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) rounds—which are attended by non-overlapping clinician teams. We explored the clinical parameters prompting multiple TB reviews in patients with complex CNS tumours. Methods. Data were retrospectively obtained from electronic medical records. Patients referred for discussion at SRS rounds (November 2017–June 2020) were cross-referenced with those reviewed in CNS rounds and SBRT rounds. The cohort of interest included patients who underwent review at more than one TB for the same indication. Patient, tumour, and treatment factors were abstracted, and descriptive statistics were calculated. A sub-cohort of patients with pre-plans created for both SRS and conventionally fractionated external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) was identified. Dosimetric data were analyzed. Results. Of 1091 patients, 87 (8.0%) were discussed at more than one TB. 59/87 (67.8%) patients were reviewed at two TBs pertaining to the same CNS lesion and comprised the study cohort. The most common tumour type was meningioma (20/59), and the most common reason for multiple discussions was proximity to optic structures (19/59). After TB discussions, 25/59 patients were seen in consultation by one specialist, 29/59 by two, and 5/59 by none. Overall, the final treatment decisions were conventional EBRT in 21/59; SRS in 18/59; surveillance in 12/59; surgery in 3/59; systemic therapy in 3/59; proton referral in 1/59; and SBRT in 1/59. A total of 20/59 patients were treated with palliative intent. Among all patients who ultimately received radiotherapy, median interval between the first TB discussion and the first RT treatment was 56 days (IQR 7.5–65.5 d). The pre-plan sub-cohort consisted of four patients, all of whom were ultimately treated with conventional EBRT. Conclusions. Evidence to support optimal treatment for some complex CNS tumours can be limited. Multiple radiotherapy modalities may be equally favourable (or unfavourable) options. Proximity to the optic apparatus and previous CNS irradiation are common reasons for clinical equipoise. Tumour board review is an essential tool in formulating a multidisciplinary care plan; however, attention should be paid to ensuring that subsequent consultations and treatment initiation are not unduly delayed.

(1) Background: Prognostication in patients with cancer receiving palliative radiotherapy remains a challenge. To improve the process, we aim to identify prognostic factors in this population from the literature and offer evidence-based recommendations on prognostication in patients undergoing palliative radiotherapy for non-curable or advanced cancers. (2) Methods: A systematic review was performed on the medical literature from 2005 to 2023 to extract papers on the prognosis of palliative radiotherapy patients with advanced cancer. The initial selection was performed by at least two authors to determine study relevance to the target area. Studies were then classified based on type and evidence quality to determine final recommendations. (3) Results: The literature search returned 57 papers to be evaluated. Clinical and biological prognostic factors were identified from these papers to improve clinical decision making or construct prognostic models. Twenty prognostic models were identified for clinical use. There is moderate evidence supporting (i) evidence-based factors (patient, clinical, disease, and lab) in guiding decision making around palliative radiation; (ii) that certain biological factors are of importance; (iii) prognostication models in patients with advanced cancer; and that (iv) SBRT or re-irradiation use can be guided by predictions of survival by prognostic scores or clinicians. Patients with more favorable prognoses are generally better suited to SBRT or re-irradiation, and the use of prognostic models can aid in this decision making. (4) Conclusions: This evaluation has identified several factors or tools to aid in prognosis and clinical decision making. Future studies should aim to further validate these tools and factors in a clinical setting, including the leveraging of electronic medical records for data availability. To increase our understanding of how causal factors interact with palliative radiotherapy, future studies should also examine and include prediction of response to radiation as an outcome.

Radiotherapy (RT) is often utilized for symptom control at the end of life. Palliative RT (pRT) may not be taken to completion by patients, thus decreasing clinical benefits and adversely impacting resource allocation. We determined rates of incomplete pRT and examined predictors of non-completion using an electronic questionnaire. Methods: A questionnaire was embedded within the RT electronic prescribing system for all five cancer centers of Alberta, Canada, between 2017 and 2020. Prescribing radiation oncologists (ROs) were tasked with completing the questionnaire. Treatment variables were collected for 2040 patients prescribed pRT. Details on pRT courses delivered and completed were used to determine rates of incomplete RT. Electronic medical records of a subset of 367 patients randomly selected from the 2040 patients were then analyzed to examine for association of non-completion of RT with patient, disease, and therapy-related factors. Results: Overall, 10% of patients did not complete pRT. The rate of single fractions prescribed as a proportion of all RT fractions increased from 18% (pre-2017: pre-study era) to 29% (2017–2020: study era) (p < 0.0001). After conducting multivariate analysis on the overall group, multiple lifetime malignancies (OR:0.64) or increasing the number of pRT fractions (OR:0.08–0.17) were associated with non-completion. Being selected for stereotactic RT (OR:3.75) or survival > 30 days post-RT prescription (OR:2.20–5.02) were associated with greater rates of RT completion. The ROs’ estimates of life expectancy at the time of RT prescription were not predictive of RT completion. In the multivariate analysis of the 367-patient subset, the presence of hepatic metastases (OR 2.59), survival 30–59 days (OR 6.61) and survival 90+ days (OR 8.18) post-RT prescription were associated with pRT completion. Only increasing pRT fractionation (OR:0.05–0.2) was associated with non-completion. Conclusion: One in ten patients prescribed pRT did not complete their treatment course. Decreasing pRT fractionation and improving prognostication in patients near the end of life may decrease rates of incomplete RT courses.

Purpose Approximately half of all radiotherapy (RT) is delivered with palliative intent. Clinical research in palliative RT aims to manage symptoms, improve quality of life (QoL), evaluate supportive care, and determine optimal dose-fractionation schedules. Our aim was to describe the prevalence of palliative research at the Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology (CARO) Annual Scientific Meeting (ASM) over time and compare this analysis to previously published work which evaluated the years 1992–2002. Methods Published abstracts (2003–2021) were independently reviewed by two authors who categorized each as curative-intent; palliative-intent; pertaining to both populations; or neither. Abstracts were considered palliative if they described incurable malignancy and interventions primarily for symptom control or QoL. Type of study, primary, site treated, and symptoms palliated were recorded. Descriptive and summary statistics were calculated including one-way ANOVA test for trend. Results Three hundred thirty-nine out of 4566 abstracts (7.4%, range 2.4–13.9% per year) were classified as palliative. 7.7% (26/339) described phase I–III trials. The main primary site was the lung (39/339) and the most common metastatic site was the bone (34.2%). QoL, symptom and toxicity outcomes were reported in 31.6% (107/339), 37.8% (128/339) and 17.7% (60/339), respectively. The most common symptom investigated was pain (38/339). The proportion of abstracts classified as curative, palliative or reporting toxicity endpoints demonstrated significant change over time (all p<0.0001). Conclusion While proportion of palliative themed abstracts has increased with time, there remains a significant gap before equivalence with the prevalence of palliative RT in clinical practice is achieved.

Purpose.Approximately half of all radiotherapy (RT) is delivered with palliative intent. Clinical research in palliative RT aims to manage symptoms, improve quality of life (QoL), evaluate supportive care, and determine optimal dose-fractionation schedules. Our aim was to describe the prevalence of palliative research at the Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology (CARO) Annual Scientific Meeting (ASM) over time. Methods. Published abstracts (2003-2021) were independently reviewed by two authors who categorized each as: curative-intent; palliative-intent; pertaining to both populations; or neither. Abstracts were considered palliative if they described incurable malignancy and interventions primarily for symptom control or QoL. Type of study, primary, site treated, and symptoms palliated were recorded. Descriptive and summary statistics were calculated including one-way ANOVA test for trend. Results. 339/4566 abstracts (7.4%, range 2.4-13.9% per year) were classified as palliative. 7.7% (26/339) described phase I-III trials. The main primary site was lung (39/339) and the most common metastatic site was bone (34.2%). QoL, symptom and toxicity outcomes were reported in 31.6% (107/339), 37.8% (128/339) and 17.7% (60/339), respectively. The most common symptom investigated was pain (38/339). The proportion of abstracts classified as curative, palliative or reporting toxicity endpoints demonstrated significant change over time (all pConclusion. While proportion of palliative themed abstracts has increased with time, there remains a significant gap before equivalence with the prevalence of palliative RT in clinical practice is achieved.

Purpose Palliative radiotherapy (PRT) in advanced cancer improves symptom control and quality of life. PRT consultations take place in various clinical settings, including through dedicated rapid access clinics. We examined holistic assessment and PRT delivery by consultation setting. Methods We analyzed patients with breast cancer who died (01/04/2013–31/03/2014), after at least one lifetime PRT consultation. Data abstracted included Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised (ESAS-r) ratings, and PRT timelines. Descriptive statistics, t tests of proportions, independent t tests, and chi-square tests were calculated. Results One hundred thirty patients were assessed for PRT over 224 consults, 28/224 (12.5%) in the rapid access clinic. In non-rapid access versus rapid access visits, KPS was documented in 30.1% versus 89.3%, and medication history in 53.6% versus 96.4%, respectively (both p < 0.0001). Baseline ESAS-r scores were available for 67.9% of rapid access visits, versus no non-rapid access visit. Rapid access consults had a higher proportion of subsequent supportive care referrals (46.4% versus 8.2%; p < 0.0001). Same day PRT start occurred in 37% of rapid access versus 23.4% of non-rapid access visits (p = 0.13). Conclusions Assessment for PRT by a dedicated multidisciplinary team provides a comprehensive picture of patient needs and streamlines PRT delivery, essential to personalizing supportive care.