Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)) · 2024
The Royal College of Radiologists National Vulvar Cancer Audit.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Baird P, Drinkwater K, Forrest J, Stewart A J
Аннотация
AIMS: This audit examined UK vulvar cancer practice from March 2018 to January 2019 and compared it to standards from national and international recommendations. Follow-up data collection in 2020 examined patient outcomes and toxicity.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Audit standards were based on Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) guidance and published literature. A web-based questionnaire was sent to the audit leads at all cancer centres in the UK. Prospective data collection included patient demographics, tumour characteristics, radiotherapy indications, dosimetry, timelines, and follow-up data. The audit targets were 95% compliance with the RCR dose/fractionation schemes in definitive and adjuvant patients, 40% use of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), 100% of radical patients treated as category 1, and 95% use of gap compensation for category 1 patients.
RESULTS: 34/54 UK radiotherapy centres (63%) completed data entry for 152 patients. 23 out of 34 (68%) centres submitted follow-up data for 94 patients. One indicator exceeded the audit target: 98% of radical patients received IMRT. The indicators of RCR dose/fractionation compliance for adjuvant/definitive radiotherapy were achieved by 80%/43% for the primary, 80%/86% for elective lymph nodes, and 21%/21% for pathological lymph nodes. The use of concomitant chemotherapy with radical radiotherapy in suitable patients was achieved by 71%. Other indicators demonstrated that 78% were treated as category 1 and 27% used gap compensation. Acute toxicity was mostly related to skin, gastrointestinal, and genitourinary sites. Grade 3 and Grade 4 toxicities were seen at acceptable rates within the radical and adjuvant groups. Late toxicity was mostly grade 0.
CONCLUSION: This audit provides a comprehensive picture of UK practice. IMRT is widely used in the UK, and treatment-related toxicity is moderate. The dose fractionation was very heterogeneous. The designation of vulvar cancer as category 1 was not regularly followed for radical/adjuvant patients, and there was minimal gap compensation during treatment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Audit standards were based on Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) guidance and published literature. A web-based questionnaire was sent to the audit leads at all cancer centres in the UK. Prospective data collection included patient demographics, tumour characteristics, radiotherapy indications, dosimetry, timelines, and follow-up data. The audit targets were 95% compliance with the RCR dose/fractionation schemes in definitive and adjuvant patients, 40% use of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), 100% of radical patients treated as category 1, and 95% use of gap compensation for category 1 patients.
RESULTS: 34/54 UK radiotherapy centres (63%) completed data entry for 152 patients. 23 out of 34 (68%) centres submitted follow-up data for 94 patients. One indicator exceeded the audit target: 98% of radical patients received IMRT. The indicators of RCR dose/fractionation compliance for adjuvant/definitive radiotherapy were achieved by 80%/43% for the primary, 80%/86% for elective lymph nodes, and 21%/21% for pathological lymph nodes. The use of concomitant chemotherapy with radical radiotherapy in suitable patients was achieved by 71%. Other indicators demonstrated that 78% were treated as category 1 and 27% used gap compensation. Acute toxicity was mostly related to skin, gastrointestinal, and genitourinary sites. Grade 3 and Grade 4 toxicities were seen at acceptable rates within the radical and adjuvant groups. Late toxicity was mostly grade 0.
CONCLUSION: This audit provides a comprehensive picture of UK practice. IMRT is widely used in the UK, and treatment-related toxicity is moderate. The dose fractionation was very heterogeneous. The designation of vulvar cancer as category 1 was not regularly followed for radical/adjuvant patients, and there was minimal gap compensation during treatment.