Multicentre clinical radiotherapy audit in rectal cancer: results of the IROCA project
- PMID: 32854730
- PMCID: PMC7453535
- DOI: 10.1186/s13014-020-01648-7
Multicentre clinical radiotherapy audit in rectal cancer: results of the IROCA project
Abstract
Purpose: To perform a clinical audit to assess adherence to standard clinical practice for the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of patients undergoing radiotherapy for rectal cancer treatment in four European countries.
Materials and methods: Multi-institutional, retrospective cohort study of 221 patients treated for rectal cancer in 2015 at six European cancer centres. Clinical indicators applicable to general radiotherapy processes were evaluated. All data were obtained from electronic medical records.
Results: The audits were performed in the year 2017. We found substantial inter-centre variability in adherence to standard clinical practices: 1) presentation of cases at departmental clinical sessions (range, 0-100%) or multidisciplinary tumour board (50-95%); 2) pretreatment MRI (61.5-100%) and thoracoabdominal CT (15.0-100%). Large inter-centre differences were observed in the mean interval between biopsy and first visit to the radiotherapy department (range, 21.6-58.6 days) and between the first visit and start of treatment (15.1-38.8 days). Treatment interruptions ≥ 1 day occurred in 43.9% (2.5-90%) of cases overall. Treatment compensation was performed in 2.1% of cases. Treatment was completed in the prescribed time in 55.7% of cases.
Conclusions: This multi-institutional clinical audit revealed that most centres adhered to standard clinical practices for most of the radiotherapy processes-related variables assessed. However, the audit revealed marked inter-centre variability for certain quality indicators, particularly inconsistent record keeping. Multiple targets for improvement and/or harmonisation were identified, confirming the value of routine clinical audits to detect potential deviations from standard clinical practice.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
No actual or potential conflicts of interest exist.
The study was supported by grant from Varian Medical Systems.
This project was approved by the ethics committees at the participating institutions.
References
-
- Breugom AJ, Bastiaannet E, Boelens PG, Van Eycken E, Iversen LH, Martling A, et al. Oncologic treatment strategies and relative survival of patients with stage I–III rectal cancer - A EURECCA international comparison between the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, England, Ireland, Spain, and Lithuania. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018;44:1338–1343. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2018.05.025. - DOI - PubMed
-
- Malicki J, Bly R, Bulot M, Godet J-LL, Jahnen A, Krengli M, et al. Patient safety in external beam radiotherapy – Guidelines on risk assessment and analysis of adverse error-events and near misses: Introducing the ACCIRAD project. Radiother Oncol. 2014;112:194–198. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2014.08.011. - DOI - PubMed
-
- Qian X. IAEA Human Health Series No. 4, Comprehensive Clinical Audits of Diagnostic Radiology Practices: A Tool for Quality Improvement. Health Phys. 2011;100:552. doi: 10.1097/HP.0b013e3181fa6d67. - DOI
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
