Acta Oncologica, 2015; Early Online: 1–5
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Stereotactic body radiotherapy: A survey of contemporary practice in six selected European countries
Acta Oncol Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of Otago on 03/14/15 For personal use only.
Max Dahele1, Matthew Hatton2, Ben Slotman1 & Matthias Guckenberger3 1Department
of Radiation Oncology, VU University medical center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2Department of Clinical Oncology, Weston Park Hospital, Sheffield, UK and 3Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
To the Editor, Technological advances in radiotherapy have led to increased interest in the use of high-dose treatments given in only a few fractions to try and exploit favorable anti-tumor effects of hypo-fractionation. The class of treatments combining extra-cranial location, high dose, more extreme hypo-fractionation, organ at risk avoidance/sparing and a high level of accuracy is often referred to as stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) [1]. It requires appropriate equipment, the relevant personnel with adequate training and expertise, and careful patient selection. Despite several previous surveys [2–4], a substantial number of unknowns remain concerning the contemporary practice of SBRT, especially within Europe. There is, for example, limited information about the numbers of patients that have been treated with SBRT, approaches to implementation, attitudes towards the evidence base, resource utilization and reimbursement. We therefore performed a survey of SBRT practice in six selected European countries. Material and methods To try and maximize the response we limited the survey to centers in six countries, selected using several factors, including: authors’ own countries, practi tioners known to authors and institutional trackrecord. All centers had at least one year SBRT experience. Emails were sent to one or more named persons in each department outlining the purpose of the survey, which was attached as an Excel document
(Microsoft® Office). To assist with replies and to try and obtain more uniform data, drop-down menus were used where possible. Formal ethics committee approval was not sought, however, the email indicated that sending a reply implied consent for anonymous presentation and/or publication. The final survey consisted of 10 sections and was sent to a total of 45 centers (Germany 16, Netherlands 12, England 8, Belgium 4, Denmark 3 and Austria 2) between May and September 2012. A full list of the questions is provided in the Supplementary Appendix (available online at http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10. 3109/0284186X.2014.1003961). Data was analyzed using simple summary/descriptive statistics. In some cases multiple possible responses from a single center meant that the total denominator could be more than the number of participating centers. Results A total of 30/45 centers (67%) responded (England 8/8; Denmark 3/3; Germany 10/16; Netherlands 6/12; Belgium 2/4 and Austria 1/2). Some key features of the responding centers are contained in Table I. Additional data is summarized in Supplementary Tables I–III (available online at http:// informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/0284186X. 2014.1003961) and below. A total of 22/30 centers were described as academic; 24/30 as public; 28/30 as not for profit and 25/30 as being part of a comprehensive cancer center. Most centers decided to start their program in the
Correspondence: M. Dahele, Department of Radiation Oncology, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Tel: 31 20 4440414. Fax: 31 20 4440410. E-mail: [email protected] (Received 19 October 2014; accepted 29 December 2014) ISSN 0284-186X print/ISSN 1651-226X online © 2015 Informa Healthcare DOI: 10.3109/0284186X.2014.1003961
2
M. Dahele et al.
Table I. Background information and institutional SBRT history.
Acta Oncol Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of Otago on 03/14/15 For personal use only.
Background Approximately what size population does your institution serve? Approximately how many new patients a year are treated with radiotherapy in your institution? How many treatment machines (linear accelerators) are there in your institution? What is the number of accredited radiation oncologists in your institution? What is the number of accredited medical physicists in your institution? What is the number of accredited radiographers in your institution? How many treatment centers that perform SBRT are operated by your institution? History of SBRT at your institution When did your institution begin SBRT? Did you start SBRT within a prospective trial? Did your institution practice cranial stereotactic radiotherapy / radiosurgery prior to starting SBRT? Approximately how many lung SBRT patients has your institution treated so far? Approximately how many non-lung SBRT patients has your institution treated so far?
England
Netherlands
n 6/8; m 2.15M
n 4/6; m 1.25M
Belgium
Denmark
Germany
Austria 2M
n 1; 1.5M
m 1.3M
n 5/10; m 0.93M
n 7/8; m 3890 m 3010
m 2000
m 3130
n 9/10; m 1690
m 9.1
m 6.5
m 6
m 11
m 4.3
5
n 7/8; m 24.3
m 14.7
m 10
m 23.2
m 6.8
12
n 7/8; m 14.4
m 6.5
m 8
m 15.3
m 6.5
6
n 6/8; m 68.5
m 75.2
m 31.5
m 30.7
m 15.4
41
m 1.25
m 1.2
m 1
m 1
m 1.2
1
m 2009
m 2006
m 2005
m 2001
m 2005
Y 1; N 7
Y 1; N 5
Y 2
Y 2; N 1
N 10
N
Y 3; N 5
Y 3; N 3
Y 2
Y 1; N 2
Y 8; N 2
Y
m 82 (20–300)
m 399 (21–1000)
m 393 (35–750) m 400 (100–600)
m 73 (0–325)
m 48 (0–200) m 302 (4–600)
2700
2002
m 163 (50–300)
350
m 120 (10–300) m 200 (10–700)
250
M, mean; M, million; N, no; n, number responding out of the total number of centers; SBRT, stereotactic body radiotherapy; Y, yes;
thorax, treating primary NSCLC (n 17) or lung metastases (n 9). The biggest challenges that had to be overcome were: knowledge (n 17); software (9); hardware (9); financial (7); time/personnel (n 3); patient referrals (2); credentialing (2) and quality assurance/control program (n 1). Respondents identified several area of additional support that they thought could have helped, including: interdisciplinary guidelines, multi-center collaboration, training, national/commissioner support and a national tariff. At the time of the survey responding centers were offering SBRT for primary NSCLC (n 30), lung metastases (27), liver metastases (24), spine
metastases (11), adrenal metastases (11), spine reirradiation (10), primary liver tumors (10), lymph node metastases (7), pancreas (4), prostate (4) and kidney (2). The majority indicated that there were voluntary national guidelines for SBRT and that they did not need to submit data to a national audit. In 16/30 centers all SBRT plans were peer-reviewed prior to treatment, and 29/30 centers reported that they tracked SBRT outcomes including toxicity with 24 reporting that they did so using a standard protocol outside of a study. In total 20/29 centers thought that SBRT should be limited to experienced/ high-volume centers and 29/29 thought that a mini-
Acta Oncol Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of Otago on 03/14/15 For personal use only.
mum number of patients/year should be treated. The suggested number was 10–100, with 21/23 between 10 and 50. The highest suggestions for minimum patient load were made in the England (100), Netherlands (50) and Germany (50). Centers were asked if they thought there was enough evidence to support SBRT outside clinical trials for: primary NSCLC (all yes), lung metastases (yes 24/30), liver metastases (yes 21/30), spine metastases (yes 15/30), re-irradiation of spine metastases (yes 15/30), primary liver cancer (yes 13/30) and prostate cancer (yes 5/29).Twelve of 30 centers had SBRT trials open at the time of the survey while 12/30 had an SBRT research program and 18/30 were members of a research consortium. The most frequent SBRT trials that respondents would like to see developed included prostate, liver, central lung, oligometastases and spine. For lung SBRT pre-treatment staging included whole-body FDG-PET/CT at 27/30 centers and 17/29 routinely performed EBUS/EUS mediastinal staging. Twenty-four of 30 centers would offer SBRT for early-stage primary NSCLC without histological confirmation. A total of 23/30 centers were treating centrally located tumors (defined as within 2cm of central mediastinal structures). In total 29/30 centers were using risk-adapted fractionation schemes. Nine of 30 centers were performing FDG-PET/CT for follow-up. Out of the 27 centers treating lung metastases, 19 would treat a maximum of 1–3 lesions (1 lesion 1 center; 2 lesions n 4; 3 lesions n 14), and eight would treat more (5 indicated they would treat up to 5 lesions), with at least two using sequential treatment above three lesions. In total 26/30 centers used heterogenous dose within the target volume. A wide variety of prescription methods and maximum acceptable target volume dose were reported. 22/30 centers indicated that they used respiratorycorrelated imaging for treatment planning of moving targets. In at least four of the cases where such images were not used, the CyberKnife system (Accuray Incorporated) was being used. A number of centers used motion reduction and/or compensation techniques: 9/24 used abdominal compression, eight used gating, four used the CyberKnife system and three used the Active Breathing Coordinator (ABC, Elekta AB) system. Multiple treatment planning systems were in use, including: Eclipse (n 10; Varian Medical Systems, Inc.); Pinnacle (n 8; Koninklijke Philips NV); the CyberKnife system (n 4); the Brainlab system (n 3); the TomoTherapy system (n 1; Accuray Incorporated); Monaco (n 1; Elekta AB); Oncentra MasterPlan (n 1; Nucletron BV) and others (n 6). Preferred delivery methods were:
A survey of stereotactic radiotherapy
3
fixed beam conformal in 19/31, volumetric modulated arc therapy (n 5), CyberKnife (n 3), dynamic arc/fixed beam intensity modulated radiotherapy (both n 2). The multi-leaf collimator leaf widths that were reported as being used for SBRT were: 10 mm (10/30), 5 mm (n 10), 4 mm (n 3), 3 mm (n 2) and 2.5 mm (n 5). Multiple imageguidance systems were being used, in some cases more than one/center, including: cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT; 23/41), stereoscopic x-rays (n 9) and megavoltage CT/orthogonal x-rays (n 4 each). For quality assurance purposes, 22/30 centers had a phantom available that could simulate motion. The most popular methods for quality assurance (again, in some cases more than one/center) were film (n 15/42), ionization chamber array (n 13), and a device specifically designed for rotational dosimetry (n 6). Nine centers indicated that they required additional funds specifically to implement SBRT. Centers were reimbursed through various channels, sometimes more than one, including: regional schemes (n 13), insurance (n 13), national schemes (n 8), and the patient (n 6). Nonetheless 12 centers (in Germany, England and Austria) reported that they had experienced problems obtaining reimbursement. In 21/25 centers no additional personnel other than the treating technologist were required to be present at the time of treatment in order to receive the reimbursement; in four the physicist and/or radiation oncologist were also required to be present. Reimbursement covered planning and delivery, with 13/25 centers indicating that it also included at least a period of follow-up and 12 the consultation. In eight of 26 responses the reimbursement varied according to the number of fractions. In nine of 26 responses reimbursement specified the definition of SBRT and two German centers mentioned that in-house/patient status was necessary to claim reimbursement. Estimated reimbursement amount (n 18) for lung SBRT was €2750–18 500, with 11/18 between €5000–10 000. The most variation in the amount reimbursed was reported within the England and Germany. Eight of 25 reported charging per lesion if they treated multiple targets while 9/15 replies indicated that lung SBRT reimbursement was less than conventionally fractionated IMRT/IGRT. Discussion We sent out a comprehensive questionnaire to obtain information about the practice of SBRT in selected European centers and achieved a respectable 67% response rate [3]. Based on this survey, in comparison with the number of new patients/year, the total number of lung and non-lung patients
Acta Oncol Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of Otago on 03/14/15 For personal use only.
4
M. Dahele et al.
being treated with SBRT currently appears to be relatively modest. It is notable that the majority of centers started SBRT outside of a prospective study and that at least half the respondents felt that there was enough data to support the use of SBRT outside trials for multiple indications, despite the fact that existing evidence for SBRT is non-randomized. In the absence of what has been termed high-level evidence, more practical approaches to evaluating new treatment indications and technologies may be needed [5]. For the majority of centers, implementing SBRT posed challenges around knowledge acquisition, and nearly all would welcome specific educational programs, a number of which are now available. With this in mind, it was notable that only a minority of national radiation oncology training programs were required to provide formal SBRT experience. Specific consideration needs to be given as to how best to integrate advanced radiotherapy techniques into training curricula. Encouragingly, there was considerable consensus in the practice of lung SBRT. Although the majority would treat without histology, nearly all required a prior FDG-PET/CT and many centers were also performing minimally invasive mediastinal staging [6,7]. Although there is ongoing debate over the role of central lung SBRT, most centers were already treating such tumors, illustrating how quickly clinical implementation happens, even for more controversial indications [8]. Although the majority thought that SBRT should be performed in experienced/high-volume centers, a recent study failed to demonstrate a learning curve for SBRT practice, or to find evidence that either increasing SBRT experience or the implementation of new technologies led to improved outcomes [9]. It is important to note that variation in equipment, technology and technique has so far not been linked to outcomes like tumor control, which to date has been most closely attributed to the prescribed dose [10]. Although reimbursement varied substantially, there was some convergence to the €5000–10 000 bracket. A more complete assessment of the reasons behind this is merited. For example, we did not determine what proportion of the reimbursement was attributable to, e.g. staff overheads, building costs and investment in equipment. Limitations to this study include the following. the sample was selective and limited in numbers and we acknowledge that there is selection bias. The number of for profit and private sector centers was low and we recognize that the experiences reported in this survey may be different from those in other countries with different healthcare systems. The
reader should also bear in mind that for various reasons it is possible that some of the data may not be exact (e.g. recall bias, estimated data, rounding). Indeed, this was specifically noted by at least one of the respondents. In addition respondents may not all have interpreted the questions in the same way. Such limitations are inherent to surveys like this and are one reason why we provided drop-down menus wherever possible. As expected, not all centers answered all questions. For example, some preferred not to comment on financial matters. Nonetheless, despite these limitations the data summarized in this manuscript represent, to the best of our knowledge, the largest and most detailed survey of European SBRT centers to date. Acknowledgments We are most grateful to colleagues in each of the participating centers for giving up their time and providing the information contained in this report. Declaration of interest: No funding was received for this project. The Department of Radiation Oncology VU University medical center has research agreements with Varian Medical Systems and Brainlab AG. MD has received travel support and honoraria from Varian Medical Systems, Brainlab AG and Lilly. BS has received travel support and honoraria from Varian Medical Systems and Brainlab AG. MH is chair of the UK SABR Consortium whose educational meetings are supported by Varian Medical Systems, Elekta AB, Accuray Incorporated and BrainLAB AG. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper. References [1] Timmerman RD, Herman J, Cho LC. Emergence of stereotactic body radiation therapy and its impact on current and future clinical practice. J Clin Oncol 2014;32:2847–54. [2] Nagata Y, Hiraoka M, Mizowaki T, Narita Y, Matsuo Y, Norihisa Y, et al. Survey of stereotactic body radiation therapy in Japan by the Japan 3-D Conformal External Beam Radiotherapy Group. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009;75:343–7. [3] Pan H, Simpson DR, Mell LK, Mundt AJ, Lawson JD. A survey of stereotactic body radiotherapy use in the United States. Cancer 2011;117:4566–72. [4] Lock MI, Hoyer M, Bydder SA, Okunieff P, Hahn CA, Vichare A, et al. An international survey on liver metastases radiotherapy. Acta Oncol 2012;51:568–74. [5] Zietman A, Ibbott G. A clinical approach to technology assessment: How do we and how should we choose the right treatment? Semin Radiat Oncol 2012;22:11–7. [6] Verstegen NE, Lagerwaard FJ, Haasbeek CJ, Slotman BJ, Senan S. Outcomes of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy following a clinical diagnosis of stage I NSCLC: Comparison
A survey of stereotactic radiotherapy with a contemporaneous cohort with pathologically proven disease. Radiother Oncol 2011;101:250–4. [7] Sarwate D, Sarkar S, Krimsky WS, Burgan CM, Patel K, Evans R, et al. Optimization of mediastinal staging in potential candidates for stereotactic radiosurgery of the chest. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2012;144:81–6. [8] Nishimura S, Takeda A, Sanuki N, Ishikura S, Oku Y, Aoki Y, et al. Toxicities of organs at risk in the mediastinal and hilar regions following stereotactic body radiotherapy for centrally located lung tumors. J Thorac Oncol 2014;9:1370–6.
Supplementary material available online
Acta Oncol Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of Otago on 03/14/15 For personal use only.
Supplementary Appendix, Supplementary Tables I–III available online at http://informahealthcare.com/doi/ abs/10.3109/0284186X.2014.1003961
5
[9] Guckenberger M, Allgäuer M, Appold S, Dieckmann K, Ernst I, Ganswindt U, et al. Safety and efficacy of stereotactic body radiotherapy for stage 1 non-small-cell lung cancer in routine clinical practice: A patterns-of-care and outcome analysis. J Thorac Oncol 2013;8:1050–8. [10] Kestin L, Grills I, Guckenberger M, Belderbos J, Hope AJ, Werner-Wasik M, et al. Dose-response relationship with clinical outcome for lung stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) delivered via online image guidance. Radiother Oncol 2014;110:499–504.
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Stereotactic body radiotherapy: A survey of contemporary practice in six selected European countries
Acta Oncol Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of Otago on 03/14/15 For personal use only.
Max Dahele1, Matthew Hatton2, Ben Slotman1 & Matthias Guckenberger3 1Department
of Radiation Oncology, VU University medical center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2Department of Clinical Oncology, Weston Park Hospital, Sheffield, UK and 3Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
To the Editor, Technological advances in radiotherapy have led to increased interest in the use of high-dose treatments given in only a few fractions to try and exploit favorable anti-tumor effects of hypo-fractionation. The class of treatments combining extra-cranial location, high dose, more extreme hypo-fractionation, organ at risk avoidance/sparing and a high level of accuracy is often referred to as stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) [1]. It requires appropriate equipment, the relevant personnel with adequate training and expertise, and careful patient selection. Despite several previous surveys [2–4], a substantial number of unknowns remain concerning the contemporary practice of SBRT, especially within Europe. There is, for example, limited information about the numbers of patients that have been treated with SBRT, approaches to implementation, attitudes towards the evidence base, resource utilization and reimbursement. We therefore performed a survey of SBRT practice in six selected European countries. Material and methods To try and maximize the response we limited the survey to centers in six countries, selected using several factors, including: authors’ own countries, practi tioners known to authors and institutional trackrecord. All centers had at least one year SBRT experience. Emails were sent to one or more named persons in each department outlining the purpose of the survey, which was attached as an Excel document
(Microsoft® Office). To assist with replies and to try and obtain more uniform data, drop-down menus were used where possible. Formal ethics committee approval was not sought, however, the email indicated that sending a reply implied consent for anonymous presentation and/or publication. The final survey consisted of 10 sections and was sent to a total of 45 centers (Germany 16, Netherlands 12, England 8, Belgium 4, Denmark 3 and Austria 2) between May and September 2012. A full list of the questions is provided in the Supplementary Appendix (available online at http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10. 3109/0284186X.2014.1003961). Data was analyzed using simple summary/descriptive statistics. In some cases multiple possible responses from a single center meant that the total denominator could be more than the number of participating centers. Results A total of 30/45 centers (67%) responded (England 8/8; Denmark 3/3; Germany 10/16; Netherlands 6/12; Belgium 2/4 and Austria 1/2). Some key features of the responding centers are contained in Table I. Additional data is summarized in Supplementary Tables I–III (available online at http:// informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/0284186X. 2014.1003961) and below. A total of 22/30 centers were described as academic; 24/30 as public; 28/30 as not for profit and 25/30 as being part of a comprehensive cancer center. Most centers decided to start their program in the
Correspondence: M. Dahele, Department of Radiation Oncology, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Tel: 31 20 4440414. Fax: 31 20 4440410. E-mail: [email protected] (Received 19 October 2014; accepted 29 December 2014) ISSN 0284-186X print/ISSN 1651-226X online © 2015 Informa Healthcare DOI: 10.3109/0284186X.2014.1003961
2
M. Dahele et al.
Table I. Background information and institutional SBRT history.
Acta Oncol Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of Otago on 03/14/15 For personal use only.
Background Approximately what size population does your institution serve? Approximately how many new patients a year are treated with radiotherapy in your institution? How many treatment machines (linear accelerators) are there in your institution? What is the number of accredited radiation oncologists in your institution? What is the number of accredited medical physicists in your institution? What is the number of accredited radiographers in your institution? How many treatment centers that perform SBRT are operated by your institution? History of SBRT at your institution When did your institution begin SBRT? Did you start SBRT within a prospective trial? Did your institution practice cranial stereotactic radiotherapy / radiosurgery prior to starting SBRT? Approximately how many lung SBRT patients has your institution treated so far? Approximately how many non-lung SBRT patients has your institution treated so far?
England
Netherlands
n 6/8; m 2.15M
n 4/6; m 1.25M
Belgium
Denmark
Germany
Austria 2M
n 1; 1.5M
m 1.3M
n 5/10; m 0.93M
n 7/8; m 3890 m 3010
m 2000
m 3130
n 9/10; m 1690
m 9.1
m 6.5
m 6
m 11
m 4.3
5
n 7/8; m 24.3
m 14.7
m 10
m 23.2
m 6.8
12
n 7/8; m 14.4
m 6.5
m 8
m 15.3
m 6.5
6
n 6/8; m 68.5
m 75.2
m 31.5
m 30.7
m 15.4
41
m 1.25
m 1.2
m 1
m 1
m 1.2
1
m 2009
m 2006
m 2005
m 2001
m 2005
Y 1; N 7
Y 1; N 5
Y 2
Y 2; N 1
N 10
N
Y 3; N 5
Y 3; N 3
Y 2
Y 1; N 2
Y 8; N 2
Y
m 82 (20–300)
m 399 (21–1000)
m 393 (35–750) m 400 (100–600)
m 73 (0–325)
m 48 (0–200) m 302 (4–600)
2700
2002
m 163 (50–300)
350
m 120 (10–300) m 200 (10–700)
250
M, mean; M, million; N, no; n, number responding out of the total number of centers; SBRT, stereotactic body radiotherapy; Y, yes;
thorax, treating primary NSCLC (n 17) or lung metastases (n 9). The biggest challenges that had to be overcome were: knowledge (n 17); software (9); hardware (9); financial (7); time/personnel (n 3); patient referrals (2); credentialing (2) and quality assurance/control program (n 1). Respondents identified several area of additional support that they thought could have helped, including: interdisciplinary guidelines, multi-center collaboration, training, national/commissioner support and a national tariff. At the time of the survey responding centers were offering SBRT for primary NSCLC (n 30), lung metastases (27), liver metastases (24), spine
metastases (11), adrenal metastases (11), spine reirradiation (10), primary liver tumors (10), lymph node metastases (7), pancreas (4), prostate (4) and kidney (2). The majority indicated that there were voluntary national guidelines for SBRT and that they did not need to submit data to a national audit. In 16/30 centers all SBRT plans were peer-reviewed prior to treatment, and 29/30 centers reported that they tracked SBRT outcomes including toxicity with 24 reporting that they did so using a standard protocol outside of a study. In total 20/29 centers thought that SBRT should be limited to experienced/ high-volume centers and 29/29 thought that a mini-
Acta Oncol Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of Otago on 03/14/15 For personal use only.
mum number of patients/year should be treated. The suggested number was 10–100, with 21/23 between 10 and 50. The highest suggestions for minimum patient load were made in the England (100), Netherlands (50) and Germany (50). Centers were asked if they thought there was enough evidence to support SBRT outside clinical trials for: primary NSCLC (all yes), lung metastases (yes 24/30), liver metastases (yes 21/30), spine metastases (yes 15/30), re-irradiation of spine metastases (yes 15/30), primary liver cancer (yes 13/30) and prostate cancer (yes 5/29).Twelve of 30 centers had SBRT trials open at the time of the survey while 12/30 had an SBRT research program and 18/30 were members of a research consortium. The most frequent SBRT trials that respondents would like to see developed included prostate, liver, central lung, oligometastases and spine. For lung SBRT pre-treatment staging included whole-body FDG-PET/CT at 27/30 centers and 17/29 routinely performed EBUS/EUS mediastinal staging. Twenty-four of 30 centers would offer SBRT for early-stage primary NSCLC without histological confirmation. A total of 23/30 centers were treating centrally located tumors (defined as within 2cm of central mediastinal structures). In total 29/30 centers were using risk-adapted fractionation schemes. Nine of 30 centers were performing FDG-PET/CT for follow-up. Out of the 27 centers treating lung metastases, 19 would treat a maximum of 1–3 lesions (1 lesion 1 center; 2 lesions n 4; 3 lesions n 14), and eight would treat more (5 indicated they would treat up to 5 lesions), with at least two using sequential treatment above three lesions. In total 26/30 centers used heterogenous dose within the target volume. A wide variety of prescription methods and maximum acceptable target volume dose were reported. 22/30 centers indicated that they used respiratorycorrelated imaging for treatment planning of moving targets. In at least four of the cases where such images were not used, the CyberKnife system (Accuray Incorporated) was being used. A number of centers used motion reduction and/or compensation techniques: 9/24 used abdominal compression, eight used gating, four used the CyberKnife system and three used the Active Breathing Coordinator (ABC, Elekta AB) system. Multiple treatment planning systems were in use, including: Eclipse (n 10; Varian Medical Systems, Inc.); Pinnacle (n 8; Koninklijke Philips NV); the CyberKnife system (n 4); the Brainlab system (n 3); the TomoTherapy system (n 1; Accuray Incorporated); Monaco (n 1; Elekta AB); Oncentra MasterPlan (n 1; Nucletron BV) and others (n 6). Preferred delivery methods were:
A survey of stereotactic radiotherapy
3
fixed beam conformal in 19/31, volumetric modulated arc therapy (n 5), CyberKnife (n 3), dynamic arc/fixed beam intensity modulated radiotherapy (both n 2). The multi-leaf collimator leaf widths that were reported as being used for SBRT were: 10 mm (10/30), 5 mm (n 10), 4 mm (n 3), 3 mm (n 2) and 2.5 mm (n 5). Multiple imageguidance systems were being used, in some cases more than one/center, including: cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT; 23/41), stereoscopic x-rays (n 9) and megavoltage CT/orthogonal x-rays (n 4 each). For quality assurance purposes, 22/30 centers had a phantom available that could simulate motion. The most popular methods for quality assurance (again, in some cases more than one/center) were film (n 15/42), ionization chamber array (n 13), and a device specifically designed for rotational dosimetry (n 6). Nine centers indicated that they required additional funds specifically to implement SBRT. Centers were reimbursed through various channels, sometimes more than one, including: regional schemes (n 13), insurance (n 13), national schemes (n 8), and the patient (n 6). Nonetheless 12 centers (in Germany, England and Austria) reported that they had experienced problems obtaining reimbursement. In 21/25 centers no additional personnel other than the treating technologist were required to be present at the time of treatment in order to receive the reimbursement; in four the physicist and/or radiation oncologist were also required to be present. Reimbursement covered planning and delivery, with 13/25 centers indicating that it also included at least a period of follow-up and 12 the consultation. In eight of 26 responses the reimbursement varied according to the number of fractions. In nine of 26 responses reimbursement specified the definition of SBRT and two German centers mentioned that in-house/patient status was necessary to claim reimbursement. Estimated reimbursement amount (n 18) for lung SBRT was €2750–18 500, with 11/18 between €5000–10 000. The most variation in the amount reimbursed was reported within the England and Germany. Eight of 25 reported charging per lesion if they treated multiple targets while 9/15 replies indicated that lung SBRT reimbursement was less than conventionally fractionated IMRT/IGRT. Discussion We sent out a comprehensive questionnaire to obtain information about the practice of SBRT in selected European centers and achieved a respectable 67% response rate [3]. Based on this survey, in comparison with the number of new patients/year, the total number of lung and non-lung patients
Acta Oncol Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of Otago on 03/14/15 For personal use only.
4
M. Dahele et al.
being treated with SBRT currently appears to be relatively modest. It is notable that the majority of centers started SBRT outside of a prospective study and that at least half the respondents felt that there was enough data to support the use of SBRT outside trials for multiple indications, despite the fact that existing evidence for SBRT is non-randomized. In the absence of what has been termed high-level evidence, more practical approaches to evaluating new treatment indications and technologies may be needed [5]. For the majority of centers, implementing SBRT posed challenges around knowledge acquisition, and nearly all would welcome specific educational programs, a number of which are now available. With this in mind, it was notable that only a minority of national radiation oncology training programs were required to provide formal SBRT experience. Specific consideration needs to be given as to how best to integrate advanced radiotherapy techniques into training curricula. Encouragingly, there was considerable consensus in the practice of lung SBRT. Although the majority would treat without histology, nearly all required a prior FDG-PET/CT and many centers were also performing minimally invasive mediastinal staging [6,7]. Although there is ongoing debate over the role of central lung SBRT, most centers were already treating such tumors, illustrating how quickly clinical implementation happens, even for more controversial indications [8]. Although the majority thought that SBRT should be performed in experienced/high-volume centers, a recent study failed to demonstrate a learning curve for SBRT practice, or to find evidence that either increasing SBRT experience or the implementation of new technologies led to improved outcomes [9]. It is important to note that variation in equipment, technology and technique has so far not been linked to outcomes like tumor control, which to date has been most closely attributed to the prescribed dose [10]. Although reimbursement varied substantially, there was some convergence to the €5000–10 000 bracket. A more complete assessment of the reasons behind this is merited. For example, we did not determine what proportion of the reimbursement was attributable to, e.g. staff overheads, building costs and investment in equipment. Limitations to this study include the following. the sample was selective and limited in numbers and we acknowledge that there is selection bias. The number of for profit and private sector centers was low and we recognize that the experiences reported in this survey may be different from those in other countries with different healthcare systems. The
reader should also bear in mind that for various reasons it is possible that some of the data may not be exact (e.g. recall bias, estimated data, rounding). Indeed, this was specifically noted by at least one of the respondents. In addition respondents may not all have interpreted the questions in the same way. Such limitations are inherent to surveys like this and are one reason why we provided drop-down menus wherever possible. As expected, not all centers answered all questions. For example, some preferred not to comment on financial matters. Nonetheless, despite these limitations the data summarized in this manuscript represent, to the best of our knowledge, the largest and most detailed survey of European SBRT centers to date. Acknowledgments We are most grateful to colleagues in each of the participating centers for giving up their time and providing the information contained in this report. Declaration of interest: No funding was received for this project. The Department of Radiation Oncology VU University medical center has research agreements with Varian Medical Systems and Brainlab AG. MD has received travel support and honoraria from Varian Medical Systems, Brainlab AG and Lilly. BS has received travel support and honoraria from Varian Medical Systems and Brainlab AG. MH is chair of the UK SABR Consortium whose educational meetings are supported by Varian Medical Systems, Elekta AB, Accuray Incorporated and BrainLAB AG. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper. References [1] Timmerman RD, Herman J, Cho LC. Emergence of stereotactic body radiation therapy and its impact on current and future clinical practice. J Clin Oncol 2014;32:2847–54. [2] Nagata Y, Hiraoka M, Mizowaki T, Narita Y, Matsuo Y, Norihisa Y, et al. Survey of stereotactic body radiation therapy in Japan by the Japan 3-D Conformal External Beam Radiotherapy Group. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009;75:343–7. [3] Pan H, Simpson DR, Mell LK, Mundt AJ, Lawson JD. A survey of stereotactic body radiotherapy use in the United States. Cancer 2011;117:4566–72. [4] Lock MI, Hoyer M, Bydder SA, Okunieff P, Hahn CA, Vichare A, et al. An international survey on liver metastases radiotherapy. Acta Oncol 2012;51:568–74. [5] Zietman A, Ibbott G. A clinical approach to technology assessment: How do we and how should we choose the right treatment? Semin Radiat Oncol 2012;22:11–7. [6] Verstegen NE, Lagerwaard FJ, Haasbeek CJ, Slotman BJ, Senan S. Outcomes of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy following a clinical diagnosis of stage I NSCLC: Comparison
A survey of stereotactic radiotherapy with a contemporaneous cohort with pathologically proven disease. Radiother Oncol 2011;101:250–4. [7] Sarwate D, Sarkar S, Krimsky WS, Burgan CM, Patel K, Evans R, et al. Optimization of mediastinal staging in potential candidates for stereotactic radiosurgery of the chest. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2012;144:81–6. [8] Nishimura S, Takeda A, Sanuki N, Ishikura S, Oku Y, Aoki Y, et al. Toxicities of organs at risk in the mediastinal and hilar regions following stereotactic body radiotherapy for centrally located lung tumors. J Thorac Oncol 2014;9:1370–6.
Supplementary material available online
Acta Oncol Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of Otago on 03/14/15 For personal use only.
Supplementary Appendix, Supplementary Tables I–III available online at http://informahealthcare.com/doi/ abs/10.3109/0284186X.2014.1003961
5
[9] Guckenberger M, Allgäuer M, Appold S, Dieckmann K, Ernst I, Ganswindt U, et al. Safety and efficacy of stereotactic body radiotherapy for stage 1 non-small-cell lung cancer in routine clinical practice: A patterns-of-care and outcome analysis. J Thorac Oncol 2013;8:1050–8. [10] Kestin L, Grills I, Guckenberger M, Belderbos J, Hope AJ, Werner-Wasik M, et al. Dose-response relationship with clinical outcome for lung stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) delivered via online image guidance. Radiother Oncol 2014;110:499–504.
