Volume 60, Issue 5 pp. 677-685
Radiation Oncology—Original Article

Lung cancer radiation therapy in Australia and New Zealand: Patterns of practice

Syed Muntasser Islam

Corresponding Author

Syed Muntasser Islam

Radiation Oncology, William Buckland Radiotherapy Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Correspondence

Dr Syed M Islam, William Buckland Radiotherapy Centre, The Alfred, Commercial Rd, Prahran, Vic. 3181, Australia.

Email: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author
Shalini K Vinod

Shalini K Vinod

Cancer Therapy Centre, Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool BC, New South Wales, Australia

Search for more papers by this author
Margot Lehman

Margot Lehman

Radiation Oncology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

Search for more papers by this author
Shankar Siva

Shankar Siva

Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Search for more papers by this author
Tomas Kron

Tomas Kron

Medical Physics, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Search for more papers by this author
Patrick M Dwyer

Patrick M Dwyer

North Coast Cancer Institute, Lismore, New South Wales, Australia

Search for more papers by this author
Lois Holloway

Lois Holloway

Medical Physics, Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool BC, New South Wales, Australia

South Western Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Liverpool BC, New South Wales, Australia

Search for more papers by this author
Louis Lao

Louis Lao

Radiation Oncology, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand

Auckland Radiation Oncology, Auckland, New Zealand

University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

Search for more papers by this author
Mei Ling Yap

Mei Ling Yap

Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Liverpool BC, New South Wales, Australia

Radiation Oncology, Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool BC, New South Wales, Australia

Radiation Oncology, Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centre, Western Sydney University, Campbelltown, New South Wales, Australia

Search for more papers by this author
Jeremy D Ruben

Jeremy D Ruben

Radiation Oncology, William Buckland Radiotherapy Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 09 June 2016
Citations: 10
SM Islam MBBS; SK Vinod MBBS, MD, FRANZCR; M Lehman MBBS, FRANZCR, GDPH; S Siva PhD, MBBS, FRANZCR; T Kron PhD; PM Dwyer MBBS, FRANZCR; L Holloway PhD; L Lao MBChB; ML Yap MBBS, BSc, FRANZCR; JD Ruben MD, MBBCh(Hons), FCRadOnc, FRANZCR, Mmed.
Conflict of interest: None.

Abstract

Introduction

The RANZCR Faculty of Radiation Oncology Lung Interest Cooperative (FROLIC) surveyed patterns of lung cancer radiation therapy practice for non−small cell (NSCLC) and small cell lung cancer (SCLC) to evaluate current patterns of care and potential for improvement.

Methods

In October 2014, Radiation Oncologists (ROs) from all 62 departments in Australia and New Zealand were invited to a web-based survey directed at those treating lung cancer. Questions covered current radiation therapy practice as well as quality measures.

Results

Fifty-eight per cent of respondents used 4D-CT simulation. For curative treatment, 98% employed 3D-CRT and 34% intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) techniques. Treatment verification was primarily performed using cone-beam CT (86%). In NSCLC, the commonest curative dose-fractionation regime was 60 Gy/30# (96%) and for palliative intent, 30 Gy/10# (76%). Forty-four per cent treated patients with stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) and half treated central tumours with this technique. In fit patients with synchronous solitary brain metastases, 80% would give radical treatment. For curative-intent SCLC, 45–50.4 Gy/25–28# (61%) and 45 Gy/30#/1.5 Gy b.d. (48%) were used. Ninety-four per cent discussed lung cancer patients at multidisciplinary meetings. Contours were peer-reviewed by 74% and 50% for conventional fractionation and SABR respectively.

Conclusion

A significant proportion of ROs did not have access to 4D-CT. The majority used 3D image verification and consistently prescribed evidence based doses. A significant number did not participate in peer-review of contours. Practice in IMRT and synchronous oligo-metastatic disease is variable and should be an area of future research. Utilising survey findings, FROLIC is developing consensus recommendations to guide practice.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.