Real-World Implementation of Simulation-Free Radiation Therapy (SFRT-1000): A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of 1000 Consecutive Palliative Courses Delivered in Routine Care
Thilo Schuler,Stephanie Roderick,Shelley Wong,Alannah Kejda,Kylie Grimberg,Toby Lowe,John Kipritidis,Michael Back,Sarah Bergamin,Susan Carroll,George Hruby,Dasantha Jayamanne,Andrew Kneebone,Gillian Lamoury,Marita Morgia,Mark Stevens,Chris Brown,Blanca Gallego,Brian Porter,Jeremy Booth,Thomas Eade
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.09.041
2024-09-29
Abstract:Purpose: The feasibility of simulation-free radiation therapy (SFRT) has been demonstrated but information regarding its routine care impact and scalability is lacking. Methods and materials: In this single-institution, retrospective cohort study, all patients receiving palliative radiation therapy at an Australian tertiary cancer center were eligible for consideration of SFRT unless mask immobilization, a stereotactic technique, or a definitive dose was indicated. Coprimary endpoints were SFRT utilization, impact on consultation-to-RT time, and on-couch treatment duration. Timing metrics were compared with a contemporary local cohort that received simulation-based palliative radiation therapy using unadjusted Wilcoxon rank-sum tests and a propensity score-matched regression. Electronic patient-reported outcomes captured 2-week toxicity and pain response. Results: Between April 2018 and February 2024, 2849 palliative radiation courses were delivered, of which 1904 were eligible. Of the 1904 courses, 1000 (52.5% SFRT utilization) received SFRT, including 668 using intensity-modulated radiation therapy/volumetric-modulated arc therapy. A total of 788 individual patients received SFRT and the median age was 71 years (IQR, 61-80) with 59% being male and 42% being Eastern Collaborative Oncology Group 2-4. SFRT utilization increased from 41% to 54% between years 2018-2019 and 2022-2024. SFRT reduced median consultation-to-RT time from 7.0 to 5.1 days (P < .0001) corresponding to an adjusted average treatment effect in the treated of -2.1 days (95% CI, -2.8 to -1.3). SFRT increased median on-couch treatment duration from 17.8 to 20.5 minutes (P < .0001; adjusted average treatment effect in the treated 2.6 minutes, 95% CI, 1.3-3.9). Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 3 acute toxicity was 9% and at 4 weeks after RT, patients with moderate/severe pain at baseline (≥5/10) had a mean pain reduction of 3.5 points (7.1-3.6; P < .0001). Conclusions: Using widely available technologies, the SFRT-1000 cohort demonstrates routine care scalability with patient-centered and workflow benefits. SFRT is an attractive new paradigm implementable in most settings following adaptation to local requirements. Thus, SFRT opens new avenues to potentially improve access to palliative RT, which remains a global area of need.