Palliation or Prolongation? The Impact of a Peer-Review Intervention on Shortening Radiotherapy Schedules for Bone Metastases

Abstract

Purpose: Shorter fractionation radiation regimens for palliation of bone metastases result in lower financial and social costs for patients and their caregivers and have similar efficacy as longer fractionation schedules, although practice patterns in the United States show poor adoption. We investigated whether prospective peer review can increase use of shorter fractionation schedules. Methods: In June 2016, our practice mandated peer review of total dose and fractionation for all patients receiving palliative treatment during our weekly chart rounds. We used descriptive statistics and Fisher’s exact test to compare lengths of treatment of uncomplicated bone metastases before and after implementation of the peer review process. Results: Between July 2015 and December 2016, a total of 242 palliative treatment courses were delivered, including 105 courses before the peer review intervention and 137 after the intervention. We observed greater adoption of shorter fractionation regimens after the intervention. The use of 8 Gy in one fraction increased from 2.8% to 13.9% of cases postadoption. Likewise, the use of 20 Gy in five fractions increased from 25.7% to 32.8%. The use of 30 Gy in 10 fractions decreased from 55.2% to 47.4% ( P = .002), and the use of ≥ 11 fractions decreased from 16.2% before the intervention to 5.8% after ( P = .006). Conclusion: Prospective peer review of palliative regimens for bone metastases can lead to greater adoption of shorter palliative fractionation schedules in daily practice, in accordance with national guidelines. This simple intervention may therefore benefit patients and their caregivers as well as provide value to the health care system.