4.6 Review

Continued success of the rapid response radiotherapy program: a review of 2004-2008

Journal

SUPPORTIVE CARE IN CANCER
Volume 17, Issue 7, Pages 757-762

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-009-0585-7

Keywords

Palliative; Radiotherapy; Waiting time; Review

Funding

  1. Michael and Karyn Goldstein Cancer Research Fund

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To update the clinical activity of the Rapid Response Radiotherapy Program (RRRP). We conducted a retrospective review of our clinic database from January 2004 until July 2008. The number of patients referred to the RRRP, relevant demographic data, diagnosis and treatment dispositions were recorded. Time interval between referral to consultation and consultation to simulation were also calculated. During the study period, 3,267 patients were seen in the RRRP. Forty-five percent (1,494) of the patients were new to the clinic. Of the 3,267 patients seen, 1,548 (47.4%) were female and 1,719 (52.6%) were male. The median age was 69.2 years (range, 22-101 years). The most common primary sites were lung (34.2%), breast (21.2%) and prostate (17.0%). The majority of patients were referred for palliative treatment of bone metastases (52.4%) or treatment for brain metastases (20.7%). Of the patients referred, 2,311 (70.5%) patients received palliative radiotherapy. The median duration from referral to consultation was 4 days. The majority (82.3%) of patients were simulated and treated within the first 7 days following consultation. The number of patients referred to the RRRP from January 2004-July 2008 remains comparable to our previous report (1996-2003). The overall median interval from referral to consultation for the analysed time period was 4 days. Therefore, we are continuing to meet our goal of providing rapid access to palliative radiation treatment for symptomatic cancer patients. Further information relating to progression and advancements within the clinic aimed at improving our patients' quality of life are explored.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available