News | August 04, 2014

Two-Step Decision Tree Analysis Feasible Method to Manage Updates of Radiation Therapy Best Practices

August 4, 2014 — A two-step decision tree analysis, incorporating Donabedian’s model, is a feasible process to evaluate and distill the many available quality standards, guidelines, recommendations and indicators in order to update national and international quality standards for radiation therapy, according to a study published in the July/August 2014 issue of Practical Radiation Oncology (PRO), the official clinical practice journal of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO).

Guidelines, recommendations and indicators may be utilized to develop new “best practice” standards through a formal consensus process and evaluation of the evidence base. The appropriate requirements and criteria for redeveloped standards, however, are not as well defined. This study, “Quality standards in radiation medicine,” was designed to identify and validate an appropriate approach to collate, catalogue and analyze existing quality standards. A two-step decision tree method allows for the organization of numerous different standards issued by a range of national and international organizations and identifies duplicate standards as well as gaps in the standards.

Quality-related documents were identified using Google Scholar and Discover and three selection criteria: 1) national or international; 2) contain statements or questions related to measuring quality in a broad sense in radiation medicine programs; and 3) written in English. Technical quality control standards were not included in this analysis. From this analysis, eight publicly available documents were used to identify 454 radiation therapy quality standards or groups of standards. Each of the five study authors completed two exercises to categorize the 454 identified standards to Donabedian’s structure, process or outcome, and also to the target of the standard: patients, staff, equipment or clinical process, or organization, for a total of 12 primary categories.

In exercise one, the 454 standards were categorized using a two-step process. The first step was to categorize the standards according to the Donabedian model, which provides a framework for examining health services and evaluating quality of care using three categories: structure, process and outcome. This categorization resulted in groups of approximately 150 standards each, making an in-depth analysis difficult.

To reduce the size of the groups, a second step was implemented to classify the 454 standards according to each standard’s target group (patients, staff, equipment or clinical process, or organization). This two-step process resulted in 12 primary classifications with an average size of 40 standards. The resulting smaller group size helped in identifying duplicate standards and key quality measures. The evaluators’ responses were examined for reliability using the Fleiss free marginal kappa. The agreement between the evaluators was fair (k from 0.21 to 0.40) or moderate (k from 0.41 to 0.60), meaning three or more reviewers assigned the same categories in both steps to 67 percent (304) of the 454 quality standards. In the Donabedian model step, three or more evaluators agreed on the classification for 93 percent (422) of the 454 standards.

A second exercise was conducted, to determine if greater consistency in categorizations could be achieved. The evaluators reassessed any standards that did not receive unanimous categorization (n=290) in the first exercise. The standards were again categorized using the Donabedian model. When the 290 reevaluations were combined with the 164 that received unanimous agreement in exercise one, the free marginal kappa improved to 0.71, which shows substantial agreement (k=0.61 to 0.80). In exercise two, 64 percent (290) were classified as structure, 26 percent (116) were classified for process, and 10 percent (45) were classified for outcome.

“This research provides a sound basis for refining the global approach to improving quality and safety in radiation therapy. Although there is no agreed upon ‘best practice’ to use as the basis for revising standards, the methodology used in our study may be helpful for organizations interested in a formal consensus process for revising documents,” said Peter Dunscombe, Ph.D., University of Calgary in Calgary, Alberta, and co-author of the study. “The analysis has already influenced refinement of the Canadian Partnership for Quality Radiotherapy’s Quality Assurance Guidance for Canadian Radiation Treatment Programs guideline document, supporting the CPQR’s work in further enhancing the high standards of Canadian radiation therapy treatment.”

For more information: www.practicalradonc.org

Related Content

News | Radiation Therapy | May 06, 2021
May 6, 2021 — Individuals living with severe...
The emergence of #therapeutic #radiopharmaceuticals and its adoption in #cancer care provide one more weapon in combating cancer

Getty Images

Feature | Radiation Oncology | May 04, 2021 | By Vinay Shivaprasad
The term nuclear medicine is associated with the diag
#prostatecancer During the first wave of the corona pandemic, 36 percent fewer men were diagnosed with prostate cancer in Sweden than in previous years.

Getty Images

News | Prostate Cancer | April 30, 2021
April 30, 2021 — During the first wave of the corona pandemic, 36 percent fewer men were diagnosed with prostate canc
A phase 1 clinical trial led by investigators at the University of Chicago Medicine testing the effects of stereotactic body radiotherapy for treating multiple metastases has determined that treatments used for single tumors can also be safely used for treating patients with multiple metastases.

Image courtesy of Accuray

News | Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) | April 23, 2021
April 23, 2021 — A phase 1 clinical trial led by investigators at the...
A Norwegian study for the first time reveals benefit of the #PARP inhibitor #Olaparib in patients with early #breastcancer not harboring germline mutations

Getty Images

News | Radiation Therapy | April 22, 2021
April 22, 2021 — Targeted therapy in early stages of breas...
Change Healthcare unveiled InterQual 2021, the latest edition of the company’s flagship clinical decision support solution.
News | Clinical Decision Support | April 22, 2021
April 22, 2021 — Change Healthcare unveiled...
Varian announced it is collaborating with Google Cloud to build an advanced artificial intelligence (AI) based diagnostic platform to aid in the fight against cancer. Varian and Google Cloud AI embarked on a deployment journey, using Neural Architecture Search (NAS) technology via Google Cloud AI Platform, to create AI models for organ segmentation — a crucial and labor-intensive step in radiation oncology that can be a bottleneck in the cancer treatment clinical workflow.
News | Artificial Intelligence | April 08, 2021
April 8, 2021 — Varian announced it is collaborating with Google...
Brain tumors edged out by artificial intelligence: VBrain applies auto-contouring to the three most common types of brain tumors: brain metastasis, meningioma and acoustic neuroma.

Brain tumors edged out by artificial intelligence: VBrain applies auto-contouring to the three most common types of brain tumors: brain metastasis, meningioma and acoustic neuroma.

News | Artificial Intelligence | April 07, 2021
April 7, 2021 — Vysioneer, a leader in a...
Elsevier’s STATdx, a leading radiology diagnostic decision support solution, now includes select Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) Measures validated by MDinteractive
News | Clinical Decision Support | April 02, 2021
April 2, 2021 — Elsevier, a global leader in research publishing and information analytics, announced a partnership w