ACR-ARS Practice Parameter for the Performance of Proton Beam Therapy

PURPOSE: This practice parameter for the performance of proton beam radiation therapy was revised collaboratively by the American College of Radiology (ACR) and the American Radium Society (ARS). This practice parameter was developed to serve as a tool in the appropriate application of proton therapy in the care of cancer patients or other patients with conditions in which radiation therapy is indicated. It addresses clinical implementation of proton radiation therapy, including personnel qualifications, quality assurance (QA) standards, indications, and suggested documentation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This practice parameter for the performance of proton beam radiation therapy was developed according to the process described under the heading The Process for Developing ACR Practice Parameters and Technical Standards on the ACR website (https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Practice-Parameters-and-Technical-Standards) by the Committee on Practice Parameters - Radiation Oncology of the ACR Commission on Radiation Oncology in collaboration with the ARS. RESULTS: The qualifications and responsibilities of personnel, such as the proton center Chief Medical Officer or Medical Director, Radiation Oncologist, Radiation Physicist, Dosimetrist and Therapist, are outlined, including the necessity for continuing medical education. Proton therapy standard clinical indications and methodologies of treatment management are outlined by disease site and treatment group (e.g. pediatrics) including documentation and the process of proton therapy workflow and equipment specifications. Additionally, this proton therapy practice parameter updates policies and procedures related to a quality assurance and performance improvement program (QAPI), patient education, infection control, and safety. CONCLUSION: As proton therapy becomes more accessible to cancer patients, policies and procedures as outlined in this practice parameter will help ensure quality and safety programs are effectively implemented to optimize clinical care

ACR-ARS Practice Parameter on Informed Consent Radiation Oncology

OBJECTIVES: Consent is a communication process between the patient and a health care provider, in which both parties have the opportunity to ask questions and exchange information relevant to the patient\u27s diagnosis and treatment. The process of informed consent is designed to protect a patient\u27s autonomy in their medical decision-making in the context of an asymmetric relationship with the health care system. A proper consent process assures a patient\u27s individual autonomy, reduces the opportunity for abusive conduct or conflicts of interest, and raises trust levels among participants. This document was developed as an educational tool to facilitate these goals. METHODS: This practice parameter was produced according to the process described under the heading The Process for Developing ACR Practice Parameters and Technical Standards on the ACR website ( https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Practice-Parameters-and-Technical-Standards ) by the Committee on Practice Parameters-Radiation Oncology of the ACR Commission on Radiation Oncology in collaboration with the ARS. Committee members were charged with reviewing the prior version of the informed consent practice parameter published in 2017 and recommending additions, modifications, or deletions. The committee met through remote access and subsequently through an online exchange to facilitate the development of the revised document. Focus was given on identifying new considerations and challenges with informed consent given the evolution of the practice of radiation oncology in part driven by the COVID-19 pandemic and other external factors. RESULTS: A review of the practice parameter published in 2017 confirmed the ongoing relevance of recommendations made at that time. In addition, the evolution of the practice of radiation oncology since the publication of the prior document resulted in the need for new topics to be addressed. These topics include remote consent either through telehealth or telephone and with the patient or their health care proxy. CONCLUSIONS: Informed consent is an essential process in the care of radiation oncology patients. This practice parameter serves as an educational tool designed to assist practitioners in optimizing this process for the benefit of all involved parties

ACR-ARS Practice Parameter for Communication: Radiation Oncology

This practice parameter was revised collaboratively by the American College of Radiology (ACR), and the American Radium Society (ARS). Timely, accurate, and effective communications are critical to quality and safety in contemporary medical practices. Radiation oncology incorporates the science and technology of complex, integrated treatment delivery and the art of providing care to individual patients. Through written physical and/or electronic reports and direct communication, radiation oncologists convey their knowledge and evaluation regarding patient care, clinical workup, and treatment provided to others in the management of the patient. Applicable practice parameters need to be revised periodically regarding medical record documentation for professional and technical components of services delivered. This practice parameter was developed and revised according to the process described under the heading "The Process for Developing ACR Practice Parameters and Technical Standards" on the ACR website (https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Practice-Parameters-and-Technical-Standards) by the Committee on Practice Parameters-Radiation Oncology of the ACR Commission on Radiation Oncology in collaboration with the ARS. Both societies have reviewed and approved the document. This practice parameter addresses radiation oncology communications in general, including (a) medical record, (b) electronic, and (c) doctor-patient communications, as well as specific documentation for radiation oncology reports such as (a) consultation, (b) clinical treatment management notes (including inpatient communication), (c) treatment (completion) summary, and (d) follow-up visits. The radiation oncologist's participation in the multidisciplinary management of patients is reflected in timely, medically appropriate, and informative communication with patients, caregivers, referring physician, and other members of the health care team. The ACR-ARS Practice Parameter for Communication: Radiation Oncology is an educational tool designed to assist practitioners in providing appropriate communication regarding radiation oncology care for patients

ACR–ARS Practice Parameter for the Performance of Total Body Irradiation

ObjectivesThis practice parameter was revised collaboratively by the American College of Radiology (ACR) and the American Radium Society (ARS). This practice parameter provides updated reference literature regarding both clinical-based conventional total body irradiation and evolving volumetric modulated total body irradiation.MethodsThis practice parameter was developed according to the process described under the heading The Process for Developing ACR Practice Parameters and Technical Standards on the ACR website ( https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Practice-Parameters-and-Technical-Standards ) by the Committee on Practice Parameters-Radiation Oncology of the ACR Commission on Radiation Oncology in collaboration with the ARS.ResultsThis practice parameter provides a comprehensive update to the reference literature regarding conventional total body irradiation and modulated total body irradiation. Dependence on dose rate remains an active area of ongoing investigation in both the conventional setting (where instantaneous dose rate can be varied) and in more modern rotational techniques, in which average dose rate is the relevant variable. The role of imaging during patient setup and the role of inhomogeneity corrections due to computer-based treatment planning systems are included as evolving areas of clinical interest notably surrounding the overall dose inhomogeneity. There is increasing emphasis on the importance of evaluating mean lung dose as it relates to toxicity during high-dose total body irradiation regimens.ConclusionsThis practice parameter can be used as an effective tool in designing and evaluating a total body irradiation program that successfully incorporates the close interaction and coordination among the radiation oncologists, medical physicists, dosimetrists, nurses, and radiation therapists

Is palpable DCIS more aggressive than screen-detected DCIS?

Background: Palpable ductal carcinoma in-situ (pDCIS) is a subset of DCIS presenting with a clinical mass. We hypothesized pDCIS would have more aggressive clinical and pathological features, and higher rates of recurrence and upgrade to invasive disease compared to screen-detected DCIS. Materials and methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of female patients (age 28–76) with DCIS on core-needle biopsy. pDCIS patients had a physician documented palpable mass prior to initial biopsy. Descriptive statistics were performed to compare groups. Results: This study included 83 patients, 26 had pDCIS and 57 had screen-detected DCIS. Mean duration of follow-up was 49.4 months. pDCIS patients had significantly larger lesions (p = 0.03) which were more frequently biopsied via ultrasound (p = 0.002). In multivariate analysis, pDCIS was associated with ultrasound guided core needle biopsy, size of DCIS >2 cm, and comedo pattern (p = 0.001, p = 0.007 and p = 0.022, respectively). 7.7 % of pDCIS cases versus 3.5 % of screen-detected cases were upgraded to invasive cancer (p = 0.59). There was no difference in local recurrence (p = 0.55) between groups. Neither group experienced regional or distant recurrence. Conclusions: pDCIS was associated with some aggressive pathologic and clinical features and was more frequently diagnosed by ultrasound guided core-needle biopsy than screen-detected DCIS. However, there was no significant difference in rate of recurrence or upgrade to invasive disease between groups. Key message: Although pDCIS was associated with some aggressive pathologic and clinical features, there was no significant difference in rate of recurrence or upgrade to invasive disease compared to screen-detected DCIS