Skip to main content
Log in

Evaluation of time, attendance of medical staff, and resources during interstitial brachytherapy for prostate cancer

DEGRO-QUIRO trial

Evaluation des medizinischen Personal- und Zeitaufwands sowie der Ressourcen bei interstitieller Brachytherapie des Prostatakarzinoms

DEGRO-QUIRO Studie

  • Original article
  • Published:
Strahlentherapie und Onkologie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

The German Society of Radiation Oncology initiated a multicenter trial to evaluate core processes and subprocesses of radiotherapy by prospective evaluation of all important procedures in the most frequent malignancies treated by radiation therapy. The aim of this analysis was to assess the required resources for interstitial high-dose-rate (HDR) and low-dose-rate (LDR) prostate brachytherapy (BRT) based on actual time measurements regarding allocation of personnel and room occupation needed for specific procedures.

Patients and methods

Two radiotherapy centers (community hospital of Offenbach am Main and community hospital of Eschweiler) participated in this prospective study. Working time of the different occupational groups and room occupancies for the workflow of prostate BRT were recorded and methodically assessed during a 3-month period.

Results

For HDR and LDR BRT, a total of 560 and 92 measurements, respectively, were documented. The time needed for treatment preplanning was median 24 min for HDR (n = 112 measurements) and 6 min for LDR BRT (n = 21). Catheter implantation with intraoperative HDR real-time planning (n = 112), postimplantation HDR treatment planning (n = 112), and remotely controlled HDR afterloading irradiation (n = 112) required median 25, 39, and 50 min, respectively. For LDR real-time planning (n = 39) and LDR treatment postplanning (n = 32), the assessed median duration was 91 and 11 min, respectively. Room occupancy and overall mean medical staff times were 194 and 910 min respectively, for HDR, and 113 and 371 min, respectively, for LDR BRT.

Conclusion

In this prospective analysis, the resource requirements for the application of HDR and LDR BRT of prostate cancer were assessed methodically and are presented for first time.

Zusammenfassung

Einleitung

Die Deutsche Gesellschaft für Radioonkologie hat eine prospektive multizentrische Studie zur Evaluation der Kernarbeitsschritte in der radioonkologischen Behandlung der häufigsten Tumorentitäten durchgeführt. In dieser Analyse werden die Ergebnisse bezüglich des eingesetzten Personals sowie der Raumbelegungszeiten während der interstitiellen High-dose-rate(HDR)- und Low-dose-rate(LDR)-Brachytherapie (BRT) des Prostatakarzinoms dargestellt.

Patienten und Methodik

Zwei Strahlentherapiezentren (Klinikum Offenbach am Main und Sankt-Antonius-Hospital Eschweiler) nahmen an dieser prospektiven Studie teil. Die Arbeitszeit der verschiedenen Berufsgruppen sowie die Raumbelegung bei der Planung und Durchführung der Prostata-BRT wurden während eines Zeitraums von 3 Monaten dokumentiert.

Ergebnisse

Insgesamt wurden 560 Prozeduren für die HDR- und 92 für die LDR-BRT dokumentiert. Die Zeitdauer der Bestrahlungsvorplanung betrug median 24 min für die HDR- (n = 112 dokumentierte Prozeduren) und 6 min für die LDR-BRT (n = 21 dokumentierte Prozeduren). Die Behandlungsabschnitte der Katheterimplantation mit intraoperativer HDR-Bestrahlungsplanung (n = 112), der HDR-Postimplantationsbestrahlungsplanung (n = 112) sowie der HDR-Bestrahlung im Nachladeverfahren (n = 112) hatten einen zeitlichen Aufwand von jeweils 25, 39 und 50 min. Die Dauer der LDR-Echtzeitbestrahlungsplanung (n = 39) mit LDR-Behandlungsnachplanung (n = 32) betrug jeweils 91 und 11 min. Die mittlere Raumbelegungs- und Personalbindungszeit betrug jeweils 194 und 910 min für die HDR- sowie 113 und 371 min für die LDR-BRT.

Schlussfolgerung

In dieser prospektiven Analyse wurden die Arbeitszeit und der Personalaufwand zur Durchführung der interstitiellen BRT des Prostatakarzinoms erstmals methodisch erfasst und dargestellt.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

References

  1. D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB et al (2002) Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate carcinoma in the prostate specific antigen era. Cancer 95:281–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Zelefsky MJ, Kuban DA, Levy LB et al (2007) Multi-institutional analysis of long-term outcome for stages T1–T2 prostate cancer treated with permanent seed implantation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 67:327–333

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Goldner G, Sljivic S, Oismueller R et al (2011) Prostate cancer radiotherapy in Austria: overview on number of patients, intention to treat, and treatment techniques based on data from 2007. Strahlenther Onkol 187:279–283

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Zamboglou N, Tselis N, Baltas D et al (2013) High-dose-rate interstitial brachytherapy as monotherapy for clinically localized prostate cancer: treatment evolution and mature results. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 85:672–678

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Galalae RM, Martinez A, Mate T et al (2004) Long-term outcome by risk factors using conformal high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) boost with or without neoadjuvant androgen suppression for localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 58:1048–1055

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Yamada Y, Rogers L, Demanes DJ et al (2012) American Brachytherapy Society consensus guidelines for high-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy. Brachytherapy 11:20–32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Davis BJ, Horwitz EM, Lee WR et al (2012) American Brachytherapy Society consensus guidelines for transrectal ultrasound-guided permanent prostate brachytherapy. Brachytherapy 11:6–19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Esco R, Palacios A, Pardo J et al (2003) Infrastructure of radiotherapy in Spain: a minimal standard of radiotherapy resources. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 56:319–327

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Daal WA van, Bos MA (1997) Infrastructure for radiotherapy in The Netherlands: development from 1970 to 2010. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 37:411–415

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bentzen SM, Heeren G, Cottier B et al (2005) Towards evidence-based guidelines for radiotherapy infrastructure and staffing needs in Europe: the ESTRO QUARTS project. Radiother Oncol 75:355–365

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Slotman BJ, Cottier B, Bentzen SM et al (2005) Overview of national guidelines for infrastructure and staffing of radiotherapy. ESTRO-QUARTS: work package 1. Radiother Oncol 75:349–354

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Budach W, Bölke E, Fietkau R et al (2011) Evaluation of time, attendance of medical staff, and resources during radiotherapy for head and neck cancer patients: the DEGRO-QUIRO trial. Strahlenther Onkol 187:449–460

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Fietkau R, Budach W, Zamboglou N et al (2012) Time management in radiation oncology: development and evaluation of a modular system based on the example of rectal cancer treatment. The DEGRO-QUIRO trial. Strahlenther Onkol 188:5–11

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Zabel-du Bois A, Milker-Zabel S, Henzel M et al (2012) Evaluation of time, attendance of medical staff, and resources during stereotactic radiotherapy/radiosurgery. QUIRO-DEGRO Trial. Strahlenther Onkol 188:769–776

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Guedea F, Ellison T, Heeren G et al (2006) Preliminary analysis of the resources in brachytherapy in Europe and its variability of use. Clin Transl Oncol 8:491–499

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Guedea F, Venselaar J, Hoskin P et al (2010) Patterns of care for brachytherapy in Europe: updated results. Radiother Oncol 97:514–520

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Guedea F, Ventura M, Londres B et al (2011) Overview of brachytherapy resources in Latin America: a patterns-of-care survey. Brachytherapy 10:363–368

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Rose J, McLaughlin P, Falkson CB (2013) Brachytherapy practice across Canada: a survey of workforce and barriers. Brachytherapy. 12:615–621

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Compliance with ethical guidelines

Conflict of interest. N. Tselis, U. Maurer, W. Popp, H. Sack, and N. Zamboglou state that there are no conflicts of interest.

The accompanying manuscript does not include studies on humans or animals.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to N. Tselis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tselis, N., Maurer, U., Popp, W. et al. Evaluation of time, attendance of medical staff, and resources during interstitial brachytherapy for prostate cancer. Strahlenther Onkol 190, 358–363 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-013-0515-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-013-0515-y

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Navigation