4.7 Article

Patterns of Care Among Patients Receiving Radiation Therapy for Bone Metastases at a Large Academic Institution

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.04.028

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: This study evaluates outcomes and patterns of care among patients receiving radiation therapy (RT) for bone metastases at a high-volume academic institution. Methods and Materials: Records of all patients whose final RT course was for bone metastases from April 2007 to July 2012 were identified from electronic medical records. Chart review yielded demographic and clinical data. Rates of complicated versus uncomplicated bone metastases were not analyzed. Results: We identified 339 patients whose final RT course was for bone metastases. Of these, 52.2% were male; median age was 65 years old. The most common primary was non-small-cell lung cancer (29%). Most patients (83%) were prescribed <= 10 fractions; 8% received single-fraction RT. Most patients (52%) had a documented goals of care (GOC) discussion with their radiation oncologist; hospice referral rates were higher when patients had such discussions (66% with vs 50% without GOC discussion, P=.004). Median life expectancy after RT was 96 days. Median survival after RT was shorter based on inpatient as opposed to outpatient status at the time of consultation (35 vs 136 days, respectively, P<.001). Hospice referrals occurred for 56% of patients, with a median interval between completion of RT and hospice referral of 29 days and a median hospice stay of 22 days. Conclusions: These data document excellent adherence to American Society for Radiation Oncolology Choosing Wisely recommendation to avoid routinely using >10 fractions of palliative RT for bone metastasis. Nonetheless, single-fraction RT remainsrelatively uncommon. Participating in GOC discussions with a radiation oncologist is associated with higher rates of hospice referral. Inpatient status at consultation is associated with short survival. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据