An observational study evaluating the impact on prostate patient outcomes and experiences when radiation therapists use a standard grading system tool to assess and document treatment-related toxicities and interventions

Abstract

Background/PurposeMen undergoing radiation therapy (RT) treatment for prostate cancer (PC) often experience acute urinary, bowel, sexual, and hormonal toxicities. Timely screening, management, and documentation of these toxicities is an integral part of clinician practice, ensuring patients receive the care they require. Various screening tools, completed by either the patient or the clinician, are available, which allow clinicians to collect and respond to these toxicity outcomes; however there is a paucity of literature regarding the effective use and timing of these tools during RT treatment. This study aims to evaluate the feasibility of conducting comprehensive toxicity screening and symptom management using a toxicity screening tool in one of the busiest RT departments in Canada. Specifically, the use of a toxicity screening tool and its effect on the quality of toxicity documentation, operational impact, and patient reported outcomes (PRO). Methods90 consented patients were allocated to either the structured or non-structured arm. Patients in the structured arm were assessed weekly by radiation therapists for 13 toxicities across four domains (bladder, bowel, hormonal, and sexual), using an in-house developed structured questionnaire, known as the Grid, to complete the National Cancer Institute's Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events v3 (CTCAEv3). Patients in the non-structured arm were assessed and had free text clinical documentation charted according to current department policy. The Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), a PRO tool to evaluate patient function and bother after prostate cancer treatment, was completed by all study patients on a weekly basis. Statistical analysis compared documentation completeness, EPIC scores, patient satisfaction, and operational impact between study arms, as well as evaluated optimal timing of toxicity assessments. ResultsAssessment of the non-structured arm for completeness revealed an inconsistent and insufficient amount of documentation for the bladder and bowel domains. As for both the sexual and hormonal domains, documentation was largely absent. There was no difference in EPIC scores and patient satisfaction scores between the structured arm and the non-structured arm. Evaluation of the timing of PROs showed significant week to week change for the bladder and bowel toxicities, but not the sexual and hormonal toxicities. Finally, the use of the Grid revealed no significant impact on daily operations, only increasing average treatment times by seven seconds, and did not create any additional workload for the oncologists. ConclusionsUse of the Grid increased documentation completeness without negatively impacting clinical flow or operations, despite the fact that PROs were not improved. Based on EPIC PRO scores, bladder and bowel toxicities should be evaluated on a weekly basis during RT treatment, while sexual and hormonal toxicities need only be evaluated monthly.