The Distribution and Patterns of Practice of Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy in Canada

Chad R Lund; Jeffrey Q Cao; Mitchell Liu; Robert Olson; Ross Halperin; Devin Schellenberg

doi:10.1016/j.jmir.2013.09.001

The Distribution and Patterns of Practice of Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy in Canada

J Med Imaging Radiat Sci. 2014 Mar;45(1):8-15. doi: 10.1016/j.jmir.2013.09.001. Epub 2013 Oct 11.

Authors

Chad R Lund¹, Jeffrey Q Cao², Mitchell Liu², Robert Olson³, Ross Halperin⁴, Devin Schellenberg⁵

Affiliations

¹ British Columbia Cancer Agency, Fraser Valley Cancer Centre, Surrey, British Columbia, Canada. Electronic address: clund@bccancer.bc.ca.
² British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver Cancer Centre, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
³ British Columbia Cancer Agency, Centre for the North, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
⁴ British Columbia Cancer Agency, Centre for the Southern Interior, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada.
⁵ British Columbia Cancer Agency, Fraser Valley Cancer Centre, Surrey, British Columbia, Canada.

PMID: 31052003
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmir.2013.09.001

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the distribution, adoption, and utilization of stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) in Canada.

Materials and methods: All Canadian radiotherapy centres (N = 41) were sent electronic surveys regarding their use of SABR.

Results: Eighty-eight percent of centres responded, and 34% are using SABR. Only 50% of Canada's 10 provinces have SABR centres. Ten centres began SABR programs during the previous 3 years, and within 5 years the number of SABR centres is expected to nearly double. The lung is the most common site treated (13 centres) followed by the liver (9) and spine (6). The most common dose fractionation for the lung and liver are 48 Gy/4 and 45 Gy/3, respectively. No centres treating spine use the same most common schedule. All centres use volumetric on-board imaging. A minority of centres are engaged in peer review of treatment volumes, dose distributions, and/or outcome tracking. Among centres not using SABR, a lack of required technology is the most common reason reported.

Conclusions: Currently, access to SABR varies considerably by health care jurisdiction. However, the number of SABR centres is expected to increase markedly. Centres using SABR have uniform access to advanced technology for treatment planning and delivery. These results vary from the United States where access to SABR is similar geographically, whereas the use of advanced planning and delivery technology is variable.